SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XXII. No. 545 



n contemplating the aspects of nature," and "derives enjoyinett 

 froQi studying the forms, habits, and relationships of animals 

 and plants," but how can he do so, and thus become a "biolo- 

 gist," unless he peers "through the tube of a compound micro- 

 scope," etc., and does his proper hardening, and staining, and 

 "monographs the same bit of tissue." How such investigations 

 can "obscure the objects" we are trying to explain is rather a 

 mystery. If, at least, anybody allows them to obscure our gen- 

 eral views, there can be no speakiqg of scientific work. Natural 

 history has become, in our century, so broad that no man possibly 

 can become a "general naturalist" or a good •'faunal naturalist" 

 any more; he will, at least, not be able to treat all the questions 

 that arise in any other way but in that of the amateur. The ob- 

 jects of our investigations lie a little deeper than to glance at all 

 that is "most beautiful" and attractive to the eye. 



How the article comes to the conclusion that the study of the 

 minute structure is histology or that of development embryology, 

 is rather doubtful. Further, I am anxious to know if any of the 

 readers walking over the scientific border-land commanded by 

 the naturalist who might be educated according to the principles 

 given in the article of which we speak did ever meet with "the 

 various pathogenic micrococci of fermentation and disease" which 

 are mentioned (p. 353). However, I shall not enter upon fur- 

 ther details, but turn towards the view expressed in the said 

 artirle about "section-cutters and physiologists." and I shall try. 

 to show that the work done by the workeis in this particular field 

 is far from being one-sided, at least, when we are speaking of 

 real scientific men who put an equally fair valuation on all of the 

 branches of their science. There are, as Professor E L. Greene 

 said, " a good many men tr\ing to figure somewhere " as scien- 

 tific writers, but where are the scientific men to be found when 

 we look towards the " scientific border-land " (Greene) ? There- 

 fore, we shall see that the right sort of scientific physiologists do 

 not dare to depreciate any of the branches of their science. 



Prrfessor P. L. Panum once said that he v\ ho would not acknowl- 

 edge physiology as the fundament of pathology and of the other 

 <lepartments of medical science has no right to be called a scien- 

 tist. The vegetable physiologist who does not know anything 

 about tlie principles of agriculture, h jrticultuie, and forestry also 

 loses this right, and so he does, if he is ignorant with regard to 

 a great deal of the practical, industrial branches. If we go to 

 the opposite side, he must know bow to carry out more minute 

 investigations; he cannot avo'd being something of a "slice- 

 cutter," and if he should be unfortunate enough to find "some 

 new form of cell or new property of protoplasm," he must under- 

 stand how to trace such a discovery as far as it can be traced. I am, 

 thrrefore, very much surprised to hear that "the modern school 

 of histologists, under the head of biology, teach little besidts the 

 minute structure and function of tissues." For my personal ac- 

 count, I have studied physiology almost from the lime when I 

 could appreciate the blessings of the study of natural history, but 

 I have never met a man who claimed to be a physiologist, — in 

 casu vegetable physiologist, — and who, speaking, for example, of 

 the nitrogen question, did not know the theoretical investigations 

 quite as well as the practical experiments with fertilizers. But 

 it must be noted that natural science has, at present, reached 

 such an extent that no man possibly can cover the whole ground. 

 Thus ne have, with regard to special work, to become specialists, 

 and. therefore, it is possible to take a farmer's boy and make out 

 of him "a general naturalist of the present day" or a "local 

 faunal" — or floral — "naturalist." He will be no scientific 

 man. 



" Biological" teaching is a failure for other reasons than those 

 presented in the article. A college professor n;ay offer a course 

 in "general biology" and include "cell structure and the struc- 

 ture of the less complex tissues of animals and plants." But th;s 

 is not " general biology ; " the structure of two different forms 

 has not ttie least to do with biology, it comes under the heading 

 of internal or external morphology, and, when making a study of 

 this kir.d, the student does not see more of life in general and of 

 the laws by which it is governed than he saw before Hei'e the 

 experimental physiology of animals and plants must be held up 

 iefore a school of " biologists " who are following a phantom of 



their own imagination if they really believe that function can be 

 explained out of form. It is here that " the pendulum has swung 

 too far," and it is not in the direction of "exclusive microscopic 

 and physiologic work." The latter is safe enough. The fault lies 

 entirely in the methods of modern biology, which begins with 

 giving itself a wrong definition. If the modern biologist had cared 

 more for experimental physiology, he would know now how to 

 direct his actions when the pendulum "swings back." 



