« AnteriorContinuar »
putting the non-morphological phases of zoology into their lectures and recitations. But the laboratory work has inevitably put an over-emphasis on the morphological side, and may even have over-emphasized the physiological. The seven branches of the science need not, of course, be treated equally. Morphology deserves a greater share than any of the others, for each of the divisions is partly morphological. But a course on morphology alone (or nearly alone) can scarcely be representative. Unprotesting use of the type course means either that the teacher regards the content of zoology as Protozoa, Porifera, Cœlenterata, etc., or that he is satisfied to administer an unbalanced ration to his students.
Quite independent of the foregoing consideration of the content of zoology is the question of unity of the first course. Whether the type course or the topic course be employed, that course should be unified. It should proceed step by step, one thing leading up to and necessarily following others. Unity has not been ignored by those who employ the type method, but they have justified their course by the evolutionary series which the animal scale is supposed to present. When the animal series was thought to be single and continuous, that was a fair assumption. But this notion of the phylogenetic tree has been largely abandoned, it is recognized that the animal series is a disjointed one. At least if there are connections everywhere, they are so attenuated in places that even a superior student is unable to detect them. The step from an echinoderm to an annelid is not an easy one, nor the step from a mollusk to an arthropod.
The lack of unity consequent upon the employment of type dissections has long been recognized, and has led to the widespread notion, referred to above, that something is wrong with the beginning courses in biology. One can not converse long with teachers of biology who are interested in the pedagogy of their work, without encountering the question, what is to be done about the beginning course? Sometimes the unrest is vague,
sometimes it is not recognized that lack of unity is the fundamental defect, but in few quarters is the present course regarded as satisfactory.
Various proposals have been made for remedying the defect. One plan offered by a botanist for the beginning course in botany is frankly to make the course practical, utilitarian. Since there may readily be a counterpart of this plan on the zoological side, it is worth considering. The author of this proposal does not recognize lack of unity as the thing to be overcome. He would, for example, study wheat: where it is grown, the proper kinds of soil, its uses, its markets, etc.; then potatoes, their soils, geography, industrial uses, diseases and so on. However desirable a course in agriculture may be, little can be said for the above plan with regard to its unity. One plant may, it is true, unify soils and markets after a fashion, but the gap between wheat and potatoes can hardly be bridged in the same arbitrary manner. The proposed course is simply a type course of another kind, the types being no more closely connected than are the taxonomic groups of organisms to which they belong.
One experienced teacher of zoology proposes that the history of the development of the biological sciences be employed. This teacher has detected the fundamental defect of the present course, and his plan is avowedly an attempt to secure unity. His plan could be successful if the historical development of the science were steadily from the simple to the related complex. If one could learn the history of the rise of a subject by the same steps as he learned the content of the subject, then history would be a unifying study. But were that done in zoology, one would study the development of the chick before he learned of the existence of cells: and he would know of the parthenogenesis of the honey bee before he knew the existence of germ cells. Whereas theoretically simple things should be discovered before complex ones, many circumstances, such as the lack of microscopes, has prevented that order from being followed.
Are we to forget that we now have microscopes, in order to let history unify our subject for us? History may explain a good many discrepancies, especially in earlier biology, but it does not unify anything. History unifies only subjects that are essentially historical in their nature, like political development, or philology. I do not mean that history is uninteresting or unimportant, for it is neither; but it unifies only the history, not the content, of biology. Only the facts of a science can unify the science itself.
Unity can be acquired only by arranging subjects, placing the simple first, and laying thereby a foundation for related subjects that are more complex. Each subject should lead to another, and rest upon those that precede. Such unity a course based on the dissection of types can have only in small degree. Otherwise one teacher could not begin with Protozoa, another with vertebrates, or another with Arthropoda which are followed by Protozoa, leaving the vertebrates to the last. Did types insure unity, we would not have that interesting chapter on "animals of uncertain affinities" squarely in the middle of the course. Nematodes do not lead naturally to the Bryozoa, nor do the annelids obviously follow the echinoderms. There is no manifest necessity for having the mollusks precede the arthropods. The teacher of the type course may claim unity for his course, on the ground that he goes from the simple to the complex. A grindstone, a bicycle, a typewriter and a calculating-machine may be arranged in order of complexity, but the unity permeating the series still not be very obvious.
