May 26, 1893.] 



SCIENCE. 



botauv seems to be havino; on my estimable coileague. Some 

 zoologists divide the organs of animals into the vegetative organs, 

 their functions being those common to plants and animals, and 

 the organs of animal function, their functions being characteristic 

 of animals. My genial associate must have learned this fact from 

 some one and makes a desperate effort to use it in classifying the 

 sub-science^ of biology by tr.iing to limit zoology to the vegeta- 

 tive organs of animals, aud relegating the animal functions to 

 psychology, which is held "coordinate with zoology rather than 

 as one of its sub-divisions." I may be wrong, but that effort 

 looks like a bid for a vote. 



To guard against any misapprehension on the pai't of those not 

 acquainted with the actual attitude of the departments of botany 

 and animal biology toward each other at the University of Min- 

 nesota, I must say that Professor MacMillan and myself are not at 

 loggerheads here, but that we do and always have pulled together 

 for the equal advancement of both botany and animal biology. 

 The adjustment of our courses is not the result of a compromise, 

 but the individual and united recognition of facts and conditions. 

 We are not competitors, and there is no likelihood that we shall 

 become such. Hejney F. Nachteieb. 



Professor of Animal Biology, University of Minnesota. 

 April IS. 



On Methods of Defending the Existence of a Sham Biology 

 in America. 



Two recent papers in Science deserve a little attention at this 

 time, for they serve as examples of the kaleidoscopic movements 

 by which "biologists" hope to defend themselves against the 

 clearly stated charges of incorrect use of terminology which have 

 been brought against them. It will not be permitted to these 

 wanderers from the path of orthographic rectitude to conceal 

 their retreat under cover of a sea of ink. The discretion, good 

 taste, enthusiasm of the writer, are not the subjects of the dis- 

 cussion and will not be discussed by him. No shufHing to alien 

 positions can be admitted as an answer to the definite impeach- 

 ment which has been brought against courses in zoology masquer- 

 ading under the erroneous name of biology. 



Although the briefer, the article by Mr. H. F. Osborn ' of Col- 

 umbia College should, from the acknowledged ability of its writer 

 and its air of gentlemanly candor, be given first consideration. 

 Mr. Osborn is under such manifest misappi'ehension, however, 

 that it will be necessary first of all to correct him and indicate to 

 him just the point at issue. He says "the arrangement of 

 courses in Columbia is cited by Mr. MacMillan as a leading ex- 

 ample of the manner in which botany is subordinated to zoology." 

 Since absolutely nothing was said in my article about the subordi- 

 nation of botany to zoology at Columbia or anywhere else, I am 

 naturally interested to learn by what higher criticism, textual or 

 literary, Mr. Osborn has arrived at sncb an unexpected result. 

 In my former paper it is written, " At Columbia College it is ap- 

 parent that the subject of botany, since it stands by itself under 

 its own organization, is supposed at least by the ' biologists ' of 

 that institution to be quite without the pale of their own science." 

 It is my evident and distinct purpose here to charge, not subordi- 

 nation, but misuse of terminology. Indeed, if there were any 

 "subordination" at Columbia. I should think it would be of the 

 zoological coui'ses staggering as they are under the weight of a 

 false nomenclature. 



In his note, Mr. Osborn cites a number of botanical and 

 zoological courses at Columbia and then uses the word "biologi- 

 cal" correctly in the sentence, " It does not appear tliat bo'.any 

 is ignored in this programme of biological courses in this institu- 

 tion." Immediately afterward he uses the word incorrectly when 

 he says, " the fact that the botanical courses are not arranged 

 under the Biological Department is a mere technicality of admin- 

 istration." A "Biological Department" without botanical 

 courses is, however, something more than a " technicality"; it is 

 a sham. Mr. Osborn is, of course, at liberty to have his depart- 

 ment separated as he will; it is no affair of oiu-s, — but why should 

 he permit such a line as this from the circular of information,' 



■ Science, Vol. XXI., p, 234. New Torli. 



« Columbia College Circular of Information, 1893, Pt. VII., p. 4. New York. 



