May 19, 1893.] 



SCIENCE. 



275 



of smaller stones, orisinally perhaps 19 in number, and from 6 

 to 9 feet high, the highest being in the middle, and inside these, 

 and in front of the highest trilithon. is a flat stone, about 17 feet 

 long and 3 wide, which is commonly called the altar stone, 

 though, if sacrifices were ever offered there it would have been 

 much more convenient to have had a smaller but higher altar 

 standing upon this slab. There is a small stone lying inside the 

 small inner horseshoe, which has two hollows and seems therefore 

 to have been intended to rest upon two small upright stones, but 

 no stones suitable for its support now exist, and it is possible that 

 this stone may have stood on two small stones on the slab already 

 mentioned, and may have been the actual altar. It has, how- 

 ever, been thought that it was the capstone of a small trilithon 

 which stood in the middle of the open side of the horseshoe 

 formed by the large trilithons, but there is no evidence as to its 

 original position or use or as to the former existence of any small 

 trilithon. 



The smaller stones or bluestones as they are called were brought 

 from a great distance — Devonshire, Wales, or Ireland — but the 

 larger stones forming the outer circle and the great trilithons 

 were obtained from the surrounding plain. Nine of the inner 

 bluestones and nineteen of the outer ones remain, some standing 

 and some fallen ; twenty-four of the stones of the outer circle 

 are represented by standing or fallen stones (including frag- 

 ments), and six of its lintels or cross-stones are still in position; 

 of the trilithons two are complete and the other three are more 

 or less ruined, though all the stones of which they consisted are 

 there, some broken, some entire. 



The circles are surrounded by a slight ditch and bank, 300 feet 

 in diameter, from which an avenue defined by earthen banks leads 

 in a northeasterly direction for about 1800 feet, when it divides 

 into two branches, the most northerly of which leads towards a 

 space enclosed by earthen banks and called by Stukeley the 

 " Cursus." .Just inside the ditch and bank are two barrows, on 

 opposite sides of the circles, and so placed that a line from one to 

 the other passes through the centre of the circles. There are 

 also two single stones near the inner circumference of the ditch 

 placed like the barrows on opposite sides of the circles and so 

 that a line from one to the other passes through the centre of the 

 circles. At the point where the avenue joins the ditch there is a 

 large stone lying flat, and nearly 100 feet along the avenue stands 

 a rough stone, called the "Friar's Heel," in such a position that 

 anyone standing on the flat stone called the "altar," already 

 mentioned, may see the sun rise over its tip, or nearly so, on 

 Midsummer morning, a fact which is generally verified by sev- 

 eral people every year. It has been said that the flat stone be- 

 tween the Friar's Heel and the circles formerly stood upright, 

 and hid the former from the latter, and that the coincidence as to 

 the sunrise was therefore not intentional; but if the flat stone 

 ever were upright the sun would have appeared to rise over it, 

 and if neither stone existed the whole ar.angement of the circles 

 and avenue would still direct attention to the northeast or mid- 

 summer sunrise quarter. 



Stonebeiige has been attributed to various peoples, ranging 

 from Atlanteans of 10.000 B C, to Danes of the ninth century of 

 our era. and numerous suggestions have been made as to its ob- 

 ject. Two or three archaeologists of late years have endeavored 

 to show that it is merely the skeleton of a vast tower of dry or 

 uncemented masonry, and the visitor must form his own idea as 

 to the probability of this view. Burials would seem to have 

 taken place in the centre, as bones and iron armor were dug up 

 there in 1630, but this does not show that burial was the only or 

 even the chief object for which the circles were constructed. 

 Perhaps the view that best fits all the facts is that a circle or cir- 

 cles with avenue and outlying stones so arranged as to make it 

 suitable for sun-worship existed here in very early times, and 

 that long afterwards, in the dark period between the Roman rule 

 and the Saxon domination, certain murdered Britons were buried 

 in the circles, which were restored and re-arranged as a monu- 

 ment to their memory. Stonehenge, while it has much in com- 

 mon with the other British circles, has also so many points of dif- 

 ference from them, that it seems as though it must have had a 

 special history of its own. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 



*** Correspondents are requested to be as brief as possible. The vn-tter's name 

 is in all cases required asproof of good faith. 



