June 30, 1893.] 



SCIENCE. 



353 



of the primary life regions of the earth, with their distinctive 

 types, as important as a knowledge of the embryology of the 

 crayfish ? 



Naturalists delight in contemplating the aspects of nature, and 

 derive enjoyment from studying the forms, habits, and relation- 

 ships of animals and plants; while most of the self-styled "biolo- 

 gists" of the present day direct their studies to the minute struct- 

 ure (histology) and development (embryology) of a few types — 

 generally lowly forms that live in the sea — and are blind to the 

 principal facts and harmonies of nature. Imbued with the spirit 

 of evolution, they picture in their mind's eye the steps by which 

 the different groups attained their present state, and do not hesi- 

 tate to publish their speculations — for "they know not what 

 they say." Their lives are passed in peering through the tube of 

 a compound microscope and in preparing chemical mixtures for 

 coloring and hardening tissues ; while those possessing mechanical 

 ingenuity derive much satisfaction in devising machines for slicing 

 these tissues to infinitesimal thinness. An ordinary zoologist or 

 botanist is not constituted in such a way as to appreciate the 

 eagerness and joy with which one of these section-cutters seizes 

 a fraction of a millimetre of the ductless gland of a chick or the 

 roesoblast of an embryonic siphonophore ; nor is it vouchsafed 

 him to really understand, though he may admire, the earnestness, 

 devotion, unparalleled patience, and intense satisfaction with 

 which the said investigator spends years of his life in hardening, 

 staining, slicing, drawing, and monographing this same bit of 

 tissue. 



Such "biologists" have been well characterized by Wallace as 

 ' ' the modern school of laboratory naturalists " — a class ' ' to whom 

 the peculiarities and distinctions of species, as such, their distri- 

 bution and their affinities, have little interest as compared with 

 the problems of histology and embryology, of physiology and 

 morphology. Their work in these departments is of the greatest 

 interest and of the highest importance, but it is not the kind of 

 work which, by itself, enables one to form a sound judgment on 

 the questions involved in the action of the law of natural selection. 

 These rest mainly on the external and vital relations of species to 

 species in a state of nature — on what has been well termed by 

 Semper the ' physiology of organisms' rather than on the anatomy 

 or physiology of organs " (" Darwinism," 1890, Preface, p. vi.). 



It is hardly an exaggeration to say that in our schools and col- 

 leges the generally accepted meaning of the word biology has 

 come to be restricted to physiology, histology, and embryology, 

 and that the courses of instruction now given in biology cover 

 little additional ground, save that they are usually supplemented 

 by lectures on the morphology and supposed relationships of the 

 higher groups. It is against this modern custom of magnifying 

 and glorifying these branches or departments of biologic knowl- 

 edge until they are made to appear not only the most important 

 part of biology, but even the whole of biology, that I beg to enter 

 a most earnest protest. Far be it from me to deprecate any in- 

 vestigation that tends, in howsoever slight a degree, to increase 

 our knowledge of any animal or plant. Such investigations fulfil 

 an important and necessary part in our understanding of the phe- 

 nomena of life, but they should not be allowed to obscure the ob- 

 jects they were intended to explain. 



Without a knowledge of anatomy and embryology it would be 

 impossible to properly arrange or classify the various groups, or 

 to understand the inter-relations of the many and diverse ele- 

 ments that go to make up the beautiful and harmonious whole 

 that naturalists and other lovers of nature so much admire. 

 Similarly, the architect would be powerless to construct the mag- 

 nificent edifices that everywhere mark the progress of civilization 

 unless he understood the nature and properties of the various 

 parts that go to make up the finished structure; yet what would 

 be thought of a school of architecture that limited its teachings 

 to the strength of materials or the composition of bricks, mortar, 

 nails, and other minor factors necessary in construction? But 

 would not such a school be strictly comparable with the modern 

 school of histologists and physiologists who, under the head of 

 biology, teach little besides the minute structure and functions 

 of tissues, ignoring the characters that constitute and distinguish 

 species, that show the adaptation of species to environment, that 



show the processes and steps by which species are formed, and 

 the causes that govern their differentiation and distribution; in 

 brief, ignoring most that is beautiful and interesting in nature, 

 including the great truths that enable us to understand the opera- 

 tions and laws of nature, for the sake of dwelling eternally on 

 details that ought to form merely a part of the foundation for a 

 study of nature. 



