562 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. VdL. XVII. No. 432 



a center of organization which shall con- 

 cern itself with the conditions that are es- 

 sential to the advancement of science. Our 

 annual discussions and addresses have as 

 a rule treated questions of this character. 

 We ourselves are such a problem. Men 

 of science are the central factor on which 

 scientific progress depends. This is in- 

 deed so obvious that we are apt to take 

 ourselves for granted, directing our atten- 

 tion to external conditions that are in fact 

 of far less importance. The remote and 

 the abnormal first attract the curiosity. 

 Psychology is the newest of the sciences and 

 astronomy the oldest, though we really 

 know more about ourselves than we ever 

 shall know about the stars. We are indeed 

 so familiar with the rich complexity of our 

 perceptions, thoughts, feelings and actions 

 . that it is difficult to make those artificial 

 abstractions which we call a science. The 

 stars are so far away, atoms are so invisible, 

 we know after all so little about them, that 

 astronomy and chemistry may become ex- 

 act sciences without contradiction. But 

 if there were as many chemical elements as 

 there are people, the discovery of a new 

 element would be no more important for 

 science than the birth of a new baby in the 

 negro quarter of Washington; if the stel- 

 lar systems were all visible, the discovery 

 of a new satellite would be of no more in- 

 terest to the world than the mother's sight 

 of her baby's last tooth. The play of a 

 child for a single day is more complex than 

 the known performance of the stellar uni- 

 verse, and each child changes every day 

 and is different from every other child. 



But when the psychologist finds that 

 biology has had the patience to define a 

 million species he may take courage. The 

 differences between individuals or between 

 classes of individuals may be as valid for 

 psychology as are species and varieties for 

 zoology and botany. If it is said that the 

 differences in men of the same race are too 



obscure and shifting to admit of classifica- 

 tion, it may be replied that this can not 

 be settled before an inductive study has 

 been made. If it is said that human dif- 

 ferences depend chiefiy on the environment 

 of the individual, it may be replied that it 

 is a scientific problem to determine what 

 depends on heredity and what on environ- 

 ment, and that the investigation of the 

 effects of environment may be not less in- 

 teresting scientifically and more important 

 practically than the study of traits that 

 are beyond control. I for my part do not 

 hesitate to claim that the differences be- 

 tween Shakespere and Darwin are as great 

 as those between Aspasma minima (Doder- 

 lein) and Aspasma Ciconiw (Jordaai and 

 Fowler),* and that it is as nearly in our 

 power to develop an Aspasma Ciconiw 

 (Jordan and Fowler) from the egg of an 

 Aspasma minima (Doderlein), as to turn 

 the baby next at hand into a Darwin. 



Science is inclined to be somewhat con- 

 ventional in the subjects it considers, hold- 

 ing fast to an orthodoxy of its own. Once 

 it was a burning question as to how many 

 angels could dance on the point of a needle ; 

 now we become equally warm on the subject 

 of the number of species in a given genus. 

 There is no obvious reason why we can not 

 consider with equal propriety how many 

 different kinds of scientific men there are. 

 A tentative classification must precede a 

 study of distribution and life-areas, and 

 when this has been accomplished we shall 

 be in a position to take up the natural his- 

 tory or ecology of men of science. 



Following the preliminary work of de 

 CandoUe and Dr. Galton, I have for some 

 time been engaged in an investigation of 



* " Tliis species is distinguished from Aaparma 

 [sic] minima by the ends of the dorsal and anal 

 reaching the caudal and thus their bases are upon 

 the caudal peduncle; it also differs in the larger 

 number of fin rays." Jordan and Fowler, Pro- 

 ceedings of the National Museum, XXV., p. 415, 

 1902. 



