April 29, 1887.] 



SCIENCE, 



41T 



Geologists who have convictions as to classifica- 

 tion, nomenclature, coloration, or any of the numer- 

 ous subjects brought before the last congress (which 

 are similar to those to be brought before the next) : 

 .or who believe that the congress has erred in any of 

 its recommendations : or who have original obser- 

 vations or deductions bearing upon any part of the 

 seven subjects above assigned to reporters, are 

 earnestly requested to communicate their views as 

 soon as possible to the reporter having in charge the 

 subject to v^hich they relate. Those who neglect to 

 do this cannot justly complain if their individual 

 views are neglected in the reports. 



Geo. H. Cook, 



J. J. Stevenson, 1 



H. S. Williams, 1 



N. H. WiNCHELL, ) 



E. D. Cope, 



Eugene A. Smith, | 



Persifok Frazer, J 



Reporters of the Ameri- 

 can committee. Interna- 

 tional congress of geol- 



ogists. 



Instruction in natural history. 



The recent discussion, in the columns of Science 

 on the teaching of natural history has revealed so 

 wide a difference of opinion, and leaves the question 

 in so unsaiisf actor y a state, that an additional word 

 may not be out of place. It seems clear that no dis- 

 cussion of special methods can advance matters imtil 

 naturalists reach some agreement as to the general 

 educational uses of the biological sciences, yet the 

 lack of such agreement is a conspicuous feature of 

 the series of letters with which we have been 

 favored. 



It will probably be agreed that a college course in 

 zoology or botany should aim, first, to arouse an 

 interest in animals or plants, and to impart clear and 

 accurate knowledge of them ; and, second, to culti- 

 vate the power of independent observation. But, 

 after agreeing that both these ends must be held 

 constantly in view, we must still decide which of 

 them shall be foremost. Which is the higher ideal 

 of scientific study, — to have students, first of all, 

 learn to use their own eyes, and not simply to verify 

 some one else's description, or to weigh and discuss 

 the nature, meaning, and causes of the relative 

 affinities of organized l^eings? It is plain enough 

 that independent observation by the student is the 

 only method that can give life and reality to the 

 study. It is no less certain that a main claim of 

 natural history to a place in education rests on the 

 value of the training aiforded by observation ; and 

 we have the explicit statement of high authority 

 that ' the first thing is to learn to observe.' But, in 

 full view of these facts, let us suppose that an intel- 

 ligent non-si^ecialist has the hardihood to ask, ' ' Is 

 observation the first thing ; or is it not, after all, a 

 means rather than an end in itself ? " Unless we are 

 ready to admit that natural history is a mere drill, 

 the answer must be that its real aim is to teach some- 

 thing, first, of the special phenomena of life ; and, 

 second, of the generalizations of biological science 

 illustrated by them ; and the problem to be solved 

 is how to make this instruction most effective as an 

 instrument of education. 



Now, it is undoubtedly an effective lesson to the 

 future naturalist to be made to stare at one dead fish 

 for three long days, and to classify Haematon solely 

 by the light of nature ; but is such a lesson likely to 

 develop the latent scientific tastes and capabilities of 



the average college sophomore ? I think not ; and, 

 while no one would seriously advocate such a 

 method for college classes, it may reasonably be 

 asked whether the reaction against the dull and baj'- 

 ren cramming of text-books may not sometimes 

 carry us from one extreme to the other, and even 

 close our eyes to the fact that the student of natural 

 history is a rational being, who really possesses a 

 degree of common sense comparable with that of 

 students of other sciences. 



It is my decided opinion as a practical instructor 

 that the methods so successfully employed in ele- 

 mentary instruction in physics and chemistry may 

 guide us to the true method of teaching natural his- 

 tory. No teacher of chemistry would commit the 

 absurdity of setting apparatus and chemicals before 

 the beginner and directing him simply to ' experi- 

 ment ' It is generally admitted that the beginner 

 should receive precise and somewhat detailed in- 

 struction before or during the laboratory study, and 

 that he is thus enabled to work with interest and in- 

 telligence, and to gain time, without loss of inde- 

 pendence. It would be hard to find any valid reason 

 why this is not equally true of the beginner in bot- 

 any, zoology, or physiology. Moreover, every 

 teacher knows that students possessing a good de- 

 gree of mental power and general intelligence are 

 not seldom more or less deficient in those practical 

 capabilities collectively known as ' gunr^tion.' Why 

 should such students be compelled at tn, -cutset to 

 fritter away valuable time in the discouraging at- 

 tempt to make independent observations, which 

 usually result in vague and confused ideas and a 

 distaste for the study ? I believe that beginners in 

 natural history should be prepared for the laboratory 

 by a clear and tolerably full account of what they 

 are to do and see ; and the more books and figures 

 they have, the better. Afterwards, when the strange- 

 ness has worn off and a certain facility has been 

 acquired, students can be led naturally and easily to 

 depend more and more on themselves, and to find a 

 pleasure and profit in independent work that was 

 impossible at the start. Whatever be the compara- 

 tive merits of such a method, there is no doubt, as a 

 matter of experience, that it arouses interest, and 

 gives fulness and accuracy of knowledge ; that it 

 saves time for the student, and cerebral protoplasm 

 for the instructor, and as a matter of fact does not 

 make students slavishly dependent on books or 

 demonstrators, but, on the contrary, tends to de- 

 velop independence and originality. It has been 

 said, truly enough, that yon cannot teach a boy 

 mountain-climbing by taking him ujj Mount Wash- 

 ington on a railway. Neither can you teach him by 

 leaving the youngster at the foot of the Alps with 

 the parting injunction to climb immediately to the 

 top. X. 



April 25. 



Barometer exposure. 



The question of barometer exposure has been 

 prominently brought to the front by Science. On 

 the one hand, it has been claimed that the wind, in 

 blowing across the mouth of a chimnej'^, v. Duld at 

 times produce a vacuum amounting to .10 of an 

 inch ; and, on the other, it has been denied' 

 that any marked effect would occur, as the air would 

 flow in through cracks, especially on the windward 

 side, and fill up the partial vacuum, if such were= 



