August 30, 1901.] 



SCIENCE. 



315 



century, with far less confidence in his ability 

 to speedily solve it and with far less exag- 

 gerated notions of his own importance in 

 the grand aggregate of ]N'ature, than man 

 entertained at the beginning of our era. 

 Bat no devotee to science finds humiliation 

 in this departure from the primitive con- 

 cepts of humanity. On the contrary, he 

 has learned that this apparent humiliation 

 is the real source of enlightenment and en- 

 couragement ; for notwithstanding the rela- 

 tive minuteness of the speck of cosmic dust 

 on which we reside, and notwithstanding 

 the relative incompetency of the mind to 

 discover our exact relations to the rest of 

 the universe, it has yet been possible to 

 measure that minuteness and to determine 

 that incompetency. These, in brief, are the 

 elements of positive knowledge at which we 

 have arrived through the long course of 

 unconscious, or only half-conscious, experi- 

 ence of mankind. All lines of investiga- 

 tion converge towards or diverge from 

 these elements. It is along such lines that 

 progress has been attained in the past, and 

 it is along the same lines that we may ex- 

 pect progress to proceed in the future. 



E. S. Woodward. 

 Columbia University. 



ZOOLOGY OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY.* 

 Looking over the vice-presidential ad- 

 dresses given before the American and 

 British Associations during the past year 

 or two in an eager search for suggestions, 

 I found a prevailing tone of retrospect. 

 The advance of science in the nineteenth 

 century was a favorite theme, and little 

 wonder in view of the century's marvelous 

 events. Since by the arrangement of the 

 council I lost my opportunity to be an end- 

 of- the- century historian last year, I shall 

 essay the role of a prophet this. On the 



* Address of the Vice-president of Section F, 

 Zoology, American Association for the Advancement 

 of Science, Denver Meeting, August, 1901. 



historical side I could have given you some- 

 thing very interesting, I assure you. Not 

 I, but the council that delayed my address 

 to the following century, must be held re- 

 sponsible for the poor substitute I am able 

 to present. 



We have stood in retrospect at the close 

 of the nineteenth century and marveled at 

 what it brought forth. Here at the thresh- 

 old of the twentieth century it is natural 

 that we should wonder what it will unfold. 

 Will the changes be as great, and in what 

 direction will advance chiefly be made ? I 

 am the more content to consider such ques- 

 tions for three reasons : First, because we 

 can use history to formulate predictions ; 

 second, because the attempt may possibly 

 influence to some slight degree the future 

 development of zoology ; and third, because 

 the attempt is tolerably safe, since we shall 

 none of us know all that the century will 

 bring forth. 



Comparing the beginning of the twentieth 

 century with that of the nineteenth, we find 

 the most striking advances to have taken 

 place in our morphological knowledge. 

 The nineteenth may indeed be designated 

 the morphological century. The demands 

 of systematic zoology first made anatomical 

 studies necessary. Later, comparison came 

 to be accepted as the fundamental zoological 

 method, and comparative anatomy, emanci- 

 pated from its servitude to systematic zo- 

 ology, became an independent science. Still 

 later embryology arose, at first as a descrip- 

 tive science and then as a comparative one. 

 Out of embryology arose modern cytology, 

 which in turn is creating a comparative 

 histology. Partly as a result of studying 

 embryology as a process has arisen the 

 modern tendency toward comparative 

 physiology. As a result of the general ac- 

 ceptance of the evolution doctrine, the study 

 of the geographical distribution of organ- 

 isms and of adaptations has gained a new 

 meaning. From the great matrix of ' gen- 



