290 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XXI. No. 538 



(1) There is certainly a unity in the science of biology. This 

 unity is not, however, zoology. Breadth of view demands rather 

 a recognition of the true unity, and for such recognition the 

 writer is contending. "Good observation" will convince Mr. 

 Herrick that one who writes " Biology is either a superficial 

 smattering of natural history facts and methods — and in this 

 case not of any value — or a strone, uniform presentation of 

 the fads of botany and zoology — and in this case a very different 

 thing from a sham biology which is principally, or all, zoology " 

 — doubtless appreciates the breadth of biological science almost, if 

 not quite, as clearly as he would if contending that zoology alone 

 may pass current for biology. For such higher unity of biology 

 it is a duty to contend against any or all disintegrating views 

 that may arise from the misfortune of a narrow education. 



(3) Mr. Herrick laments the inadequacy of my early training 

 along biological lines and, indeed, charges me in so many words 

 with having been myself a student at Johns Hopkins University. 

 As principal evidence of an indwelling incapacity he adduces my 

 setting biological science over against physical science. He 

 writes, regretfully reminiscent : " a student who had followed this 

 general biological course with a fair degree of success, w»ould have 

 learned that ' biological science is not to be set over against phy- 

 sical science in the broadest sense,' but that in this broadest 

 sense biology is a physical science coordinate with chemistry and 

 physics." In this connection the following quotation may be 

 noted. It is from Dr. C. O. Whitman, an acknowledged leader, 

 I believe, in American zoology: "The term biology is so fre- 

 quently used with latitudinarian disregard of its etymological sig- 

 nificance that it becomes necessary to recall its original meaning. 

 ... As still used by tlie best authorities, tlie term is a very 

 comprehensive one, denoting not one science or the fragment of 

 a science, but a multitude of sciences embracing the entire or- 

 ganic world in contradistinction to the inorganic or physical 

 world. From this broad standpoint all the natural sciences fall 

 into two great groups, known as the biological and the physical."' 

 Doubtless, no italicizing will be required to impress Mr. Herrick 

 with the ripeness of the harvest that awaits his discriminating 

 mission-effort among his biological colleagues. With his fine 

 solicitude for those whose "early comprehensive training" has 

 not sufficed to distinguish clearly between physical and biological 

 science, he will scarcely permit himself to overlook so distressing 

 a failure in Dr. Whitman to conform with the standard of abso- 

 lute correctness. The writer, however, must continue to believe 

 that a grouping of natural sciences into physical and biological 

 sciences is not altogether unproductive of right thinking and 

 ventures to commend, as a useful discipline, to Mr. Herrick, the 

 reading of Dr. Wliitman's programme not only on account of 

 the value of its definition of biology and the general breadth of 

 its views, but also because a uniform line of defence will be 

 highly adrantageous for all who find themselves, whether by 

 necessity or by choice, enlisted under the flag of the sham 

 biology. 



(3) While the term "restricted biology " is an ingenious sug- 

 gestion for such courses in zoology as are offered at Columbia 

 College and Johns Hopkins University under the inappropriate 

 name of biology, it is not clear that the old-established word 

 "zoology "is not better. It is scarcely so vague and has the merit 

 of brevity. If either of these institutions should gracefully an- 

 nounce a " department of Restricted Biology " and should confer 

 degrees upon " doctors of philosophy in restricted biology" it 

 would certainly indicate the dawn of ethical development if not 

 the noon-tide of philological precision. And if such a consum- 

 mation lies near the heart of Mr. Herrick he shall not wander 

 farther without my sympathy. But, unfortunately, one must 

 here note the crucial and deplorable fact ; these institutions do 

 not employ the term " restricted biology," but use instead the 

 broader term, biology, for their zoological courses. Since a part 

 of anything posing valiantly as the whole is universally recog- 

 nized as a sham, it is hardly possible in such a case for the sham 

 biology to escape its just characterization. 



(4) It is unreasonable, of course, to ask that an American 

 "biologist" should be familiar with the literature of plant- 



" Programme ol Courses in Biology, 1892-93, p. 6. Chicago. 



morphology from Hofmeister toGuignard.Strasburger and Treub. 

