SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



327 



SCIENCE A MONOPOLY. 



OUR correspondent who in the January number 

 of Science-Gossip {ante p, 213) had occasion 

 to take exception to a paragraph in " Natural 

 Science " which had for its inspiration the address 

 of Dr. W. Trelease to the Botanical Society of 

 America, again writes as follows : " My criticisms 

 were founded on the excerpts and comments given 

 in that periodical ; but since then, through the 

 kindness of Dr. Trelease (not Professor, as he is 

 called in ' Natural Science ') and the courtesy of 

 the editor of Science-Gossip, I have been enabled 

 to see the original address, and I would take this 

 opportunity of thanking these gentlemen for their 

 attention. On carefully perusing the original and 

 then comparing it with the garbled account which 

 elicited my criticisms, a great difference is to 

 be noted, and an apology is certainly due from me 

 to Dr. Trelease, which I readily tender ; but I can 

 plead extenuating circumstances. By itself the 

 sentence to which objection was taken certainly 

 does appear to be an attack on 'amateurs,' but 

 when read with the context, and with other parts 

 qualifying it, it certainly cannot bear the construc- 

 tion which I put upon it. In fact, when we bear 

 in mind the different social conditions which 

 prevail on the other side of the Atlantic, there is 

 nothing that any lover of science can take exception 

 to in the whole of the address. Instead of 

 attacking the 'amateur,' Dr. Trelease gives as an 

 example of how scientific work should be done 

 the methods adopted by Dr. Engelman, a busy 

 physician who in his spare time did so much to 

 advance our knowledge of the North American 

 flora. Dr. Trelease's estimate of amateur work 

 is in accordance with that of Professor Huxley, 

 as witness the concluding paragraph of his 

 address above referred to, which I cannot refrain 

 from quoting : ' Hence, though it is certain that the 

 most voluminous and, perhaps, the most compre- 

 hensive results, and those resulting from the per- 

 formance of coherent experimentsextending through 

 a long series of years, will come from the great 

 centres of research, there is no reason why quali- 

 tative results equal to the best may not continue to 

 come, as they have in the past, from isolated 

 workers, to the rounding out and completion of 

 whose studies the facilities of the larger institutions 

 will be more and more applicable as the problems 

 of equipment are worked out.' Had this sentence 

 been quoted in 'Natural Science,' my first com- 

 munication would never have been written, and I 

 must again thank Dr. Trelease for pointing out that 

 my criticisms of his views were founded on a mis- 

 conception of them. 



" This courtesy from America stands in pleasant 

 contrast to the conduct of a prominent science 

 official in this country which recently came under 



my notice. A natural history society, whose head- 

 quarters are not a- hundred miles from Charing 

 Cross, decided, in consequence of ' the spreading of 

 the hideous town,' to draw up lists of the local 

 fauna and flora of the London district. The object 

 was to preserve for future generations many facts 

 in the local distribution of plants and animals before 

 the neighbourhood is quite built over. In further- 

 ance of this object letters were written to all 

 naturalists living in the district, asking for 

 assistance. Offers of help were at once given by, 

 amongst others, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. H. E. 

 Dresser, F.Z.S., and the late Mr. Jenner Weir. 

 But there was one discordant note. This science 

 official, holding a high position in one of the 

 scientific institutions in this country, was written 

 to, and his answer is now in my possession. 

 He displayed his ignorance of local distribution 

 by stating that the fauna and flora of that district 

 would be the same as that of any other similar 

 district, and concluded by expressing his opinion 

 that 'the members of the society would be 

 much better occupied in counting the number 

 of lamp-posts.' 



"These remarks speak for themselves; but the 

 attempt to discourage a small, struggling society 

 in a laudable effort to add to our knowledge was 

 neither gentlemanly nor scientific. In spite of his 

 letter, the society has already issued several lists, 

 and has added to the county at least a dozen fresh 

 records for plants. 



" Complaint is made again and again of the 

 approaching extinction of the old-fashioned 'field 

 naturahst,' and if such conduct as I have just 

 mentioned is becoming common among the would- 

 be monopolisers of science, it is not to be wondered 

 at. In conclusion, I would point out that the 

 Editor of ' Natural Science ' has disclaimed all 

 intention of attacking amateur naturalists (vide 

 ' Natural Science ' April, p. 286, Hne 20). I 

 accept this personal explanation absolutely. What 

 I said and still say is that his way of putting 

 things did actually lead people to read into his 

 remarks ideas which they regretted. I am glad, 

 however, to find that it was his style and not 

 his heart which was at fault." 



D.A.Y-FLIGHT OF Bat. — On Sunday, April 4th, I 

 saw a bat flying backwards and forwards over a 

 space of about thirty yards. The hour was 2 p.m., 

 and the weather bright. In two hours time I 

 returned to the spot and found the bat still flying. 

 The space covered lay between trees, but very 

 rarely did the animal leave the road— if I may use 

 the phrase. Once it swooped down to a lake of 

 water which stands near the road and disturbed 

 the surface. All the while it kept up a squeaking 

 or whistling noise, but not very loud. I could see 

 no insects overhead, but I have no doubt of 

 their presence in the vicinity. — William Thompson, 

 Stroud, Gloucester. 



