SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



213 



SCIENCE A MONOPOLY. 



T ^ /■£ have received the following communication 

 from a gentleman well known amongst 

 leading geologists, and though we do not hold 

 ourselves responsible for his opinions, we largely 

 endorse his views, and think they will interest 

 many of our readers who look on with amusement 

 at the assertiveness of some of our neighbours. 

 Our correspondent writes : 



"'Botanical Opportunity' is the title of Pro- 

 fessor Wm. Trelease's presidential address delivered 

 to the Botanical Society of America, and reported 

 in full in the September number of the ' Botanical 

 Gazette.' As the president addresses himself to 

 the large and growing number of young botanists 

 who are seeking help and inspiration, and as his 

 remarks will apply almost equally well to other 

 branches of science, it may be worth while to 

 call the attention of your readers to some of them ; 

 for instance : ' The present is a period of transition. 

 A generation ago it was possible to accumulate 

 wealth in commerce and also to devote much time 

 to the study of nature. To-day the man who is 

 not entirely a business man is better out of busi- 

 ness, and, with a few exceptions, the man who is not 

 entirely a student is little better than a dilettante in 

 science.' The above is the opening paragraph in the 

 December number of 'Natural Science.' It is, I 

 think, a matter of congratulation that the address 

 was delivered in America and not in this country, 

 and it is a great surprise to me that the Editor 

 of ' Natural Science ' should have endorsed these 

 views. It is practically a notice to quit. All the 

 students of nature who work at their favourite 

 science for the love of it and not as a means of 

 obtaining bread and butter, are plainly told that 

 their work is useless and their time wasted, and that 

 the sooner they leave the field clear for the paid 

 ofBcials the better it will be for everyone concerned. 

 We shall then have no more "Preliminary notices,' 

 no withdrawn papers on the ' Protoconch,' and 

 the circulation of ' Natural Science' will be under 

 three figures. It certainly seems curious that at 

 the very time this periodical is appealing for more 

 subscribers that the Editor should deliberately go 

 out of his way thus to speak disparagingly of the 

 majority of his supporters. 



" Imagine my surprise, when turning to the first 

 Paper in the same number of ' Natural Science,' 

 to find that in a list of specialists for the deter- 

 mination of fossils were the names of several men 

 who were not 'all science.' This is indeed sad, 

 and we hope that when the Supplement is 

 published, these names will be erased and those of 

 'professionals' substituted. Later on we came 

 across the name of Darwin, who was a decided 



'amateur,' and, therefore, was only a dilettante; 

 but it is quite possible he was one of the few 

 exceptions. Of course it is also quite possible 

 that the American Professor was speaking of 

 ' amateurs ' of his own country ; but this is quite 

 certain, that the majority of the ' amateurs ' on 

 this side of the Atlantic would be ashamed to afiix 

 their names to many of the Papers published 

 by some American ' professionals.' ' Natural 

 Science,' I believe, appeals to South Kensington ; 

 but I am positive that the Editor's remarks will 

 not be accepted by many of his supporters, most 

 of whom have on various occasions expressed 

 their thanks for help received from 'amateurs.' For 

 a true estimate of ' amateur ' work, I will conclude 

 by quoting the words of a greater authority than 

 even Professor Trelease, or the Editor of ' Natural 

 Science.' I refer to the late Professor Huxley, 

 who, in an address given to the Quekett Micros- 

 copical Club, said : ' Whoever becomes a man of 

 science by profession, must know something pretty 

 thoroughly ; and this means that he must not only 

 know pretty accurately this or that piece of detailed 

 work : he must have not only the knowledge of 

 general facts, but must possess the special know- 

 ledge also, and be able to guide the one by the 

 other, and to criticise his speculations by his 

 knowledge of detail — this is the only title by which 

 he can sustain his claim. If he wishes to work out 

 any scientific points with accuracy and detail, it 

 must be a very small matter which does not occupy 

 him for months, and need his closest attention 

 during which time he will be drifting altogether 

 away from the stream of progress of scientific 

 knowledge. But you members of this Club 

 (amateurs) are in this respect vastly better off, 

 because you can give your attention to any one 

 point which you want to get at the bottom of, and 

 you are not likely to be pulled up by some student 

 in the lecture-room, who has read the latest thing 

 published, and who expresses surprise that you do 

 not know all about it too. Consequently, you can 

 give your attention to your own subject as ex- 

 clusively as you may desire. I do not mean to say 

 that you do not lose anvthing, for naturally where 

 you have to deal with the deeper problems you will 

 never come to any good, unless you have those 

 principles to guide you. For three-fourths of the 

 problems of microscopy, although you will require 

 neatness and skill, clearness of eye and lightness 

 of hand for cutting and preparing sections, the great 

 amount of general knowledge which a man of science 

 is required to have is of no consequence at all. Several 

 amongst your number have asked me to indicate 

 those courses of enquiry which may best be com- 



