ii Some of the " Best Books " on Animal Life 359 



part of it, and is neither less nor more valuable than that of the 

 field naturalist. We may criticise the details of the anatomist's 

 analysis, we may believe that his discipline is often pressed 

 unnaturally upon students, we may beseech him to be less 

 pedantic ; but to remind him that the study of structure requires 

 to be supplemented by the study of life is like reminding the field 

 naturalist that animals have bones and muscles.' Both are true 

 statements, but somewhat obvious. 



The zoologist has deliberately given himself up to analysis, and 

 if the world is to become translucent to us, we must include within 

 our knowledge what he can tell us about the structure and activities 

 of animals, alike as unities and as complex combinations of organs, 

 tissues, and cells. Let us agree to call this serious study, including 

 the morphological and physiological aspects which we have already 

 explained, "zoology." We.must acknowledge that few of us can 

 become zoological experts. But let not this hinder us from per- 

 ceiving that it is not difficult to understand towards what end and 

 by what method Linnaeus and Cuvier, Bichat and Claude Bernard, 

 and the other great masters worked ; nor let it deter us from using 

 all natural opportunities of practically observing the forms and 

 powers of animal life. We shall soon feel that " zoology " is 

 neither less interesting nor less essential than the work of the 

 field naturalist, we shall recognise that its terminology is not more 

 complex than that of seamanship, and we may even admit that 

 from clear zoological thinking our contemplation of nature acquires 

 an additional intensity of emotion. ' ' Tout naturaliste cachait plus 

 ou moins un amateur d'idylles ou d'eclogues. " What Hamerton 

 says with reference to an artist's education applies also to the 

 student of science : " The harm is not in the study (of plants), 

 it is in the forgetfulness of large relations to which this minute 

 observation of nature has occasionally led those who were addicted 

 to it." Zoologists are not the only workers who sometimes lose 

 their sense of perspective. 



Now, however, I would address those who have little time or 

 opportunity for "zoology," but who have an interest in the life 

 and habits of animals, and desire to appreciate these more 

 thoroughly. This knowledge of animals as personalities — in 

 struggle and friendliness, in hate and love, in birth and death, 

 I would call "natural history," in contrast to analytic "zoology" 

 on the one hand, and generalising " biology " on the other. For 

 I restrict the latter term to the general theory of life — its nature 

 and origin, its growth and continuance. It matters little what 

 names are given to these three aspects of the study of animal life ; 

 thus what I call "Natural History" Prof. Ray Lankester calls 

 more precisely "Bionomics"; but it is important to recognise all 