 But those humbler botanists that have followed the progress of 

 recent investigation in this field would realize how distant seems 

 to be the day when general homologies between higher plants 

 and higher animals may be demonstrated with certainty. The 

 established fact that between sporopbytic plant-embryos and 

 gamozoan animal-embryos there exist few known bomologies-in- 

 general must give pause to ambitious talk about a "general 

 morphology." Such a general morphology would certainly de- 

 mand abasisof general phjlogeneticand ontogenetic comparison. 

 It is true that in cytology, and especially in nuclear dynamics 

 there may be read, for the future, possibilities of a general mor- 

 phology. Chromatomeres may indeed be always homologous as 

 well as analogous, broadly speaking. But to-day " general mor- 

 phology," as a science, does not exist. T should be glad to learn 

 the title of some compendium of general morphology. I should 

 be pleased to hear the name of some living or deceased investiga- 

 tor who could, in the broad sense of Mr. Herrick's division, be 

 termed a "general morphologist." The fundamental division of 

 biology into two sub-sciences, one of which, at least, does not 

 exist as such, seems scarcely so productive of good as the time- 

 honored division into botany and zoology. Between plant-phy- 

 siology and plant-morphology there are innumerable series of 

 contact-points. Between plant-morphology and animal-mor- 

 phology there are few. Until, therefore, we may claim a far 

 wider knowledge of the facts of morphology and physiology — 

 at least in the field of botany — it will be difficult for Mr. Her- 

 rick to impose his divisions of biology to suit the terms of his 

 argument. 



In the second place, the science of biology is clearly not princi- 

 pally a method or discipline as Mr. Herrick seems to think it is; 

 it is, also, and primarily, an orderly group of facts about an or- 

 derly group of things. These things are living things. The 

 primary division must therefore be along the line of mass, not 

 along the line of method. Living things conveniently divide 

 with great exactness — although not absolutely, as Mr. Herrick 

 acutely indicates — into plants and animals. Biology, therefore, 

 divides conveniently into botany and zoology. A particular 

 method is the essence of morphology, but plants-inthe-aggregate 

 are the essence of botany. Biology is, primarily, a group of 

 facts about a group of things, not a group of facts about a group 

 of methods of studying things. Plants (for example) are things, 

 not methods, and therefore the fundamental division of biology 

 into botany and zcology is more logical than its division into 

 morphology and physiology. It thus appears not only that the 

 divisions of biology urged by Mr. Herrick have never existed 

 and do not exist now, but also that logically they should not ex- 

 ist as primary divisions but only as secondary. Finally, even If 

 they did and should exist, the classification would not help the 

 sham biology. For the union of a sham " general morphology" 

 and a sham "general physiology" would probably result in a 

 sham biology, and a "general morphology" which upon criti- 

 cism reveals itself as the special morphology of animals is evi- 

 dently a sham morphology. 



It is a source of regret to the writer that anyone should suppose 

 that he would "stigmatize" any university or any honorable 

 graduate of a university. His function is purely indicative, and, 

 viihile he agrees with Mr. Herrick that the truth about the state 

 of affairs in certain curricula and the state of culture in certain 

 graduates is so melancholy that perhaps even so strong a word as 

 "offensive" may rightly be applied, he must disclaim any con- 

 nection with such a condition beyond that of an interested spec- 

 tator, grieved that able young men should be dwarfed in their 

 conceptions of the great field of biology through acceptance of a 

 sham in place of the truth. He has the kindest of feelings for 

 such young men and a warm sympathy for institutions straining 

 every nerve in an unequal struggle with others of greater wealth 

 and breadth. But he cannot permit his sympathy and kindly 

 feeling to withhold him from the task of pointing out to those 

 who may profit, perhaps, the impossibility as well as the unde- 

 sirability of further acceptance of shams for realities. If words 

 mean anything, zoology and biology are not synonymous, and it 

 is hoped that no false pride will prevent the zoologists from 



