SCIENCE. 



3ii 



flower shows that all parts have changed, and are 

 decidedly leaf-like, though not to the same extent. 

 Of the sepals (Fig. 2.) two are larger than the others, are 

 very distinctly veined, and have a few small teeth near their 

 tips ; the remaining sepals are narrow, elongated, and 

 have only the midrib without any lateral veins. The 

 petals have lost their papilionaceous character entirely, 

 though the vexillum may be recognized by its larger size - 

 Each petal (Figs. 3, 4.) is leaf-like in shape, veining, and 

 especially in the possession of a pair of stipules which 

 are fused with its base precisely, as are the stipules of 

 the leaf proper. The petals project but slightly from the 

 tube of the calyx. 



Fig. 3 - 



The stamens (Fig. 5.) are not diminished in number, but 

 are separate, and each filament bears the stipules distinctly. 

 They are joined with it nearly to the anther. This would 

 seem to indicate that the sheath of united stamens in the 

 Leguminosce is made by the fusion of the stipular 

 elements of the leaf alone. 



Within the stamens, and occupying the centre of the 

 flower, is a single, rather long-stemmed leaflet, appar- 

 ently the middle one of the three so characteristic of the 

 trifoliums. It is unmistakably a leaf in its veining, out- 

 line, color, etc., and upon its petiolar portions are borne 

 — as might be expected — the stipules ; in this case as 

 plainly stipules as those which are borne by the true 

 foliage leaves. No trace of a pistilline nature is to be 

 seen. The reversion has been complete. All the parts, 

 except the stamens are exceedingly hairy. 



The'peculiar feature in this case is the retention of the 

 stipules as separate parts in all the whorls, excepting the 

 calyx, where they are undistinguishably fused to form the 

 cup-like portion of that organ. 



The ease with which these reverted flowers can be ob- 

 tained and studied, and the light which they throw upon 

 the morphology of the parts of the flower make them 

 worthy the attention of studen's who ought, as soon as 

 possible, to gain a practical knowledge of the real nature 

 of floral parts. 



A demonstration in mathematics could not be more 

 conclusive than this lesson from Trifolium pratense, our 

 familiar red clover. 



Pennsylvania State College, Dec. 20, 1880. 



THE CLASSIFICATION OF SCIENCE. 



By Rev. Samuel Fleming, LL. D., Ph. D. 



I. 



DEFINITIONS. 



The term science has been variously defined. It is 

 from the Latin scientia (from scio, I know,) which is 

 defined as "a knowing, or being skilled in anything; 

 generally, knowledge, science," The original sense Of 



the term scientta involves the twofold conception, of the 

 thing, or fact itself, which is the subject of knowledge, 

 and the knowing the fact. The former is the objective 

 signification, the latter the subjective. In defining the 

 term, therefore, diverse forms of expression have been 

 used, and different senses conveyed. In the edition of 

 Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, published in 1878, 

 modified definitions are given as follows : " Knowledge ; 

 the comprehension of truth or fact ; truth ascertained ; 

 that which is known; hence, specifically, knowledge duly 

 arranged, and referred to general truths on which it is 

 founded." By some, the definition given is " systematic 

 knowledge"; by others, "what is comprehended by the 

 mind " ; another definition is in the following language : 

 " Science is the name for such portions of human know- 

 ledge as have been more or less generalized, systematized 

 and verified." Herbert Spencer gives the following, cor- 

 responding with the general divisions of his " Classifica- 

 tion of the Sciences": 1. That which treats of the 

 forms in which phenomena are known to us; 2. That 

 which treats of the phenomena themselves. Prof. Tice, 

 after stating that " there is a broad distinction between 

 knowledge and science," gives this distinction in the fol- 

 lowing terms : " Knowledge is a clear and certain per- 

 ception of that which exists, or of truth or of fact. Sci- 

 ence is a body of general principles : particular truths, 

 and facts, arranged in systematic order." 



The terms science and knowledge have sometimes been 

 used as synonymous ; frequently without due discrimina- 

 tion. It is evident that the facts of science, if not science 

 itself, exist prior to, or irrespective of the mind which ac- 

 quires the knowledge of them, if we except the science 

 of the mind itself. Existence is one thing, the know- 

 ledge of such existence is radically another thing. 

 Hence the propriety, and often great importance of 

 recognizing this distinction, and of discriminating in the 

 use of the terms. Scientific terms should be used with 

 definiteness of meaning, for clearness and conciseness of 

 written or oral instruction. If science and knowledge 

 are synonymous terms, if the definition " science is 

 knowledge " is the same with the terms transposed, thus 

 " knowledge is science," every child and uneducated per- 

 son who knows that " fire burns," is a scientist, without, 

 it may be, knowing what fire is, or its causes. Then 

 science would signify no more than knowledge. But all 

 fundamentally distinctive ideas are appropriately ex- 

 pressed by different terms. And it is desirable that the 

 demands of language be recognized, and this practical 

 rule for the use of discrimniating words be observed. 

 Synonymous words are properly those which are derived 

 from different languages, and are used for euphony, or 

 variety. 



Further, there is a legitimate distinction between com- 

 mon, obvious, or non-scientific knowledge, and scientific 

 knowledge. And this is not a distinction in respect 

 to certainty ; for common knowledge is often as 

 certain as scientific knowledge, as in reference to 

 the fall of a body to the earth : while much that is 

 called scientific knowledge is far from being exact 

 in its complete sense, as in respect to the nature 

 of the ultimate cosmic forces, the aurora borealis, 

 and other phenomena. Nor is it a difference simply in 

 degree of knowledge, but a difference also in respect to 

 kind and quality. Thus two persons may observe an 

 eclipse of the sun or moon ; one may know only that one 

 body intercepts the light of another body ; the other per- 

 son may know the causes, the sizes, the distances, orbits, 

 periodic times, laws of motion, and many other elements 

 whose knowledge is essential to the determination of the 

 phenomenon. The attainments respectively differ, — the 

 former having only the knowledge of a single fact, the 

 latter the knowledge of the whole system of facts, prin- 

 ciples and laws pertaining to the phenomenon ; the former 

 possessing ordinary knowledge, the latter scientific knowl- 



