April 7, 1893.] 



SCIENCE. 



185 



not at present time to discuss the fundamental absurdity of 

 courses in "genera) biology" — as if it were possible to plunge 

 boldly into comparative study of plants and animals before one 

 has studied plants and animals themselves. It is as if one should 

 enter upon analytical statics and follow it up by geometry and 

 the calculus. The peculiar badness, upon the botanical side, of all 

 so-called text-books of general biology is suiHcient to emphasize the 

 point — at least upon the minds of botanists. It is, indeed, im- 

 possible to write anything of value upon any subject in which 

 one is not somewhat of a specialist, and the inability of zoologists 

 to say something worth reading upon the anatomy of Pteris, for 

 instance, is not at all to their discredit, but merely marks them 

 as of common flesh with the rest of mankind. 



Harvard University is probably the innocent cause of the biol- 

 ogy heresy which of late years has spread over the country. 

 With that openness of vision and clearness and accuracy that has 

 from early days characterized what, in biological lines, must be 

 universally recognized as the first institution in America and one 

 of the first in the world, there has not yet appeared any trace — 

 that I am aware of — of the false or sham biology. The two sis- 

 ter-sciences of zoology and botany, each splendidly equipped 

 both in the matter of laboratories and libraries, and men, have 

 there developed side by side, as have physics and chemistry in 

 most of the American universities. Botanical scieiice, especially, 

 with its millions of capitalization, has found a congenial home at 

 Harvard. And precisely here seems to have been the diflBculty. 

 The endowment, the gardens, the laboratories, the museums, the 

 libraries, the men were not to be easily had by any new institu- 

 tion that might spring up. And yet if the new institution were 

 to be ambitious, it could not willingly see itself in a confessedly 

 subordinate position. How then, without the lavish expenditure 

 of wealth, was the dilemma to be faced? 



One finds in the register of a well-known Maryland university ' 

 a confession of the truth concerning botany, where it is stated, 

 '•a third permissible line of specialization commencing at this 

 stage, namely, botany, has always been contemplated since the 

 organization of the biological department, but as yet is not availa- 

 ble because of lack of money." While frank confession is held 

 to be good for the soul, it is not certain that higher moral value 

 would not have attached to an honest naming of the zoological 

 courses that ivere provided for. 



This acknowledged inability of Johns Hopkins University to 

 provide a well-balanced course in biological sciences, together 

 with the unwillingness of that institution to expose her weakness 

 has led to much of the sham biology work that springs up from 

 time to time over the country. The so-called department of 

 biology there is manned by zoologists, and the men who graduate 

 — many of them honestly enough mistaken — are ready to take 

 upon themselves not the name that belongs to them but that of 

 '■ biologist '' An interesting example of the large views of bio- 

 logical science which may develop in the Johns Hopkins doctor 

 of philosophy lately came under my notice and has some illus- 

 trative value. A certain " biologist," some lime since, published 

 a pamphlet supposed to convey information concerning biological 

 instruction in America. I do not know what the zoologists 

 thought of it, but it received a very chilling reception at the 

 hands of the boianists.'^ On account of the particularly shabby 

 treatment accorded the botanical work of the University of Min- 

 nesota, I took occasion to administer a mild rebuke to the author 

 of the pamphlet. In reply I was assured that, while he had 

 studied at Johns Hopkins University, he had learned that botany 

 was of value " for teaching children." The cool effrontery of 

 this would have surprised me had I not known the marvellous, 

 sometimes continuous, sometimes sporadic, always insular capa- 

 bilities of the Johns Hopkins biologist for blatant philistinism in 

 regard to things botanical. 



Were it not for the injustice worked upon young men attracted 

 by such wrecker-light use of the word "biology," and, hope- 

 lessly injured in their conceptions of what they suppose to be 

 their specialty, it would be far from my thought or wish to draw 



' Johns Hopkins University Register, 1891-92, p. 113. 

