SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XXI. No. 538 



We can all agree to the definition of biology. If it is to be im- 

 proved at all, it must be made more general by saying it is the 

 science of matter in the living condition. The writer tells us 

 the word is " still to be defined as by Lamarck and Treviranus — 

 both distinguished botanists." Will the botanists observe the in- 

 nocent way in which their extremely generous champion here 

 puts forth a foreclosed first mortgage claim on these distinguished 

 naturalists'— biotogrisfe. And this, too, so imperturbably in a discus- 

 sion whose whole tenor is to brand good zoologists as out-and-out 

 usurpers. Now couple the definition of biology and this innocent 

 act with " I have not at present time to discuss the fundamental 

 absurdity of courses in • general biology ' — as if it were possible 

 to plunge boldly into comparative study of plants and animals 

 before one has studied plants and animals themselves." Who is 

 now sure of what the writer means by " biology " and "general 

 biology?" Is general biology a bold plunge into the comparative 

 study of plants and aniuials before one has studied plants and 

 anioials themselves? Perhaps it is. Perhaps it is not. I have 

 yet to learn of the fool board of trustees that is paying some 

 fool instructor attempting to compare things without considering 

 the things being compared. Is a course in " general botany " a 

 course in the comparative anatomy of plants? Is a course in 

 " general biology " to be proper only when it brings the student 

 to the level of the genius who has been studying plants and ani- 

 mals for thirty or more years? If it is, then away with your 

 " fundamental absurdity " of long courses and short conrses and 

 three-month courses in botany — as if a man could plunge into 

 comparative study of plants without studying plants themselves ! 

 The figure of following "analytical statics'" " up by geometry 

 and the calculus" is not at all to the point, and it indicates an 

 altogether different conception of the term biology and the phrase 

 '•general biology" than one would be led to expect in view of 

 the explanation previously given. It might be well for our icono- 

 clast to consider the definition of biology above suggested, and to 

 ask, AVhat is a plant and what is an animal? I do not mean to 

 imply that in biology we are not to call living things plants or 

 animals and that the student is not to study the things under 

 these names. At present it is impracticable to do otherwise. 

 But I do mean to imply that it is possible to teach the general 

 laws and principles of biology in connection with the study of 

 both plants and animals themselves. Moreover, I maintain that 

 it is beyond rational objection that the student who studies well 

 a Pteris and a Lumbricus (I use the words to indicate centres) 

 has a broader and better foundation of facts for the great gen- 

 eralizations of biology than the student who studies only a Pteris 

 and a Ranuncuhis^ We will admit without discussion that the 

 end to be attiined by a general course is both informational and 

 disciplinary. Now I cannot admit that the methods of study in 

 botany are inherently different from those of zoology. Botany 

 and zoology are coordinates of biology, and the methods in either 

 must be biological methods. So far as the discipline is concerned, 

 therefore, a term devoted to the study of plants and one to the 

 study of animals will give as good results as two terms devoted 

 to the study of plants, and certainly more information of value in 

 every-day life will be gained in the former course. I cannot see 

 why this could not be true even if sixteen full weeks, for exam- 

 ple, were given up to the study of animals and only eight to 

 plants. (The botanists have my permission to exchange the num- 

 ber of weeks.) 



After all, it is not evident to me that the "fundamental ab- 

 surdity" has caused this spasmodic cough of the botanist. The 

 thorn seems rather to be — some zoologists are conducting 

 coui-ses in " general biology," and, naturally enough, ultimately 

 guide the more interested students into zoological lines of work. 

 The botanists have confessed that they can't conduct such courses 

 because they become so one-sided as to be unable to see that there 

 is anything good in zoology they can't duplicate in botany — they 

 become, if I may venture a figure, soles with their eyes on the 

 under side, and then they croak about '' fundamental absurdities." 

 Is jealousy loose, among our botanists? It is s».fe to say if the 

 botanists had this monopoly of courses in general biology they 

 would not talk about "fundamental absurdities." 



