494 



THE QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY 



Frotisten-studien of Verworn (1889). He 

 argues, on the theoretical side, for a 

 psychic vs. a purely physico-chemical 

 explanation of the multiform activities of 

 unicellular organisms. The volume of 

 Romanes (76) describing his experiments 

 on jelly-fish, star-fish, and sea-urchins con- 

 trasts sharply with his anecdotal and 

 theoretical treatises. Preyer's experi- 

 mental study of the starfish deserves 

 special mention, as well as Darwin's 

 volume on the earthworm. Our knowl- 

 edge of the behavior of the lower inverte- 

 brates was greatly enriched by the careful 

 investigations of a large number of 

 biologists working along various lines. 

 An impressive list of names might be given 

 which would include O. Hertwig, R. 

 Hertwig, Gegenbauer, M. Schultze, Lan- 

 kester, Haeckel, Mach, Plauteau, Delage, 

 J. Massart, Engelmann, Bert, Graber, and 

 Merejkowsky as well as many others. 



The arthropoda, and the insects in 

 particular, were especially singled out for 

 study by anatomist, physiologist and 

 naturalist alike. The interest aroused in 

 insect life by Reaumur and his school 

 during the latter half of the eighteenth 

 century was continued into the present 

 period by Straus-Durkheim, Newport, 

 Leydig, Kraepelin and others. The 

 naturalist Fabre (40, 41) made a most 

 extensive series of observations on insect 

 life over a period of more than forty years . 

 Among the many workers who might 

 be named, Wasmann, Forel, Claparede, 

 Eimer, Emery, McCook, Huber, and 

 Graber deserve mention. The earlier 

 work of Lubbock and of the Peckhams 

 (69) also properly belongs to this period. 

 The work of these investigators differed 

 widely in quality and in some instances 

 had little permanent value. The natu- 

 ralists showed their usual tendency toward 

 anthropomorphism and it is not always 





easy to separate the element of fact from 

 the interpretative statement of the obser- 

 vation. 



The writings of Fabre, "that inimitable 

 observer," as Darwin called him, are 

 especially open to criticism. His theo- 

 logical bias unquestionably led him to 

 grossly exaggerate the uniformity of 

 insect behavior and many of his find- 

 ings have been shown to be unreliable 

 by later and more dependable observers. 

 In his zeal to uphold the instinct-reason 

 dichotomy as separating man and beast 

 he strenuously opposed Darwinism, and 

 argued for the mediaeval conception of; 

 instinct as the original endowment of the 

 creator. Animal instinct was to him an 

 irresistible inborn impulse, always routine 

 and uniform — albeit an "inspiration"' 

 which at its best might even simulate: 

 intelligence or reason. He was strongly 

 opposed to physic ochemical explanationsi 

 of insect behavior and reported his find-! 

 ings in anthropomorphic language that: 

 would have done credit to an anecdotalist, 

 of the extreme evolutionary school. He 

 finds in instinct — an eternally inscrutable 

 faculty — the answer to every problem that, 

 arises in connection with the behavior of; 

 insects, and indulges in flights of fancy 

 that betray a literary rather than a 

 scientific imagination. The theological! 

 viewpoint of Fabre is shared by the well- 1 

 known entomologist, E. Wasmann, S. J., 

 who in our own day has written a large 

 volume (89) against the theory of evolu-i 

 tion. In this and other of his writings he 

 argues for the instinct-reason dichotomy, 

 although his observations, unlike those of 

 Fabre, are held in high esteem by present 

 day entomologists. He holds that the 

 evolutionary psychology, by denying the 

 essential difference between the mind of. 

 man and animal "not only raises brutes to' 

 the dignity of man, but degrades man to 