The evolution of these one-sided biologists is not hard to trace. 

 Early naturalists, such as Linnaeus and Buffon, knew little of the 

 internal structure of animals and plants; their classifications, 

 therefore, were based chiefly on external characters, and were 

 correspondingly crude. Cuvier was first to demonstrate the im- 

 portance of anatomical knowledge in arranging animals according 

 to their natural aflinities, but his studies were confined to what is 

 now called " gross anatomy," or the structure of such parts and 

 organs as are visible to the naked eye. 



* The great improvement made in the microscope in the years 

 1830-1833 — at which time the spherical errors that had previously 

 rendered its use unsatisfactory were overcome by the proper ad- 

 justment of achromatic lenses — paved the way for the discoveries 

 in embryology and the minute structure of the tissues that made 

 illustrious the names of von Baer, Schleiden, Schwann, and a 

 host of others. The revelations that followed created a profound 

 sensation among the naturalists of the time, and, as the microscope 

 became more and more perfect, new paths were opened to the 

 investigator, and the fascination attending its use grew. The 

 increased demand for good instruments stimulated the invention 

 and perfection of high-power lenses and of a multitude of ac- 

 cessories, the use of which, in turn, led to improved methods of 

 treating tissues and to the discovery of bacteria and the various 

 pathogenic micrococci of fermentation and disease. A knowl- 

 edge of microscopic technic became, and justly, too, a necessary 

 qualification in the way of preliminary training for those seeking 

 to become biologists. 



The transition from the old school to the new was but a step, 

 and had been led up to by the course of events. The older sys- 

 tematic naturalists rapidly died off while still appalled by the 

 wonderful discoveries of the microscopists ; the professorships in 

 the colleges and universities (which, at the same time, were rap- 

 idly increasing in number) were filled by young men ardent in 

 the use of the microscope, and each anxious to excel his colleague 

 in skill and dexterity of manipulation and in the discovery of 

 some new form of cell or new property of protoplasm. 



But one result could follow the continuance of this state of 

 affairs, namely, the obliteration of the naturalist from the face 

 of the earth — a result that at the present moment is well-nigh 

 attained, for, if there is an "all-round naturalist" alive to-day, 

 his existence is due to accident or poverty. Poverty has kept a 

 few lovers of nature away from college, and by this seeming mis- 

 fortune they have escaped the fate that would have overtaken 

 them had they possessed the means of placing themselves under 

 our modern teachers of biology. These teachers have deflected 

 into other channels many a born naturalist and are responsible 

 for the perversion of the science of biology. While deluding 

 themselves with an exaggerated notion of the supreme importance 

 of their methods, they have advanced no further than the archi- 

 tect who rests content with his analysis of brick, mortar, and 

 nails without aspiring to erect the edifice for which these mate- 

 rials are necessary. 



In trying to reconstruct a general naturalist at the present day, 

 I would rather have the farmer's boy who knows the plants and 

 animals of his own home than the highest graduate in biology of 

 our leading university. The enthusiastic boy, whose love for 

 nature prompts him to collect the birds, insects, or plants within 

 reach, can be easily induced to take up the study of other groups, 

 and thus become a local " faunal naturalist." After acquainting 

 himself with the home fauna and flora, he may develop into a 

 general naturalist if removed to another locality. The chief dis- 

 advantage in manufacturing naturalists in this way is that they 

 lack the education possessed by college-bred men — a want sorely 

 felt in after years. 



To be well equipped for his work, a naturalist or biologist needs 

 a college education; he needs laboratory instruction in modern 



