Mabch 1, 1907] 



SCIENCE 



335 



That the recent expansion of physiology 

 is not really a new departure but rather a 

 return to an older as well as a more normal 

 condition, is another interesting fact. In 

 1854 there was published in London, and 

 republished in America, the fourth edition 

 of a thick volume of 700 pages by Dr. W. 

 B. Carpenter, on 'Comparative Physi- 

 ology, ' an examination of which shows that 

 the zoologists of that day were fully alive 

 to many of the very problems upon which 

 so many of our modern zoologists are en- 

 gaged at the present time. The first thing 

 that strikes us in this work is the fact that 

 plants and animals, some high and some 

 low in the scale of life, are equally con- 

 sidered, and always side by side. It is, 

 therefore, really a treatise on general biol- 

 ogy. The next is that physiology ordi- 

 narily so called, that is to say human 

 physiology, is nowhere much in evidence. 

 We also find that functions, rather than 

 organs, are dwelt upon, and the general 

 functions of organisms — such as alimenta- 

 tion, nutrition, reproduction and the libera- 

 tion of heat, light and electricity— as well 

 as the special functions of organs — absorp- 

 tion, circulation, respiration, and the like; 

 the general functions always in plants as 

 well as animals. It was therefore truly a 

 comparative physiology. 



Dr. Carpenter's work was published the 

 year before I was born, but when, as a 

 special student of biology twenty years 

 later, I began the study of physiology, the 

 book was never mentioned and the subject 

 never touched upon, — both being appar- 

 ently little esteemed if not actually for- 

 gotten. It was very likely this work that 

 Foster had in mind when he wrote in the 

 context to the passage quoted at the outset 

 of this article: "In its more general mean- 

 ing physiology was largely used of old, and 

 is still occasionally used in popular wri- 

 tings, to denote an inquiry into the nature 

 of living beings. * * * In jtg older sense 



* * * (it) corresponded to what is now 

 called biology." Recalling the funda- 

 mental, original and epoch-making 'Hand- 

 buch' of Johannes Miiller published in 

 Germany between 1834 and 1840 (and in 

 English from 1837) and Carpenter's text- 

 book just referred to, on 'Comparative 

 Physiology,' published in England and 

 America in 1854, we are compelled to re- 

 gard the present remarkable development 

 of physiology as not merely an expansion, 

 but also a renascence or revival— a return, 

 as it Avere, to an earlier normal. 



The question naturally arises. How did 

 it happen that general and comparative 

 physiology, after beginnings so brilliant, 

 was virtually eclipsed from the time of 

 Carpenter to that of Verworn— (for 

 Claude Bernard's 'Logons sur les phe- 

 nomenes de la vie communs aux animaux 

 et aux vegetaux' published in 1878, had 

 at the time very little general effect, and 

 were hardly more than a succes d'estime). 

 "Why was it, we may well inquire, that the 

 pendulum of biological research and teach- 

 ing swung so far over to the morphological 

 side, while mammalian and medical (or 

 human) physiology rapidly advanced— at 

 least in Germany— separated itself from 

 anatomy, a branch of morphology, and 

 secured for itself important and inde- 

 pendent recognition with sustaining pro- 

 fessorships? 



To this question the answer is, I think, 

 extremely simple— the dates mentioned, 

 and the fact that the phenomenon was most 

 marked in English-speaking countries, giv- 

 ing us the proper clue. In all probability 

 the rapid rise of interest in general mor- 

 phology and the corresponding neglect of 

 general physiology after 1860 were alike 

 due to the almost complete and universal 

 absorption of biologists, and especially 

 English-speaking biologists, in the problem 

 of the origin of species. For getting 

 light upon this all-important problem, 



