352 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XXI. No. 54s 



Althougii the animal was completely imbecile, it retained the 

 nervous mechanism for nearly all bodily functions. While these 

 results seem, at first, contradictory to those derived from extirpa- 

 tion and electrical stimulation, yet, as Edinger shows, they 

 merely indicate that the organs and processes of consciousness are 

 merely superposed upon the substructure of the instinctive proc- 

 esses and axial centres. 



In man, who has acquired greater dependence upon reflection 

 and other higher functions, the primitive independence of the 

 lower centres is retained for a relatively short time during child- 

 hood. The above illustration may at least serve to show how 

 mutually dependent all these sciences are and that we seem to be 

 gradually approximating toward a connected theory of nervous 

 action and evolution. 



SOME CURRENT NOTES UPON METEORITES. 



BY S. O. H. BAILEY, OSCAWANA-ON-HUDSON, N.Y. 



It may well be hoped that the revived attention which has re- 

 cently been shosvn in the study of that interesting class of bodies 

 known as meteorites, will result in giving us a more practical, if 

 not a more certain, basis for their consideration. If in the onset 

 we meet with conflicting theories and much uncertain data, we 

 are only upon the same ground where most scientific inquiry 

 begins. If we cannot tell whence an aerolite comes, we usually 

 do know the fact and date of its fall, its chemical and lilhological 

 composition, specific weight and peculiarities of structure, the 

 phenomenon attending its flight, and often the precise radiant 

 point from whence it came. We hold the object in our hands, 

 and can study its physical properties, and its cosmic as well as 

 its telluric history. All these particulars have been observed, 

 compared, studied, and in part determined by thoroughly compe- 

 tent scientific men, and yet, to-day, there is no accepted scientific 

 name to indicate their special line of research, none for this de- 

 partment of science itself. These primary needs are yet to be 

 fllled. Heretofore two distinguished writers and students in this 

 field of inquiry have each proposed a specific name for the science, 

 and, while neither of the terms seems to be objectionable, neither 

 of them seems to have been generally adopted or used. In 1847 

 Shepard proposed the term " Astropetrology," and in 1863 Story- 

 Maskelym suggested that of " Aerolitics" to distinguish it as a 

 department of science. Both from the priority of suggestion, and 

 as a fitting tribute to the zeal and valuable labors of Professor 

 Shepard in that behalf, will it not be proper and convenient to 

 adopt his proposed name, astropetrology, which, in accordance 

 with common usage, by a simple change of its final syllable " gy" 

 into "gist," will also designate a person devoted to its study? 