" Biology (Zoology) . . . Professor Osborn "? Why does he ap- 

 pear as defining the word biology as zoology ? I am sure it must 

 be for some better reason than the anxiety to use a high-sounding 

 word, even though that word be used incorrectly. 



Having thus indicated to Mr. Osborn the errors into which 

 a probably hasty perusal of my former article has led him, I 

 may now note his principal defensive movement. He says, 

 " Biology, however, is not the science of animals and of plants, 

 as Mr. MacMillan maintains, it is rather the science of life." 

 Therefore, " those who set forth the fundamental i^rinciples of life 

 arp biologists," — a fair paraphrase, I trust, of Mr. Osborn's argu- 

 ment. This is so unexpected a point of view to be taken by one 

 of the leading animal morphologists of America that it is indeed 

 difficult to collect one's self for a reply. The venerable style of 

 talk about " life," I supposed, was extinct in scientific circles, 

 unless one includes the metaphysicians. " Life," I had sup- 

 posed, was an abstraction from certain observed phenomena of a 

 group of things known as plants and animals. I presume Mr. 

 Osborn does not use the word as does the Boston University in its 

 Year Book,^ where Group IX. in Courses of Instruction is 

 "Chemistry, Biology, and Geology," and Group X. is "Life, 

 Personal Development, and Expression." I did not suppose that 

 the statement that " biology was the science of living things" 

 could possibly find objection in such a quarter as Columbia Col- 

 lege. Here at Minnesota we are busily studying living things, 

 but if Mr. Osborn is studying " life," he is evidently on another 

 plane altogether. Long ago, one used to hear of "vital force" 

 and " life," but I supposed we now believed that the best way to 

 learn about life was to study living things. If it is true that the 

 zoologists are going in for the study of "life" under the belief 

 that biology is not the science of living things, I wish them 

 God-speed on a perilous, if ancient, voyage. And if this really 

 is the modern view of "biology," I yield me a captive to Mr. 

 Osborn's convincing argument and beg to withdraw among 

 those botanists who believe that botany is the science of the liv- 

 ing things, plants, and will certainly, if I know them, be glad to 

 leave the study of "life" open to the zoologist-" biologist," who 

 rules out living things as irrelevant to his science. 



Let me, in closing, call the attention of Mr. Osborn to the fact 

 that I am unaware of any one-sided state of true biological educa- 

 tion in America. There is nothing one-sided about it in Harvard 

 University. It is the sham biology that is one-sided, and for this 

 the zoologists are responsible in large measure, therefore the epistle 

 is addressed to them. I recall now but one institution which 

 names its botanical courses, a "department of biology." And 

 this department is manned by a Johns Hopkins doctor of phi- 

 losophy, from whom one might unfortunately expect the one- 

 sided view. 



The paper by Mr. Francis H. Herrick,* entitled " On the 

 Teaching of Biology," requires some elucidation and correction 

 that I may venture to give. Notwithstanding its characteriza- 

 tion of my former article as " thoroughly bad," I take pleasure 

 in acknowledging its own uncommon excellence. Any defense 

 of the sham biology is sufficiently difiScult, and while the air of 

 righteous enthusiasm was accurately enough predicted it was 

 scarcely realized with what vigor the plaintiff's attorney would 

 be afforded the treatment sanctioned in such cases by all the tra- 

 ditions of the bar. 



Aside from its entertaining personal character, the contribu- 

 tion by Mr. Herrick appears to seek the establishment of the fol- 

 lowing points: (1) The study of biology is not two disciplines, 

 but one discipline; (3) biological science is not to be set over 

 against physical science, l>ut is to he included in it; (3) zoology, 

 when presented under the name of biology, is not a sham biology, 

 but a " restricted biology "; (4) the better fundamental division 

 of biology is into general morphology and general physiology, 

 not into botany and zoology. Stated thus, with such condensa- 

 tion as is necessary for clearness, it is hoped that the exact 

 meaning of Mr. Herrick is preserved. These four points, only 

 the third of which seems to have direct bearing on the question 

 at issue, may now receive their proper attention. 



3 Boston University Tear Book, Vol. XX., p. 66, 1893. Boston. 

 < Science, Vol. XXI., p. 220. New York. 



