362 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXVII. No. 



moting that solidarity and its existence has 

 been a struggle to maintain it against an 

 increasing tendency toward segregation. 

 Twenty years ago it was an organization of 

 great vitality, including in its membership 

 practically aU the leading exponents of 

 natural history in the eastern states, and 

 its meetings were a stimulus and an inspi- 

 ration to all who were privileged to attend 

 them. But the very cause which called it 

 into existence was destined in the course of 

 a few years to sap its foundations. It was 

 the outcome of the remarkable growth of 

 interest in scientific education in this coun- 

 try which occurred in the eighties of last 

 century and was associated with the estab- 

 lishment of two important departures in 

 collegiate and imiversity instruction. 



One of these departures was the intro- 

 duction into our college curricula of the 

 course in general biology, inaugurated in 

 England with so great success by Professor 

 Huxley and fostered in this country by 

 Huxley's one-time assistant and coadjutor, 

 Professor Newell Martin, whose interest in 

 the success of this society was both active 

 and lasting. The establishment of this 

 course of study, so philosophical in its con- 

 ception, had the effect of disintegrating the 

 older discipline of natural history, with 

 certain results by no means in harmony 

 with the ideals which the course was in- 

 tended to realize. For its establishment 

 led, in the first place, to a severance of 

 geology from biology, a result not in itself 

 to be deplored from the standpoint of efS- 

 cient instruction, but, unfortunately, geol- 

 ogy, as then understood, included both the 

 dynamic and historical aspects of the sub- 

 ject and hence its separation from biology 

 led also to the separation of paleontology. 

 For the geologist paleontology is a means 

 to an end but it is an essential constituent 

 of biology. Further, the establishment of 

 the course in general biology brought about 

 an increased interest in zoology somewhat 



at the expense of botany, since the great 

 majority of those in charge of the teaching 

 of general biology were trained in zoolog- 

 ical methods. This state of affairs un- 

 doubtedly acted detrimentally to the prog- 

 ress of botany, but we all rejoice to see that 

 science so ably rising superior to her disad- 

 vantages and now coming again into her 

 own. 



Practically concurrent with the recogni- 

 tion of general biology as an undergradu- 

 ate study was the development of graduate 

 instruction as a proper and. important part 

 of the work of our larger universities, and 

 as a result it became possible to supply the 

 demand for teachers of this or that science 

 with men thoroughly trained in modern 

 methods and conversant with the literature 

 of their specialty. For naturally graduate 

 instruction tended toward specialization. 



And this was the tendency that "like % 

 worm i' the bud" fed on the "damask 

 cheek" of the young society. The same in- 

 terest in scientific education which led to 

 the establishment of the society led also to 

 increasing specialization, and solidarity 

 gave place to segregation. The physiolo- 

 gists, as their numbers and influence in- 

 creased, established a temple of their own 

 where they might worship exclusively the 

 goddess Function; the geologists, too, de- 

 serted the common shrine and fled to the 

 mountains and valleys to erect in the 

 groves altars to Pluto and Neptune; and 

 the anatomists, ignoring the fact that their 

 special cult was but a side issue of the 

 broader worship of animal morphology, 

 forsook the company of their fellows and 

 wandered off to secluded spots where they 

 might, without offence and free from dis- 

 turbing suggestions from their coworkers, 

 set up as an idol— a cadaver. 



And so of the original membership there 

 were left true to the parent society only the 

 zoologists and the botanists, the latter at 

 that time few in number, and the question 



