The Zoologist/4th series, vol 3 (1899)/Issue 695/Notices of New Books
NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS.
This volume of the "Columbia University Biological Series" perhaps prompts, rather than explains, the question as to what are "the foundations of Zoology." Are they to be sought in the laboratory, or are they to be derived largely by purely mental processes? Or are physical demonstrations to be allied to, made altogether subservient, or treated only as secondary in position to philosophical conceptions? This problem must occur to the reader as he studies in these pages the author's views and commentaries on the writings of Huxley, Lamarck, Galton, Weismann, Darwin, Paley, Agassiz, and Berkeley.
Prof. Brooks has a philosophical position of his own. He is clearly not Neo-Lamarckian, a term applied at present to so much American speculation; he may be better described as Anti-Lamarckian. He is not a Pyrrhonist, though on many questions he gives the verdict only of "not proven." Perhaps an extract may give a better clue to the foundation on which he rears a philosophy which is more critical than affirmative, and vibrates between the idealistic and materialistic conceptions. "I am not able to answer the question whether, in ultimate analysis, the principles of science are physical or metaphysical. I know nothing about things ultimate. I do not know what the relation between mind and matter is. I do not know whether the distinction between 'things perceived by sense' and 'relations apprehended by the mind' is founded in nature or not; but I am sure that natural knowledge is useful to me, that it is pleasant, and profitable, and instructive; and I must ask whether all this does not show that nature is intended?"
The main issue is seemingly whether these questions are biological or metaphysical; or whether, appertaining to both realms, they can or should be separated? Is it a fact, as Prof. Brooks believes, that there is a partial failure of training in biological laboratories to make naturalists of the students; and is the explanation of that failure "the belief that our biology (the biology of the present day, and not that of the unknown future) ends with the study of the structure and functions of the physical basis—the belief that biology is 'nothing but' the discovery of its physical and chemical properties"? It is at least probable that we have also naturalists who are not philosophers, and philosophers who are not naturalists.
Zoology to-day is a science of so wide and exhaustive a nature, that its student may indeed form philosophical conclusions, while having no time for the wide reading and reflection necessary to the acquisition of a mental competency. Aristotle's knowledge of zoology was small indeed compared with what may readily be acquired at the present day, but the position is reversed when his philosophical method is compared with modern speculative gymnastics.
This book may be well commended to the perusal of those who love debatable matters, and who seek to tread the labyrinth of biological speculation. It is a good, but not altogether an easy book to read. It is not assertive, but rather argumentative; it often quotes only to question, and frequently details a proposition to show its weakness. Sometimes we ponder over such a conclusion as the following:—"Biology is not a closed science, and Darwin's view of the matter is not proved—possibly is not provable; but its great value is in the proof that there is no shadow of evidence for any other view." Does not this constitute Herbert Spencer's canon of truth—or proof—by the inconceivableness of the contrary? The great importance of these works is that they do not entreat assent, but demand consideration; their mission is not so much to convince as to promote thought:—"Scientific men who are not zoologists are fond of telling us science has nothing to do with the Why? and is concerned only with the How? but, in zoology, it is often easy to discover why an action is performed, while we are very ignorant of the structural conditions under which it takes place."
The title of this book may sound a little outr to some biologists to-day, but cannot be misunderstood in the course of a few years, when the breeding experiments of Prof. Ewart will be more generally known to zoological science. Our readers will remember a paper "On Zebra-Horse Hybrids," which appeared in these pages last year, and which in the 'Penycuik Experiments' is reproduced. Penycuik is the Midlothian abode of Prof. Ewart, who has now for some years followed the breeding investigations that so long occupied Darwin; and though to the general public these are better known as the Zebra hybrid experiments, much valuable work has been done with Pigeons, Fowls, Dogs, and Rabbits. The result, as might be expected, leads to another nail in the coffin of our old fetish "species," and the dogma as to its immutability. "Among plants, hybrids are sometimes quite fertile; while some crosses are quite, or almost, sterile. There is no hard and fast line between species and varieties, and hence there can be no fundamental difference between a hybrid and a cross, nor yet any a priori reason why any given hybrid should be sterile, or any given cross fertile. It is no longer possible to contend that species were originally endowed with mutual sterility, by way of preventing the confusion that would result from free interbreeding."
Prof. Ewart recognizes three distinct types of Zebras:—Equus grevyi, E. zebra, and E. burchelli, which, ignoring the now generally considered extinct E. quagga, is in agreement with the views of Mr. Pocock (cf. Zool. 1897, p. 380). He has bred nine Zebra hybrids by crossing mares of various sizes (from 11 to 15 hands) and breeds with his Zebra stallion, and possesses also three hybrids out of Zebra mares, one sired by a donkey, the other two by Ponies. The importance of these experiments is clearly seen by the separate considerations and discussions on such interesting biological problems or suggestions as—Reversion, Prepotency and Inbreeding, Telegony, Saturation, and Sterility; while the conclusion is reached that "there is obviously no real difference between cross-fertilization and intercrossing. Whether we interbreed or intercross, engage in 'line' breeding or 'cross' breeding, we are making use of cross-fertilization. Further, I may add, the difference between intercrossing and hybridizing is one of degree, not of kind."
This book is beautifully illustrated, characteristically bound, and, unfortunately, unprovided with an index.
