1894.] The Scope of Modern Physiology. 481 
equal right to be included in the one great science of life, or 
biology, yet lead in directions which are scarcely even paral- 
lel.” Giving then a somewhat misleading interpretation of 
Haeckel’s ideas above referred to, Professor Sanderson proceeds 
to divide Biology into three parts, Morphology, Physiology, 
which deals with the “internal relations of the organism,” 
and Oecology (a term borrowed from Haeckel) “ which con- 
cerns itself with the external relations of plants and animals 
to each other, and to the past and present conditions of their 
existence.” In another place, Professor Sanderson says, “ No 
seriously-minded person, however, doubts that organized 
nature, as it now presents itself to us, has become what it is by 
a process of gradual perfecting or advancement, brought about 
by the elimination of those organisms, which failed to obey the 
fundamental principle of adaptation, which Treviranus indi- 
cated. Each step, therefore, in this evolution, is a reaction to 
external influences, the motive of which is essentially the same 
as that by which, from moment to moment, the organism gov- 
erns itself.” 
I realize how presumptous it appears in me to differ from or 
attempt to criticise the views of one who occupies so deserved 
a place among the foremost physiologists of to-day. Yet I 
cannot repress the thought that the author of the Nottingham 
address viewed his subject more in the waning light of a day 
that is ending than in the brightening beams of a coming 
dawn. If each “step * * * * im this evolution 1s a re- 
action to external influences,” why should not the student of 
the “steps” study also the origin and causation of those steps? 
I think he would justly be open to the charge of narrowness if 
he did not do it. And, moreover, as I have indicated above, 
I believe not only that he of all is best fitted, but that a rational 
view of his science forces him to do it. The progress of a sci- 
entific physiology has been greatly retarded by its followers 
confining themselves too exclusively to “ the internal relations 
of the organism.” Not the least of the retarding consequences 
is the fact that thereby the science loses muchtof its attractive- 
ness. Just as anatomy, illumined and vivified by the theory 
of evolution, and broadened by the incorporation of embryol- 
32 