On request in advance^ one hundred copies of the number containing his 

 communication will be furnished free to any correspondent. 



77ie editor will be glad to publish any queries consonant with the character 

 of the journal. 



What is Biology ? 



Originating from the time of the appearance of Dr. Campbell's 

 book' on biological instruction, a discussion is for the present 

 time being held. Professor C. MacMillan opened this discussion 

 in some very interesting articles,^ the main feature of these being 

 a sharp criticism of the way in which biological science has been 

 and is taught in the colleges and universities. Mr. Francis H. 

 Herrick " has tried to save the reputation of the biological depart- 

 ments in pleno. As the question of a clear and logical definition 

 of the term biology meets with some of my own considerations, I 

 should like to make a few remarks on this side of the point; the 

 position of botinical science in the scientific institutions being 

 merely a question of power laid in the hands of the director or 

 professor of such institutions, I shall leave this in better hands. 



It would be well, indeed, if we could get a logical definition of 

 biology, and if we could succeed in removing from the text-books 

 the old definition that "biology is the science of living things.'' 

 Doing this, we would avoid much confusion, especially among 

 the students — and there are many of tbem yet — who think that 

 the physiological science is still a well established branch of 

 natural science, and not merely a subdivision of a more or less 

 heterogene "biology." 



LaMarck used, first of all, the word biology, and, afterwards, 

 from 1803 to 1833, G. R. Treviranus wrote a very remarkable 

 book," defining biology as the philosophy of living nature. Singu- 

 larly, the idea of the range of living nature has, in the course of 

 time, been limited, instead of broadened; so we see bow the sci- 

 entists of old times saw, in the fire, a manifestation of life. 

 Oken, in his "System der Biologie," adopted the definition of 

 Treviranus, while the second and third quarters of this century 

 created physiological schools that fought against the "natural 

 philosophers," and brought forth an experimental physiology. 



When the profound thinking of Ch. Darwin (not especially of 

 all his pupils and successors) caused a world-wide sensation, and 

 cast new light upon natural history, the term became rather 

 limited instead of )Droadened, and, in fact, from an evolutionary 

 standpoint, we cannot, as has been done," regard biology as 

 "the science of living things." Biology has grown up with the 

 teachings of Darwin, it is closely connected with evolutionary 

 ideas, and, logically, appears to us in view of these teachings; 

 therefore, we must frame our definitions in accordance there- 

 with. 



Huxley's view of the matter was taken up, and has been fol- 

 lowed ever since, though now and then it has been modified. 

 One of these modifications appears in a very reputable text- 

 book," biology being defined as "the science which treats of the 

 properties of matter in the living state;" physiology, however, 

 is "the science of action and function, essentially dynamical." 

 I am sure that we could point out many instances of action and 

 function that would never be classified under the heading of 

 physiology or even biology, nay, '^general biology." On the 

 other hand, I doubt if physiological science is really charac- 

 terized by the word dynamical; in other words, if "physiological 

 action and function" necessarily presupposes something "dy- 

 namical." 



' John P. Campbell, " Biological Teaching In the Colleges of the United 

 States," Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, No. 9, 1891. 



2 Botanical Gaz., svl., p. 301, 1893 (see also pp. 260 and i?36). Science, April 

 7, 1893, p. 184. 



3 Science, April 31, 1893, p. 830. 



■> Biologie Oder Phllosophie der lebenden Natur., Vol. 1-6, 1802-1822. 



^ Huxley, " On the Study of Biology (Lectures on Evolution)." See " Hum- 

 boldt Library," No. 36, 1882, p. 37. 



» Sedgwlcli and Wilson, " General Biology," New York, 1886, pp. 7-9. 