Homology, on the contrary, does lead to taxonomy, taxonomy and ecology to distribution, distribution in space to distribution in time. Cell division leads to cell aggregation, and reproduction to embryology. The connections stated are not merely obvious, they are necessary.
The study of topics entails certain difficulties, one of them being the larger amount of diverse material required in the laboratory. Some may think that this use of many differ
ent animals is confusing, rather than unifying. Our experience indicates that such is not the case. Using many animals to demonstrate the truth of the cell doctrine is not more confusing than the study of profit and loss in arithmetic by problems involving vinegar, woolen goods, automobiles, and ostrich feathers. What would be thought of an arithmetic that employed problems relating to vinegar for addition, division, profit and loss, compound interest and cube root, before woolen goods were used to illustrate the same operations? Or what of a school system in which vinegar was studied chemically, biologically, and industrially before woolen goods were studied from the same points of view? Those would be type studies, type arithmetics, type school systems.
In only one other science, so far as I am aware, do teachers as consistently use the type method as we have done. Whether another method would do as well in that subject I am not qualified to say. Biology is, then, one of the few sciences which have allowed their wealth of material to obscure their subject matter.
How do the students react to the treatment I have described? Perhaps, although the course has been given seven times, we have not been using the new method long enough to speak authoritatively; but some things seem to be observable. I have seldom heard students ask that question formerly not infrequently heard, not only in our own laboratories but in those of other institutions, "How much of all this are we expected to remember?" Students now recognize for themselves that the things which they study are important, for they draw conclusions from them. They have perhaps been quicker than teachers to see the advantages of the new method. Verily, these things were hid from the wise and prudent, and were revealed unto babes.
If culture be measured by the number of ways one has of entertaining himself, certainly the knowledge of biological principles far outweighs from the cultural standpoint
an acquaintance with the details of structure of selected forms. For a knowledge of animals, as members of taxonomic groups, is not lacking in those who pursue zoology in the way I have outlined; and about these animals there is always something besides structure that is worth knowing. In order that these worth-while things may be known adequately, they must be the subject matter of the laboratory exercises as well as the recitations.
Nothing in this article is intended to imply that advanced courses should be of the kind described for beginning students. It is recognized that to become a zoologist, or to prepare for certain professions, it is necessary to have a systematic knowledge, not only of taxonomic groups, but of several other fields of zoology as well. In the acquisition of such knowledge there must be courses in which facts seem to outweigh principles. But to attempt to gain such knowledge in the elementary courses, even for those who must later acquire it, is neither necessary nor desirable. A. FRANKLIN SHULL
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
A FORERUNNER OF EVOLUTION BICENTENARY OF CHARLES DE BONNET, NATURALIST AND PHILOSOPHER
MARCH 13, 1920 marks the two hundredth anniversary of the birth of one of the most interesting of eighteenth century scientists, whose researches in entomology and botany were of solid and permanent importance in the history of these branches of learning, and whose philosophy, if superseded, was at least interesting and to some extent prophetic; yet who is comparatively seldom spoken of to-day.
Charles de Bonnet on that date was born in Geneva, the sometime home of one against whom he wielded most fiercely his philosophic pen-Jean Jacques Rousseau. Rather curiously, de Bonnet's birth and death dates anticipate by an exact century those of a pioneer of evolutionary science, John Tyndall. The earlier master died on May 20, 1793, after a life almost uneventful except for its mental activities.
One of the most striking facts about de Bonnet's career is the extreme precocity of his talent. His entire work in natural history is crowded into the first twenty-five years of his life; after which failing eyesight, induced by close work with the imperfect microscopes of the day, turned him perforce from laboratory research to theoretical speculation.
