704 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXVII. No. ( 



they conceive tlie turning to be due to such 

 simple local reaction, and give the evidence on 

 which this opinion is based, that vcill be a real 

 contribution on a disputed point. 



The reaction to the electric current, in which 

 the effect is local and the behavior is unco- 

 ordinated and unadaptive, is the type and pat- 

 tern of the local action style of behavior. Its 

 importance is thus naturally emphasized by 

 Torrey, in his defense of that theory, as 

 against my own contention that this reaction 

 is not typical of the behavior of lower organ- 

 isms. The question will be cleared most 

 readily by noticing the different objects which 

 guided us in taking our stands. My own pur- 

 pose, in my topographical survey of behavior, 

 was to give the reader a correct idea of the 

 facts — of what he would see if he examined 

 the phenomena himself. In doing this, one 

 must inevitably come, I believe, to my con- 

 clusion that the " action . . . under the elec- 

 tric current is not typical of the behavior 

 under other stimuli." If the reader examined 

 accurately the reaction to the electric current 

 he would see certain phenomena — ^local action, 

 lack of unity and coordination, different parts 

 of the body opposing each other, etc. The 

 question is — Is this typical of the behavior? 

 Is this what would be seen if the reactions to 

 heat, light, gravity, chemicals, etc., were ex- 

 amined in the same way ? Certainly it is not. 

 If the reader should get the impression that 

 the extraordinary series of phenomena seen 

 when an electric current is passed through a 

 collection of infusoria is likewise what is seen 

 when they are subjected to other stimuli, his 

 idea of behavior in the lower organisms would 

 be a ridiculous caricature of the reality. 

 There a{!.pears to be no reason for concealing 

 this fact, and I set it forth as clearly as I 

 could. 



On the other hand, Torrey holds that in the 

 reaction to the electric current we may have 

 exhibited in a very direct way some of the 

 fundamental changes that occur in living mat- 

 ter when subjected to the action of a stimulus ; 

 hence its great importance. Nothing that I 

 have said militates against this opinion. The 

 statements and implications that I hold that 

 "the uniqueness of the electric stimulus . . . 



vitiates its claim to consideration " ; that " the 

 interesting phenomena of galvanic stimidation 

 are to be so lightly put aside," etc., emanate 

 from Torrey, not from myself. So far have 

 I been from " neglecting " it, that I devoted in 

 my book more space to this reaction than to 

 any other. But the importance of the reaction 

 to electricity is of the same sort in the be- 

 havior of lower as in that of higher animals; 

 though of the utmost importance, no one- 

 would consider the reaction of a muscle to 

 electricity " an adequate type of the behavior 

 of mankind." I believe that it was made plain 

 in my book that this was the point which I 

 was setting forth. 



Torrey takes up my account of the reac- 

 tions of Euglena to light, and attempts to 

 show that it agrees with what would be ex- 

 pected from the local action theory of 

 tropisms. It is not possible to take up the 

 details of this matter here. But I may point 

 out the following: In accordance with my 

 general practise, my account in this case was 

 based, not on an attempt to explain an iso- 

 lated reaction by a preferred theory, but on 

 an extensive analytical investigation of the 

 reactions of the organism, attempting to iso- 

 late experimentally the various elements of 

 which the behavior is made up. In this in- 

 vestigation I was not able to find experi- 

 mentally that element which the tropism 

 theory calls for, while those I did find ac- 

 counted for the entire behavior. I, therefore, 

 had no ground for asserting the existence 

 of the tropism element. I do not see that 

 Torrey has adduced any additional ground for 

 such assertion; at best he has merely tried to 

 show that interpretation along the line he 

 prefers is not inconsistent with the facts. 



One of my figures of the reaction (Fig. 93 

 in my book) Torrey thinks "perfectly in 

 harmony with the tropic schema," he says : 

 " it is hard for me to conceive how an or- 

 ganism swimming of necessity in a spiral 

 course could react more definitely to a moder- 

 ate directive stimulus than Euglena does 

 here " ; and he " can only wonder at my run- 

 ning so boldly and far into the enemy's 

 camp." • Surely this last remark does not 

 mean that Dr. Torrey considers it a reputable 



