Introductory. 3 
what may be termed the Bugbear of Speculation. Fully 
awakened to the dangers rs of web-spinning fr from the 
ever-fertile resources of their own inner consciousness, 
naturalists became more and more abandoned to the 
idea that their science ought to consist in a mere 
observation of facts, or tabulation of phenomena, 
without attempt at at theorizing upon their philosophical 
import. If the facts and phenomena presented any 
such import, that was an affair for men of letters to 
deal with; but, as men of science, it was their duty to 
avoid the seductive temptations of the world, the flesh, 
and the devil, in the form of speculation, deduction, 
and generalization. 
I do not allege that this ideal of natural history was 
either absolute or universal; but there can be no 
question that it was both orthodox and general. 
Even Linnzus was express in his limitations of true 
scientific work in natural history to the collecting and 
arranging of species of plants and animals. In ac- 
cordance with this view, the s¢a¢us of a botanist or a 
zoologist was estimated by the number of specific 
names, natural habitats, &c., which he could retain in | 
his memory, rather than by any evidences which he | 
might give of intellectual powers in the way of con- 
structive thought. At the most these powers might 
legitimately exercise themselves only in the direction 
of taxonomic work; and if a Hales, a Haller, or a 
Hunter obtained any brilliant results in the way of 
observation and experiment, their merit was taken to 
consist in the discovery of facts per se: not in any 
endeavours they might make in the way of combining 
their facts under general principles. Even as late in 
the day as Cuvier this ideal was upheld as the strictly 
B2 
