Apkil 15, 1904.] 



SCIENCE. 



625 



erary man, especially the new nature writer, 

 seems to view nature chiefly in the light of a 

 fresh supply of literary material, and he val- 

 ues her phenomena in proportion to their 

 adaptability for interesting and clever treat- 

 ment. To him the truth is not of first impor- 

 tance, and imagination is allowed to improve 

 upon nature whenever she can thereby be 

 made more available for literary uses. All 

 this may be legitimate in literature, but works 

 thus inspired should not expect to be accepted 

 also as science, nor should they pretend to an 

 authority they do not possess. 

 Smith College. W. F. Ganong. 



If the article entitled ' Woodcock Surgery ' 

 (Science, February 26) were nothing worse 

 than a frisky, good-natured breeze every one 

 would doubtless be willing to let it pass with- 

 out notice, but its temper and twists are such 

 as to require a word that may possibly ' seem 

 unkind.' Its author says that Mr. Long " vir- 

 tually claims that a woodcock not only has an 

 understanding of the theory of casts as adapt- 

 ed to fractured limbs, but is able to apply 

 this knowledge in practise. The bird is rep- 

 resented as knowing the qualities of clay and 

 mud, their lack of cohesion unless mixed with 

 fibrous substances, their tendency to harden 

 on exposure to the air, and to disintegrate in 

 water." " His woodcock is familiar with the 

 theories of bone formation and regeneration — 

 in a word, with osteogenesis." " He divines 

 the functions of the periosteum," etc. In- 

 stead of claiming anything of the kind, Mr. 

 Long tells us in simple language what he has 

 seen, offering neither inferences nor generali- 

 zations. It is his critic, Mr. Wheeler, who 

 ' virtually ' affirms that a woodcock could not 

 apply mud to a broken leg without a knowl- 

 edge of surgery; and it is much as if he should 

 say that a man who blows on his fingers to 

 warm them or on his tea to cool it has a 

 knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics and 

 is ready to discuss entropy or an indicator 

 diagram. It is the merest commonplace fact 

 that in order to avoid danger, to lessen pain, 

 to save life, to gain pleasure, human beings 

 are constantly performing acts the underlying 

 principles of which they understand scarcely 



any better than a woodcock understands the 

 principles of surgery. This difference between 

 what may be expected of man and of a bird is 

 probably one of the recondite features of Mr. 

 Wheeler's animal psychology. If this * serious 

 student ' means that action apparently or 

 really intelligent on the part of animals im- 

 plies scientific training and knowledge and 

 accounts of such action are, therefore, to be 

 'contemptuously dismissed as ' untrue,' he has 

 taken ground which he will undoubtedly be 

 left to occupy alone. One wonders that he 

 has not long since exposed Mr. Darwin. The 

 books of the master naturalist are full of 

 anecdotes that, according to Mr. Wheeler, 

 must be discredited. For instance, there is 

 the delightful one of the motherly baboon who 

 stole young dogs and cats which she contin- 

 ually carried about. " An adopted kitten 

 scratched this affectionate baboon, who cer- 

 tainly had a fine intellect, for she was much 

 astonished at being scratched, and immedi- 

 ately examined the kitten's feet, and without 

 more ado bit off the claws " (' The Descent of 

 Man,' Chap. III.) . Why does not Mr. Wheeler 

 rise up and say that Darwin ' virtually claims ' 

 that the baboon was familiar with the ' Novum 

 Organum ' and the ' Positive Philosophy,' and 

 further say that this anecdote is a specimen 

 of the ' drivel in which animals are humanized 

 beyond all recognition.' 



The woodcock incident is further discred- 

 ited because the naturalist was a lad of six- 

 teen when it occurred. The editors of Bird- 

 Lore seem to think that lads of fourteen or 

 under are capable of making pretty good ob- 

 servations (see Bird-Lore, January-February, 

 1904). But this incident dates back twenty 

 years, we are reminded. That the lapse of 

 twenty years will certainly or even probably 

 cause a ' distortion and exaggeration of the 

 impressions ' made on the mind of a boy of 

 sixteen, even when the impression is excep- 

 tionally vivid, implies a theory of memory 

 which is, perhaps, another peculiarity of the 

 critic's psychology. 



Finally, ridicule is heaped on Mr. Long be- 

 cause he presumes to bring forward a witness 

 of what he believes to have been another case 

 of animal surgery, and to give the credentials 



