April 22, 1904.] 



SCIENCE. 



mi 



facts. There are any number of interesting 

 questions involved in the situation. The 

 right of municipalities to support institutions, 

 especially professional and technical schools, 

 in whole or in part by taxation; the practi- 

 cability of combining endowments with public 

 revenues in the maintenance of universities; 

 the policy of appointing a governing board by 

 political agencies as contrasted with a self- 

 perpetuating board; the question of large 

 administrative boards as contrasted with small 

 ones; the principle of alumnal representation 

 in governing bodies; the right of constituent 

 faculties to representation in the directory, 

 and the results thereof; the right of faculties 

 to nominate their own associates, and the re- 

 sults thereof; the tenure of professional ap- 

 pointments and the obligations, moral and 

 legal, of universities to their executives; are 

 a few themes suggested by recent events in 

 the University of Cincinnati. X. 



NATURAL AND UNNATURAL HISTORY. 



To THE Editor of Science: Every student 

 of comparative psychology who has at heart 

 the cause of sound education must welcome 

 such criticisms of the writings of Mr. William 

 J. Long as have appeared in recent numbers 

 of Science.* Not because Mr. Long deserves, 

 on his merits, either criticism as a naturalist 

 or condemnation as a teacher, but solely be- 

 cause of the far-reaching influence for evil 

 which must inevitably attend the wide circula- 

 tion of his books, and their possible offspring, 

 through the schools. The present writer has 

 not asked for space in your journal in which 

 to review the numerous publications of this 

 facile fabricator of fiction, nor yet to discuss 

 the indisputable facts of animal behavior and 

 intelligence which have suffered such distor- 

 tion at the hands of Mr. Long — to name only 

 the chief of a whole tribe of popular writers 

 who, by the prostitution of their talents, have 

 brought upon themselves the just censure not 



* ' Woodcock Surgery,' by William Morton 

 Wheeler, Science, N. S., Vol. XIX., No. 478, pp. 

 347-350, February 26, 1904; 'The Case of Will- 

 iam J. Long,' by Prank M. Chapman, Science, 

 N. S., Vol. XIX., No. 479, pp. 387-389, March 

 4, 1904. 



only of naturalists, but of all right-minded 

 educators. 



Since the sad case of the Eev. William J. 

 Long has already been brought forward in 

 your journal, it would seem only fitting that 

 it should be still further presented in all 

 its preposterousness. Let it be understood 

 from the outset that no personal feeling of 

 any sort whatever prompts or accompanies 

 this letter, which is intended solely to place 

 on record a few reflections suggested by the 

 recent controversy in the popular press and 

 the aforesaid communications to Science, 

 with a view to enlisting still further, perhaps, 

 the interest of scientific men on behalf of a 

 real educational need, and, indirectly, of 

 warning educators against the adoption of a 

 point of view and a method which threaten 

 to make of ' nature-study ' not merely a farce, 

 but an abomination to science and a menace 

 to educational progress. Although the writer 

 can have no personal quarrel with Mr. Long, 

 with whose very name he was unfamiliar until 

 Mr. Burroughs — ^perhaps unwisely ? — brought 

 it into unmerited prominence, the duty does 

 not on this account devolve upon him of ex- 

 amining here the statements of all our pop- 

 ular interpreters of nature. Mr. Long, to 

 whom public attention is temporarily directed 

 by reason of certain rather ludicrous circum- 

 stances, is taken merely as a type of his spe- 

 cies. (Doubtless there are naturalists who 

 would limit this particular species to the type 

 specimen!) Mr. Thompson-Seton has also 

 disseminated vicious notions of animal men- 

 tality, but, apart from his inexcusable prefa- 

 tory insistence upon the essential truthfulness 

 of his narratives, and certain matters of taste 

 which scarcely fall within the scope either of 

 this letter or of your journal, his case may 

 be dismissed as relatively unimportant. Be- 

 sides, it is whispered that he has reformed. 

 If Mr. Long is but one among many offenders, 

 he is facile princepsj and Mr. Thompson-Seton 

 should not be named in the same breath. 

 Moreover, one may doubt Mr. Long's capacity 

 for reform. As a romancer he does not stand 

 alone, but as a ' hopeless romancer ' he occu- 

 pies a unique position. This is because of 

 his inordinate gullibility. If it turn out that 



