212 THE QUANTITATIVE METHOD IN BIOLOGY 



Unfortunately the methods of description which came down 

 to us from the past do not enable us to make a useful mventory 

 of the forms of life. It may be hoped that the quantitative 

 method will render possible further development of the work 

 of the pioneers. 



S 147 — SYSTEMATICS AND COMPARATIVE METHOD ; 

 MORPHOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY. IMPORTANCE 

 OF COLLECTIONS.— The Comparative Anatomy of CUVIEK 

 is the real fundament of modern morphology : it has been built 

 up by the comparison of numerous species. This would have 

 been impossible without collections. CUVIER and his con- 

 temporaries were, in a certain sense, one-handed : they limited 

 themselves to the comparison of adult specimens. They could 

 not do otherwise ; embryology was almost entirely beyond 

 their reach, because there were neither microtomes nor good 

 microscopes. We are also one-handed : in morphological 

 science we have universally adopted the embryological method, 

 but we are not concerned with collections and we overlook the 

 importance of the comparative method. We have forgotten 

 that our science has been created by the latter and has taken 

 birth in museums. 



Why do not we combine both methods ? Because of the 

 breach of continuity I have already alluded to. Comparison 

 is, in reality, impossible without systematics and collections. 

 Both are disdained by many modem morphologists, because 

 they have been too often disappointed by the imperfection of 

 the antiquated methods still followed by the collectors and in 

 the museums. 



Numerous biologists overlook the importance of palaeon- 

 tology. Here embryology is of little use ; it is only by the com- 

 parative method that we can investigate the majority of the 

 fossil plants and the innumerable fossil animals. The bulk 

 of the palaeontological material consists of shells, carapaces 

 (Echinids, etc.), polypiers, teeth, leaves, etc., which are, as a 

 rule, disdained by the laboratory biologists. Since there is a 

 gap between museum and laboratory, between the compara- 

 tive and the embryological methods, palaeontology is hampered 

 in its progress. Fossil Molluscs, Echinids, polypiers, etc., are, 

 as a rule, still investigated according to the methods of DES- 

 HAYES, D'ORBIGNY and other pioneers of the past. i 



The quantitative method, applied on systematics, enables us 



1 GEORGE HICKLING, D.Sc, F.G.S., " The Variation of Planorbis multi- 

 formis Bronn," in Memoirs and Proceedings of the Manchester Literary and 

 Philosophical Society, vol. Ivii., Part III. ; 24 pages with 2 plates and 6 figures 

 (191 3). This interesting memoir is an exception to the ordinary rule : the 

 author has appUed the modern biometrical method to the study of the varia- 

 tion of the fossil species mentioned in the title. 



