SCIENCE. 
SCIENCE: 
A Weekly Record of Scientific 
Progress. 
JOHN MICHELS, Editor. 
Published at 
229 BROADWAY, NEW YORK. 
P. O. Box 3838. 
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1880. 
Professor Alexander Agassiz’s address, de- 
livered in Saunders’ Theatre, Cambridge, which we 
print in full on another page, must be considered 
one of the most important events of the great Bos- 
ton meeting. 
In his position as Vice-President of the Biological 
Section nothing could be more appropriate than 
the expression of his views upon the direction 
which modern biological research is taking. Ani- 
mated by his own experience and convictions, his 
address was a deliberate and able attack upon the 
prevailing tendency towards too rapid generaliza- 
tion — a tendency which has been increasing during 
the last fifteen years, and is clearly the outgrowth 
of the intense desire of modern biologists to break 
down each and every barrier which obstructs our 
view in the history of development. Natural and 
laudable as is the desire to leave no stone unturned 
in our knowledge of the relationships of the differ- 
ent branches of the animal kingdom, it can only 
result in the obstruction of future investigators if it 
is not kept strictly within the limits of the truth. 
Phylogenetic inquiries add greatly to the zest of 
study, but should not be carried so far as to ham- 
per or obscure the real end in view, which is, of 
course, truth and precision of statement, with the 
line sharply defined between what is actually seen 
and that which it is inferred ought to be seen. 
Prof. Agassiz based his conclusions upon his 
comprehensive study of the sea-urchin. Stating 
as a premise the now well-known fact that in their 
embyological development the modern forms repeat 
the stages through which their ancestors passed in 
fossil history, he carefully traced the parallelism in 
a number of modern and fossil forms, giving an 
outline of his recent study. The results have been 
in all cases in positive confirmation of the above 
premise, and show the very close affiliation of the 
oldest and most recent forms, in general characters. 
But while the sea-urchins, with a comparatively 
141 
small number of existing species, and with a com- 
paratively complete fossil record, offer a tempting 
field for speculation, Prof. Agassiz denied his right 
to group the genera into anything like a complete 
genealogical tree. “ If,” he concluded, “ when we 
take one of the most limited groups of the animal 
kingdom, we find ourselves engaged in a hopeless 
task, what must be the prospect should we attack 
the problem of other classes or groups of the ani- 
mal kingdom, where the species run into thousands, 
while they number only tens in the case we have 
attempted to carry out? Shall we say ‘ ignora- 
bimus’ or ‘ impavidi progrediamus,’ and valiantly 
chase a phantom we can never hope to seize?” 
It was hardly to be expected that such an attack 
as this would pass unnoticed, and in fact, one of 
the features of the meetings of the Biological Sec- 
tion was a debate growing out of it, which took 
place on the following day. Prof. Cope had been 
reading an able paper upon the succession of the 
extinct Felidos, pointing to the modifications of the 
teeth as a basis for forming a complete genetic 
series. At the close of his paper he called Prof. 
Agassiz’s attention to the fact that here, in the cat 
family, was an instance leading in quite an oppo- 
site direction to that which Prof. Agassiz had 
assumed in his address the day before. An inter- 
esting discussion followed. Prof. Agassiz said he 
did not object to the grouping of genera into lines 
of descent where the structural characters were 
sufficiently homologous, but he did object to regard- 
ing such affinity as justifying the introduction of 
hypothetical links into other parts of the chain, 
and he did not see that the modifications of a single 
character, the teeth, warranted the phylogenetic 
conclusions which Prof. Cope had just reached. 
Prof. Burt Wilder added that, in his own study upon 
the pectoral muscles of the dog and other animals, 
he had found the fallacy of hasty generalization 
for genetic inferences, drawn from the muscles 
alone, would widely differ from the facts of actual 
relationship. Prof. Cope replied that in such 
questions all must admit that different values should 
be assigned to different parts of the animal frame, 
and among the hard parts, of course, he ranked, 
first, the limbs, then, he said, came the teeth. In 
justification of his arrangement of the extinct cats 
into two lines of descent from a common ancestor, 
he said that the complication of the brains confirm- 
ed the history told by the teeth. Prof. Agassiz em- 
phatically repeated his statement of the day before 
and the discussion closed. We hope this address 
will be widely circulated and read ; if received in 
the spirit in which Prof. Agassiz intended it, its 
effect will be admirable. The reaction from the 
theory of special creation is running strongly in 
every quarter, and in a day when we find ingenious 
speculations advanced even in small memoirs, 
every one must admit the necessity of a more con- 
servative spirit. There is no danger of going into 
the old and opposite extreme, nor does Prof. Agas- 
siz’s address encourage ihe return movement. It is 
a re-statement of the old piece of advice — do not 
attempt to run before you are sure you can walk. 