 ' Botanical Gazette, editorial, vol. svll., p. 260. 



attention to any weakness in an American university. All know 

 that the struggle for existence has its meaning even for the uni- 

 versities as for other organisms But protective mimicry in a 

 university curriculum is not a pleasing phenomenon. In this 

 particular case too much is at stake, both for the botanist and for 

 the zoologist, to make science the virtue that it generally is. In 

 days of sharp specialization, such as those in which we live, it 

 must be a source of regret and alarm to well-balanced zoologists 

 to see so many of those who might be ornaments lo their pro- 

 fession led astray by a will o' the wisp chase after the unattaina- 

 ble. Better far to be a respectable zoologist than a biologist with 

 only one cerebral hemisphere. And the botanists, too, seeing 

 what delusions may gain currency, are dismayed at the spectacle 

 of some distinguished zoologist perpetrating a confidence-game 

 upon a board of trustees, assuring them that he proposes the es- 

 tablishment of a biological department, and then appearing with 

 little more than mere zoology. The most alarming thing of all, 

 both to zoologist and to botanist, is that, after successfully estab- 

 lishing a school or department of zoology under the false name 

 of biology, it should be possible for the mental vision of the 

 founders to become so curiously warped that they will insist with 

 vigor and with all the air of a righteous enthusiasm that the 

 school or department actually is biological and that instruction 

 really is given in biology. For, to the zoologist, this must indi- 

 cate one of two things, either that his confrere is unable to com- 

 prehend what biology is, or that he is ambitious, in regular old- 

 style, eighteenth-century regardlessness, to announce himself a 

 polymath, and therefore, perforce, a smatterer. And, to the 

 botanist, it indicates the willingness of the " biologist" to make 

 use of means that cannot with self-respect be duplicated by him- 

 self in the pushing forward of one line of biological science at the 

 expense of the other. 



Fortunately, in America the sham biology has as yet an uncer- 

 oertain foot-hold. At such institutions as Harvard, Pennsylvania, 

 Cornell, Michigan, Minnesota, Leiand Stanford, it has no stand- 

 ing. The only critical point which need be particularly con- 

 sidered at present is the new Chicago University. Here one sees 

 again the anomaly of an able animal morphologist announced in 

 the Programs as a professor of biology, and one's suspicions are 

 aroused that the same sad blunder is to be made in the west 

 which has already disfigured the biological work of at least one 

 eastern institution of learning. In the announcement of biologi- 

 cal work, 3 one finds an exceedingly fair presentation of the 

 illogical character of a "school of biology," and the promise is 

 made that in a few years the school will probably be broken up 

 into several departments. The definition of biology is ofl'ered, 

 and one finds it unimpeachable. Apparently, however, there is 

 even here a danger, for, when one turns a page or two, it appears 

 from the classification that botany is held to be co-ordinate with 

 neurology or animal physiology, rather than with zoology in the 

 broadest sense. This error in classification is perhaps an inad- 

 vertency and perhaps a natural enough one-sided grouping, such 

 as might perhaps be expected of some specialist in a botanical 

 line if he were to try his hand at the organization of a school of 

 biology with zoology " not yet jorovided for." 



It is probable that, after all, the better way to develop well- 

 balanced departments in biology is to place the task in the hands 

 of both botanists and zoologists rather than in the hands of either. 

 There will then be scarcely so much danger of narrowness of 

 view impeding the freest and best evolution. At any rate, this is 

 the plan which has succeeded so brilliantly at Harvard Univer- 

 sity, and the other plan is the one that has failed so grievously 

 at Johns Hopkins University. It will be a matter of regret if 

 Chicago is really willing long to jireserve the present unfortunate 

 attitude, for it must be confessed that the instruction now offered 

 there under the name of Biology is, after all, the half-science, the 

 sham biology. 



I make the point that, for educational purposes, " biology " is 

 either a superficial smattering of natural-history facts and methods 

 — and in this case not of any value — or a strong, uniform pre- 

 sentation of the facts both of botany and of zoology — and in this 

 2 Programme of Courses in Biology, University of Chicago (1893-93). 