It seems to me that the paragraph containing the words ' ' funda- 



mental absurdity " is full of extravagant utterance. Is it not ab- 

 surd to say a zoologist can't write anything worth reading upon 

 the anatomy of Pteris ? Is it not absurd to say only specialists 

 can write anything of value? Either such statements are wild 

 and not sufiiciently guarded or the botanists are all fools. And 

 even fools sometimes write things worth quoting. Certainly the 

 zoologists do not at present believe the work of all botanists is 

 unreliable and should never be referred to. 



I now come to the specific charges. Without giving any 

 reasons, I must beg to differ entirely with the writer as to the 

 question of the phylogeny and ontogeny of the " sham biology." 



The matter of the inadvertent use of the term biology is, of 

 course, to be regretted. But it ought to mollify the iconoclast 

 somewhat to see that the nomenclature in our university organi- 

 zation is nowhere logical and consistent throughout. 



I am not sure that I know just what is meant by saying Johns 

 Hopkins University would have a better influence with "an 

 honest naming of the zoological courses that icere provided for." 

 I was not aware they had ever been named otherwise. Certainly 

 the zoological courses were named in accordance with their sub- 

 ject matter when I was at Johns Hopkins University. And I 

 can assure the writer it will take more than brilliant rhetoric and 

 insinuations to make me believe conditions have so changed as to 

 have necessitated a dishonest naming of the zoological courses. 

 I cannot speak positively about the present course in general 

 biology at this noble university, and will therefore speak only of 

 what existed several years ago. The course in general biology, 

 as I got it, was by no means as onesided as any botanist would 

 have made it. A general biology course that will develop enough 

 love for botany in a student to make the purchase of such ex- 

 pensive books as Sachs and various monographs a pleasure, and 

 that will develop a respect for botany and admiration of botanists 

 and their magnificent work, such as I know has been developed 

 at Johns Hopkins, should hardly be dubbed "sham biology," 

 simply because zoologists were in power. If the facts gotten 

 were wrong, it was the botanist's own fault; for the references 

 were to the recognized authorities. If the course leaned any way 

 in my case, it was toward botany. I have heard it said the course 

 took up two or three plants and a dozen or more animals — that 

 a few weeks were given to plants and months to animals. That 

 certainly is not a true picture of the course I was privileged to 

 get. And why must a course, in order to be above the shadow 

 of a "sham biology," consider just as many plants as animals? 

 Must just as much time be devoted to plants as to animals? It 

 seems to me no weaker principle could be a<lopted. If the bota- 

 nist directs such a course of study, he will naturally illustrate 

 more with plants. The zoologist will naturally use animals more 

 frequently. But this does not necessarily produce a sham biology. 

 I admit a decided zoologist or a decided botanist will always be 

 in danger of curtailing the sister-science too much, and a course 

 laid out by the one or the other may, naturally enough, not be 

 altogether satisfactory to the colleague "not in it." Such facts 

 do not touch the possibility of botanist and zoologist conjointly 

 formulating a course in general biology. If the principles, laws, 

 and generalizations to be impressed upon the student be taken as 

 the guide, and the two kingdoms of living things he viewed as the 

 store-houses of facts, a true general biology becomes a possibility. 

 Why should a school of biology, organized with a professor of 

 zoology at its head be any more a school of sham biology than a 

 university with an ichthyologist as president be a sham univer- 

 sity? 



The " always insular capabilities of the Johns Hopkins biolo- 

 gist for blatant Philistinism in regard to things botanical" would 

 be an unpardonable fling in view of what men the writer's pre- 

 vious statements would make it cover were it not for the fact 

 that it appears to have been written with the ghost of that pam- 

 phlet (which I had supposed dead, because of its absolute flatness) 

 dancing before him in "cool effrontery." But even the pachy- 

 dermatous zoologists can appreciate moderation; and it is no 

 weakness to keep one's just appreciation of an evil that does exist 

 in some places under the influence of reason. 



There are many things in the way of criticism and explanation 

 yet to be said, but I will close by pointing out what an influence 



