April 7, 1905.] 



SCIENCE. 



537 



parallelism seems to have been tacitly ac- 

 cepted by many biologists. If we follow 

 up the matter, however, we soon find that 

 in the field of possible observation the etho- 

 logical tend to outstrip the morphological 

 characters. We observe great differences 

 in habits and behavior between genera of 

 the same family, between species of the 

 same genus, and what is most significant, 

 between individuals and even twins of the 

 same species. At the same time we may 

 be utterly unable to point out the corre- 

 sponding structural dif¥erences, which, ac- 

 cording to any theory of parallelism, should 

 accompany svich pronounced ethological 

 distinctions. What bold man, for example, 

 M'ill undertake to show us the morpholog- 

 ical characters corresponding to such strik- 

 ing differences in behavior as are mani- 

 fested by the horse and the ass, by cats or 

 dogs of the same litters, or children of the 

 same parents? Of course, we are at once 

 reminded that there must be corresponding 

 morphological differences represented ' by 

 cell-structures, biophores, ids, complex 

 chemical compounds, etc. We are com- 

 pelled to admit that these may exist, but 

 until a function can be shown to be cor- 

 related with a particular structure, the 

 structure is, of course, to all intents and 

 purposes a purely hypothetical and imag- 

 inary entity. It is clear that the prestige 

 of morphology has been artificially en- 

 hanced by a continual appeal to complex 

 invisible structures. Whatever may be the 

 truth concerning such structures, it is un- 

 doubtedly a matter of considerable theoret- 

 ical and practical importance that we are 

 able to detect ethological where we can not 

 detect morphological differences or char- 

 acters. 



We may, in fact, be permitted to reverse 

 the matter and take the point of view of 

 the psychologist and metaphysician rather 

 than that of the morphologist. In other 

 words, we may start with behavior or the 



dynamic, i. e., physiological and psycholog- 

 ical processes of the organism, and regard 

 the structure as their result or objectiva- 

 tion. The organism makes itself— the ethos 

 is the organism. In this sense the honey- 

 comb is as much a part of the bee as is her 

 chitinous investment, and the nest is as 

 much a part of the bird as her feathers, 

 and every organism, as a living and acting 

 being, fills a much greater sphere than that 

 which is bounded by its integument.* 



Although the time is so very limited, 

 permit me to digress somewhat further on 

 a more practical consequence of the view 

 here advocated. We are certainly justified 

 in regarding ethological characters as very 

 important, as belonging to the organism 

 and as being at least complementary to the 

 morphological characters. If this is true, 

 our existing taxonomy and phylogeny are 

 deplorably defective and one-sided. To 

 classify organisms or to seek to determine 

 their phylogenetie affinities on purely struc- 

 tural grounds can only lead, as it has led 

 in the past, to the trivialities of the species 

 monger and synonym peddler. This has 

 been instinctively felt by all biologists 

 whose development has not been arrested 

 in the puerile specimen-collecting stage. 



* Compare, in this connection, the following 

 passages from Schopenhauer's well-known essay on 

 Comparative Anatomy (Ed. Frauenstedt, Bd. 4, 

 pp. 45 and 58): "Man betrachte die zahllosen 

 Gestalten der Thiere. Wie ist doch jedes durchweg 

 nur das Abbild seines Wollens, der siehtbare Aus- 

 druck der Willensbestrebungen, die seinen Char- 

 akter ausmachen. * * * Aus meiner Lehre folgt 

 allerdings, dass jedes Wesen sein eigenes Werk ist. 

 Die Natur. die nimmer liigen kann und naiv ist 

 wie das Genie, sagt geradezu das Selbe aus, indem 

 jedes Wesen an einem underen, genau seines 

 Gleichen, nur den Lebensfunken anziindet und 

 dann vor unseren Augen sich selbst macht, den 

 Stofr dazu von Aussen, Form und Bewegung aus 

 sich selbst nehmend ; welches man Wachsthum 

 und Entwickelung nennt. So steht auch empirisch 

 jedes Wesen als sein eigenes Werk vor uns. Aber 

 man versteht die Sprache der Natur nicht, weil 

 sie zu einfach ist." 