At sixteen he read Réamur's work on 'Insectology." It proved the turning-point of his life. Born of a Huguenot exile family, all of whom were accustomed to hold high offices in the Swiss government, de Bonnet was studying law with the expectation of following in the footsteps of his kinfolk. His introduction to entomology ended his interest in law; although he persevered in his studies until he attained the degree of Doctor of Laws, he never practised, but devoted the rest of his life to the science which had become his passion.
Two years after he first read Réaumer and Pluche, he sent to the former a long list of "additions" to his works, based on further investigations. What was Réaumur's astonishment to discover that his valuable collaborator was a boy of eighteen! By the time he was twenty, de Bonnet had established the fact of at least usual, and probably invariable, parthenogenesis in aphides. Before he was of age, he had been appointed a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences. Two years later he successfully demonstrated the reproduction of some forms of worms by simple fission; and in the same year he discovered the pores, or "stigmata," by which caterpillars and butterflies breathe, and made important studies in the structure of the tapeworm.
Turning to botany, and newly appointed a fellow of the Royal Society, the youthful scientist next experimented in plant physiology with special reference to the functions of leaves, and attempted to prove that all chlorophyllic plants are endowed with sensation and what he termed "discoverment." It was at this stage of his career that threatened blindness diverted his studies into an entirely different field.
De Bonnet's philosophical theories were largely influenced by the time in which he lived; he wrote a work on the "Proofs of Christianity" to defend Revelation, and valiantly opposed the teachings of Voltaire and Rousseau, and the epigenesis theory of Buffon. On the other hand, he advanced the purely materialistic idea that all thought is due to vibrations of the nerves. Bodily activity, he said, is a necessary condition of thought.
Following Cuvier and Leibnitz in the doctrine of original creation by a Deity, de Bonnet then premised a "germ" of perfecting evolution in every living thing. In his "Contemplation of Nature," he taught that all beings in nature form a graduated and unbroken scale from lowest to highest, with no gaps from the lowest atom of matter to "Archangels"; though the flaw in his perfectability theory appears when he denies that the highest of his heirarchy can ever exactly equal Deity itself. In "Philosophic Palingenesis," he elaborated this doctrine to show the survival not merely of man, but of all animals, and the perfecting of their faculties in the future state. Man, he said, is composed of a material body and an immaterial mind, resident in his brain; but he carries within himself the germ of a more attenuated body which will clothe his mind in the next stage after life on earth-a curious approximation to some of the teachings of modern Spiritualism. What he does not make clear is whether he expects each individual to carry within himself the germ of his own perfectability, or whether it is only races of men and kinds of animals that are perfected en masse. De Bonnet's philosophy is chiefly interesting as a commentary on his scientific attainments. If he had died at twenty-five, he would have left his most valuable achievements already accomplished; but if, two hundred years ago, he had never been born, the world of science even to-day would have been a great deal the loser.
THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL CONDITIONS
FOR three years the Ecological Society of America has had a committee composed of about twenty-five interested persons, investigating the question of preserving natural conditions for scientific study. The work to date has been concerned with (a) listing and describing preserved areas and areas desirable for reservation, (b) determining the policies governing existing reservations and the desirability of reserving natural areas within them, (c) collecting arguments in favor of preserves, (d) determining lines of research and education, scientific, artistic and historical which require or can make use of reservations, and (e) methods which have been successfully employed in securing reservations. The matter in hand includes a list of more than six hundred areas in United States and Canada which are preserved or are desirable for preservation. It is evident that some types of natural conditions are not represented and for some localities no areas have been brought to our attention. Persons having information regarding areas desirable for preservation or already preserved or knowledge concerning any of the subjects noted above, especially methods employed in securing reservations, are requested to send information, which will be fully credited, to the chairman or any member of the committee. The present committee is composed of C. W. Alvord (history), Univ. of Ill.; H. C. Cowles (plant communities), Univ. of Chicago; R. T. Fisher (forest practice), Harvard Univ.; S. A. Forbes (entomology), Univ. of Ill., A. S. Pearse (aquatic preserves), Univ. Wis., C. F. Korstian (grazing), Ogden, Utah; R. B. Miller (forest laws), Univ. of Ill.; T. C. Stephens (bird preserves), Sioux City, Ia.; R. H. Wolcott (fires), Univ. of Nebr.; F. B. Sumner, La Jolla, California; M. J. Elrod, Univ. of Mont.; F. J. Lewis, Univ. of Alberta; John Davidson, Univ. of Br. Columbia; G. B. Rigg, Univ. of Washington; F. Ramaley, Univ. of Colo.; G. A. Pearson, Flagstaff, Ariz.; G. W. Goldsmith, Univ. of Nebr.; J. R. Watson, Univ. of Fla.; J. W. Harshberger, Univ. of Pa.; W. L. Bray, Syra
cuse Univ.; C. D. Howe, Univ. of Toronto; F. E. Lloyd, McGill Univ.; C. O. Rosendahl, Univ. of Minn.