Mr. Thompson is the Carlyle of the animal world outside man: he sees the Zingis Khan, the Attila, the Napoleon among his Wolves, the Rachel among his Foxes, the bandit chief leading his Dogs. "What satisfaction would be derived from a ten-page sketch of the habits and customs of Man? How much more profitable it would be to devote that space to the life of some one great man. This is the principle I have endeavoured to apply to my animals." Thus we have a few vivid and brilliant sketches of animal life which we should unhesitantly describe as a new departure in fiction, were we not warned in a "Note to the Reader," "these stories are true." We are not led to the sceptical position by any unreality of the narrative, but rather marvel at the psychological sympathy with, and apprehension of, ideas and conceptions which are so commonly described as belonging to the instincts of brutes. The story of the King-wolf Lobo, who remains unconquered by his many justly-incensed enemies, and who by his cunning, or intellect, defies all their stratagems, till the death of his loved bitch Blanca renders him reckless, and proves his undoing, is only another story of the rise and fall of the great and much-admired man-wolf amongst ourselves. The Dog Bingo that must go wolfing, but comes home to die; the Fox Vix, courageous to frenzy on behalf of her young, are amongst some of the strongest characters of this more than interesting book. We are often warned against ascribing our own mental processes to other animals, and thus forming erroneous conclusions as to their cognitions and psychology. Do we not rather greatly err on the other side? Is it not more reasonable to argue that we have indeed passed on, but that in leaving them behind we have not altogether severed our common cognitions? The perusal of this book, with its altogether charming illustrations, must tend to lead to a better understanding. One remark expresses the keystone to much modern speculation: "No wild animal dies of old age. Its life has soon or late a tragic end. It is only a question of how long it can hold out against its foes."
Since we noticed the Report for 1896, two more of these annual contributions to economic entomology have appeared. They are written with the same care and thoroughness as distinguished their predecessors, and exhibit the same voluntary and enthusiastic devotion to the study which is likely, in a material sense, to reward readers and students rather than authoress. Two welcome announcements are made. A general index to the long series of reports which have now been published—twenty-two in all—will shortly be issued; and Miss Ormerod has now secured the co-operation of Mr. Robert Newstead, of the Grosvenor Museum, Chester, whose power of microscopic observation and delineation, with a special knowledge of the Coccidæ, must prove of a helpful character.
The work of Miss Ormerod is not confined to the publication of these Reports, but is also engaged in the management of what may be called a private consulting economic bureau on insect pests and their depredations. In 1897, we read that the correspondence "amounted approximately to about three thousand letters received"; and as these may be considered as mostly in the nature of enquiries, this scientific enterprise pursued privately by one lady is probably unique.
The Forest Fly (Hippobosca equina), the pernicious Horse pest, whose presence up to 1895 was considered in this country to be wholly confined to the New Forest or its vicinity, has now been only too clearly demonstrated to have established itself in the south of South Wales. Hay imported from South America contains very frequently specimens of the Migratory Locust (Acridium (Schistocerca) paranense); in one case the average was a Locust to a pound of the Alfalfa (Lucerne) hay which was landed from Buenos Ayres; in another instance there were no fewer than two hundred specimens in one truss. Such food, it need scarcely be pointed out, is at least highly suspect for Horses. We might multiply extracts to show that these reports are of the first interest to agriculturists, farmers, and rearers of stock, whilst to the naturalist and entomologist they embody a series of faithful life-histories.
Not only the farmer and the agriculturist, but also that numerous class whose urban prosperity permits rural residence and pursuits, frequently seek—and sometimes vainly—for some authentic information respecting the animal friends and foes with whom they are brought in contact. As a rule, farmers are not zoologists, nor are all country residents naturalists, consequently the few books which now exist on the subject—and we must not overlook Miss Ormerod's excellent contributions—may be well supplemented. Mr. Theobald's profusely illustrated volume is a compilation which contains much scientific matter over and above animal biography and narrative. It grapples largely with modern animal classification, detailing some anatomy, but more physiology. And as the book is likely to fall into the hands of those who have received no particular biological instruction, it should serve a good purpose. To such readers it is most opportune to show that zoology and botany are only divorced sections of natural history, not necessarily distinct sciences. When Mr. Theobald discusses animals and plants, he is forced to acknowledge:—"In fact, there is no hard-and-fast line to be drawn between these two organic groups. Such lowly creatures as Volvox are treated by botanists as plants, whilst the zoologist includes them in the Protozoa." Organic nature lends herself to the systematiser, or she could neither be studied nor understood, but she still remains one and indivisible.
A good word is said for the usefulness of those furred and feathered creatures which the gamekeepers have classed under the section "vermin," and have sentenced to extermination. It is, however, probable that those worthy and energetic men are not likely to read these pages, or to agree with them if they did.
"The prevention of vermiceous diseases" is the subject matter of Appendix I. In some respects, in perusing this section, we seem to be again reading some of the modern injunctions for preventing the spread of phthisis among ourselves. Diseases, "such as husk, are spread by the embryos being brought up in the mucus from the air-passages; these germs are scattered about upon the ground, and thus sow the seeds for numbers of other lambs and sheep to obtain. When that spasmodic cough so characteristic of 'hoose' is heard, it is surely advisable to remove the animal, and so prevent it from contaminating the ground."