March 18, 1887.] 



SCIENCE. 



265 



my reasons for holding them, or any defence of my 

 convictions in the premises. 



As to the age at which children should first take 

 up the study of biology, I contend that it largely de- 

 pends upon the aptness of the individual child, and 

 the capacity for teaching of the instructor. My old- 

 est son is not yet quite ten, and he can pass a stiff 

 examination upon Morse's ' First book in zoology,' 

 name the bones of the vertebrate skeleton, compre- 

 hends the general principles of a natural classifica- 

 tion, reads well, and has his other studies fully up to 

 those in biology, and, finally, makes an unusually 

 creditable drawing direct from any natural object. I 

 would say, then, to those children to whom all the 

 advantages of the schools are open, that they may 

 safely begin with their first steps in zoology and 

 biology at nine years of age. 



As to the methods, I would say, then, for a child 

 of nine years of age, that mere descriptive zoology 

 be simply considered a part of his general reading ; 

 that such training as comes from the study of the 

 naming of animals I would surely confine to a very 

 limited list of the commonest forms of the several 

 groups, but let these be thoroughly understood ; and 

 I would say right here, that, even at this age, it is 

 truly wonderful how well a child can comprehend 

 the general principles of nomenclature, if they be 

 properly presented to him. Even clear through the 

 university course, I am by no means an advocate of 

 the student putting forth the effort to commit to 

 memory the names of animate objects, even so far as 

 they apply to the fauna of his own country. Com- 

 ing next to classification, I would say that this, too, 

 be borne upon but lightly at first, though its princi- 

 ples can be introduced at a very early stage in the 

 programme of biological education. What I object 

 to, is the early course of zoological studies being 

 based upon any system of classification. I agree 

 with Professor Conn when he says that " classifica- 

 tions have, by reason of recent discoveries, grown so 

 intricate and complicated that they no longer «an be 

 taught to the general student with any degree of sat- 

 isfaction." But the principles of classification, as I 

 say, can be easily made clear to the child ; and it 

 soon learns to grasp these, and prattles quite learned- 

 ly as to why bats are grouped with the mammals, and 

 whales are not fishes ! 



By this time I expect my views upon this part of 

 the subject have been anticipated; and I hasten to 

 say that my firm convictions are, that the principle 

 upon which biology should be taught to children, is 

 to begin with the study of types. Not only that, 

 but I contend that it is the question of a study of 

 types that should be held to, all the way through 

 the entire course of study, until the day of gradua- 

 tion at the university. 



And, figuratively speaking, at all ages these studies 

 must be pursued with text-book in one hand and the 

 actual specimen in the other, with the lens and scal- 

 pel constantly at work. 



If we start in with a child nine years of age, and 

 commence to carefully point out to it, constantly 

 nsing fresh specimens, all that can be learned from 

 the body of any one kind of small animal, appropri- 

 ately illustrating it as we proceed with a sufficient 

 number of the proper kind for comparisons, and in- 

 troducing at the same time the simpler laws of chem- 

 istry and physiology, it is absolutely marvellous the 

 interest that can be aroused, and the progress that is 

 the outcome of it all. Children soon learn, too, to 



make wonderfully good sketches of their work, and 

 may be easily taught to compare them, and lay them 

 aside for future use. 



The text-book for this purpose, treating, as it 

 ought to, of a few types, should be thoroughly and 

 carefully illustrated ; and none of the systems 

 should be in any way neglected or hastily passed 

 over. Take the muscular system, for example. For 

 children nine years of age, it will only be necessary 

 to illustrate the larger and more important muscles 

 of the trunk and extremities, but good figures of 

 them must be given in the text-book ; and, say the 

 instructor has before him as his type some such an 

 animal as a squirrel, he can easily lay bare the biceps 

 in the fore-limb, and, in an attractive way for chil- 

 dren, speak of the composition of a muscle, show the 

 physics involved in its leverage, and say how it is 

 found in most all vertebrates with fore-limbs, how 

 in mammals it is inserted into the radius, and in 

 many birds into the ulna ; its presence in ourselves 

 can at once be demonstrated upon any child present ; 

 and so on. Lessons of this kind, I know from per- 

 sonal experience, are entered into with a growing in- 

 terest, and are pursued with an ever-increasing profit. 



So far as I know, to my mind, the text-book in 

 zoology and biology, for the use of our children from 

 nine to fifteen years of age, remains yet to be 

 written. E. W. Shufeldt. 



Fort Wingate, N. Mex., March 5. 



Thought-transferrence. 



I read with much surprise Mr. Edmund Gurney's 

 letter on the article of which I gave an account in 

 Science of Feb. 4. I thought I had made it quite 

 clear that I vvas simply saying, in part in my 

 words but mostly in their own, what two ladies had 

 written on an overlooked factor in thought-trans- 

 ferrence. As these ladies have so clearly proved their 

 ability to speak for themselves, I will take the liberty 

 of forwarding them a copy of Mr. Gurney's letter, 

 and, if they think it advisable, they may answer it. 



The reason why I consider the article important is 

 because it tells us something new and interesting 

 abeut the ' number-habit,' not on account of its bear- 

 ings on thought-transferrence. The latter point of 

 view, however, was that which interested the au- 

 thors of the article, and I thought it better to adopt 

 their form of statement. The bearing of this fact on 

 psychic research is to me of rather trivial interest 

 compared to the psychological value of the fact itself, 

 I fear there is great danger of magnifying the im- 

 portance of psychic research in general, and of for- 

 getting that it forms only a small and that rather an 

 unimportant part of psychology. 



It seems to me perfectly fair for the writers of the 

 article in question to omit any detailed reference to 

 the work of the English society ; and I, for one, did 

 not draw from it the inference which Mr. Gurney 

 draws, — that they suppose the argument to apply to 

 all the work of the English society. I do believe, 

 however, that the principle has a very much wider 

 application than Mr. Gurney supposes. The writers 

 of the article in question took for granted some ac- 

 quaintance with the work of the English society ; 

 and the charge of misrepresentation seems to me un- 

 fair against them, as I hope it is also unfair against 

 my account of their article. 



It can hardly be of interest to any one but myself 

 to know that Mr. Gurney's own attempt at ' thought- 