V. E. SHELFORD, Chairman UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON MATHE-
AT the last meeting of the General Education Board in New York on February 28, the sum of $25,000 was appropriated for the use of the National Committee on Mathematical Requirements to continue its work for the year beginning July 1, 1920.
A preliminary report on "The Reorganization of the First Courses in Secondary School Mathematics" was published for the Committee by the U. S. Bureau of Education about the middle of February. It has been distributed widely. Copies of the report have gone to all the state departments of education, to all county and district superintendents in the United States and to all city superintendents in cities and towns of over 2,500 population. It has been sent to all the normal schools in the country, to some 1,500 libraries and to almost 300 periodicals and newspapers. In addition it has been sent to about 4,500 individuals, the names and addresses of which were furnished the Bureau of Education by the National Committee. This list of individuals consists chiefly of teachers of mathematics and principals of schools throughout the country. Additions to this mailing list to secure future copies of the reports of the committee can still be made. Individuals interested in securing these reports should send their names and addresses to the chairman of the committee (J. W. Young, Hanover, N. H.).
A subcommittee consisting of Professor C. N. Moore, of the University of Cincinnati, Mr. W. F. Downey, of Boston, and Miss Eula Weeks, of St. Louis, has been appointed to prepare a report for the Committee on Elective Courses in Mathematics for Secondary Schools. Any material or suggestions for this report may be sent directly to the chairman of the subcommittee.
The recent work of the national committee
had a place on the program of the organization meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics held in Cleveland on February 24 in connection with the meeting of the Department of Superintendence of the National Education Association. The meeting for the organization of the National Council was enthusiastically attended. A constitution was adopted and officers and an executive committee elected. Mr. J. A. Foberg, of the National Committee on Mathematical Requirements, was elected secretary-treasurer of the National Council.
Recent meetings of teachers at which the reports of the national committee have been discussed have taken place in New York City, Cincinnati, San Francisco, Cleveland, Oklahoma, Philadelphia, Springfield (Mass.), Providence (R. I.). Meetings in April will take place in Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Kentucky.
THE NEW YORK STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND THE NEW YORK STATE EXPERIMENT STATION
THE State College of Agriculture at Ithaca and the State Agricultural Experiment Station at Geneva have now become formally affiliated. Each will retain its separate organization and carry on its own appropriate work; in addition provision is made for somewhat closer correlation, for ready exchange of all facilities of research and experimentation, and for more frequent conferences. To these ends the trustees of Cornell University have appointed to the staff of the college eight persons on the staff of the station at Geneva: Whitman H. Jordan, director; R. J. Anderson, chemist; Robert S. Breed, bacteriologist; R. C. Collinson, chemist; U. P. Hendrick, horticulturist; Percival J. Parrott, '06, entomologist; Fred C. Stewart, '98, botanist; and L. L. Van Slyke, specialist in fertilizers. And reciprocally the board of control has appointed to the Geneva staff six members of the agricultural faculty: Professors Chandler, Emerson, Herrick, Lyon, Reddick, and Stocking. The Cornell Alumni Weekly says: This closer relationship promises benefits not only to the college, particularly in enlarging the