If I understand the article aright, the student should begin his 

 biological work with elementary "general biology." He will, 

 then, come to the university without, practically speaking, know- 

 ing anything about "biological" questions, and he will plunge 

 into the study of cell-structure at once. This beginning of a 

 course would be anything but beneficial to the young, ignorant 

 student. If we take the example of the farmer's boy, he would 

 naturally have to start with the study of what we call external 

 morphology, collect plants, insects, or shells, and perhaps study 

 their ways. It would be entirely lost on him to train him in the 

 study of the cell and its organs. The other special sides of biology 

 which are proposed for study are: 2. Morphology, taxonomy, 

 and relationships; 3. systematic work in widely-separated groups; 

 4. faunal work ; .5. the distribution of life in time and space; 6. 

 the princii'les ar.d philosophy of biology. 



These are the constituents of " biology ! " 



If it were so, the condition of natural science would be very 

 lamentable. Not a single word or hint is given about the exis- 

 tence of experimental work, which should be the main factor in 

 the whole course of training. It is true, as has been said, that 

 "sham" is a hard expression, but here it might be used very 

 properly. Many of the "biologists" of the present day will hardly 

 understood my view, because they have been taught to regard 

 the study of morphology as the essential part of their biological 

 studies, but the physiologists will do so, because they know that 

 we can take but very few steps in any direction without ex- 

 periment. So long as biological courses do not include a proper 

 course in experimental physiology of animals and plants, they 

 cannot be called properly scientific. Anybody who will not be- 

 lieve this may be referred to Paul Bert's " La Science Experimen- 

 tale." 



There is no danger that I should have misunderstood the article. 

 I see clearly that it wishes the "systematic biology," which might 

 have been called, more logically, biological classification, to take 

 a place a little more ahead of what it holds at present. But, try- 

 ing to give a fair valuation of the other branches of physiology, it 

 fails entirely. It is n ell known how language can command 

 the thoughts, and if biologists go forth without knowing what 

 they are teaching, the present confusion will grow instead of 

 being settled. Perhaps " biology" will gain more and more lovers 

 and become (as it is) very fashionable, but the amount of restless 

 work, chasing new problems and pursuing all that is interesting 

 merely because it is new, will not, in time, be very much valued. 

 Nothing can save ' biology " except experimental phjsiology. 



J. Cheistian Bay. 



Missouri Botanical Garden, July 7. 



Mr. McGee and the Washington Symposiam. 



It strikes me as curious, and certainly coi trary to scientific 

 usage, that the succinct statements made by Mr. King as to the 

 limitations of his inferences on the earth's age are ignored by our 

 Washington friends. One might actually imagine that we were 

 not on the scent of polyiuerism ' considered either with reference 

 to its volume or the inseparable thermal eiTect; or that we were 

 unaware of the high pressure and long range thermal variations 

 of the physical constants of rocks. It takes so little time, so 

 little cerebration to adduce critical (oramonplaces of this nature, 



> If there was one subject in which we im.iglaed that our work had 

 reached the point of prolixity, it was the change of chemical or molecular 

 constitutioQ as resulting from temperature aod stres?. f .f. Am. Jouru., 

 ssxlil.. p. S8, 1887; ibl-"., xxxvii., pp. S39, 351, 1SS9; ibid., xlii., p. 498, 189'; ibid., 

 xliv., p. 243, 1892; etc. ; Phil, Mag , sxxl., p. 9, et. rf q , parlioularlj §25, IS91 ; 

 ibid,, xxxv , p. 174, § 3, 1893 ; Am. Chem. Journal, sll, p. 1, 1890 ; Bull, U. S. 

 Geolog. Survey, No. 94, 189" and elsiwhere). And i:ow comes Mr, McGee 

 withobvlously well-meaut iastruc.ion on the feasibility of our polymeric 

 mechanism. 