 How comes it that a subject presenting most interesting and pos- 

 sibly serviceable problems in astronomy and physics should thus 

 far be deficient in the very rudiments of a distinctive science — 

 even a name? Certainly not from lack of patient labor and in- 

 telligent investigation by thoroughly competent men. Smith and 

 Genth upon its chemical side, and Newton, Eastman, Langley, 

 Kirkwood, and others upon its astronomical, have, in our country, 

 done much to determine the data upon which present theories 

 rest; while abroad, among a host of others, Haidenger, Meunier, 

 Tschermak, and Brazina have worked at the very bases of eflicient 

 progress in scientific research, investigation, and the classification 

 of the objects themselves. In this last- mentioned feature, how- 

 ever, lies a discouraging fact. These several systems do not 

 agree, or rather, while serviceable and consistent in themselves, 

 they, to some extent, seem to antagonize each other in the hands 

 of the collector or possessor of meteoric examples. In a given 

 example not properly labelled, or when labels have been confused, 

 and perhaps changed places, its possessor will probably find it 

 quite accurately described upon reference to one of these systems, 

 but from caution, upon reference to another system, he will find 

 described peculiarities not seen in, and possibly antagonistic to, 

 the same fall as that which he has in hand. How is he to iden- 

 tify it? Specific weight may help the determination, but, standing 

 alone, it cannot be conclusive. Chemical analysis is impractica- 

 ble and not wholly conclusive. Now, if the absolute necessity of 



accuracy in the identification of the fall is considered for a mo- 

 ment, there will also result a partial appreciation of its vast im- 

 portance in all its collateral as well as direct relations. For 

 instance, the supposed example almost exactly resembles another 

 described fall, but one occurred in India, A.D. 1823, while the 

 other fell in Iowa in 1847, both were well observed as to radiant 

 point, time, and course of flight, but each was the reverse of the 

 other in all these important particulars; in short, they only resem- 

 ble each other in physical characters, and a confusion of their 

 identity may destroy all their value as data in their theoretical 

 and astronomical relations. Identity of radiant point, time, and 

 course of flight and a possible periodicity in observed falls will 

 inter€st the astronomer even more than identity of chemical com- 

 position or physical characters, though each is a factor in his 

 theory, and each must be, if possible, an observed fact. If a 

 single fact may uphold or upset a theory, it should certainly be 

 an observed fact. The purpose of these observations is to inquire 

 what may be done to base investigations of these wonderful 

 phenomena, the most suggestive and impressive of nature's visi- 

 ble displays, and the objects which they bring to us from the 

 regions of space, upon ground more worthy of consideration and 

 research, than as merely objects of a collecting fad, or a money- 

 making zeal in collecting and selling examples. May we not begin 

 by some practical methods for determining and perpetuating the 

 identity of each example by describing and authenticating with the 

 greatest exactness every fall and every fragment? For accomplish- 

 ing this purpose the number of examples is already large, but it 

 will be constantly augmented by new accessions which may pre- 

 sent new physical features and new, perhaps more definite, data, 

 the value of which will be carefully determined by the astronomer 

 and chemist, and probably with greater fidelity and accuracy than 

 by the observer who witnessed its fall, or the author who has the 

 example in his hand from which to write its description. In a 

 subsequent paper I shall venture to suggest some simple expedients 

 for avoiding some defects and errors which have become a great 

 and increasing obstacle to progress in this most interesting de- 

 partment of science. 



BIOLOGY IN OUR COLLEGES: A PLEA FOR A BROADER 

 AND MORE LIBERAL BIOLOGY. 



BY C. HART MEBKIAM, WASHINGTON, D.O. 



When it became fashionable to study physiology, histology, and 

 embryology, the study of systematic natural history was not only 

 neglected, but disappeared from the college curriculum, and the 

 race of naturalists became nearly extinct. Natural history, as 

 formerly understood, comprised geology, zoology, and botany, and 

 persons versed in these sciences were known as naturalists. 

 Geology gradually came to occupy an independent field, and is 

 now everywhere taught separately ; hence, for present purposes, 

 it may be dismissed, with the reminder that the naturalist who 

 knows nothing of geology is poorly equipped for his work. A 

 knowledge of the two remaining branches — the biological 

 branches — was looked upon as sulBcient to constitute a naturalist. 

 But the kind of knowledge taught underwent a change ; the term 

 "naturalist" fell into disuse to be replaced by "biologist," and 

 some would have us believe that even the meaning of the word 

 biology is no longer what it was. Systematic zoology has gone, 

 or, if still tolerated in a few colleges, is restricted to a very sub- 

 ordinate position. Systematic botany is more fortunate, still 

 holding an honored place in many universities, though evidently 

 on the wane. 



Is it not time to stop and inquire into the nature of the differ- 

 ences between the naturalist and the modern school of instructors 

 who call themselves "biologists;" into the causes that have 

 brought about so radical a change, and into the relative merits, as 

 branches of university training, of systematic biology compared 

 with the things now commonly taught as biology ? 



Is it not as desirable to know something of the life-zones and 

 areas of our own country with their principal animals and plants 

 and controlling climatic conditions, as to be trained in the minute 

 structure of the cellular tissue of a frog? And is not a knowledge 



