Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 24.djvu/850

Rh 800 ZOOLOGY for a long time been deprived of the means of anatomical and physiological study only supplied within the past century by the method of preserving animal bodies in alcohol the demands of medicine for a knowledge of the structure of the human animal have in the meantime brought into existence a separate and special study of human anatomy and physiology. Relation From these special studies of human structure the to ana- knowledge of the anatomy of animals has proceeded, the tomyand game i nves tigator who had made himself acquainted with the structure of the human body desiring to compare with the standard given by human anatomy the structures of other animals. Thus comparative anatomy came into exist ence as a branch of inquiry apart from zoology, and it is only now, in the latter part of the 19th century, that the limitation of the word &quot;zoology&quot; to a knowledge of animals which expressly excludes the consideration of their internal structure has been rejected by the general consent of those concerned in the progress of science ; it is now generally recognized that it is mere tautology to speak of zoology and comparative anatomy, and that our museum naturalists must give attention as well to the inside as to the outside of animals. The anatomy and physiology of plants have never been excluded from the attention of botanists, because in con trast to the earlier zoologists they always were in possession of the whole living plant, raised from seed if need be in a hot-house, instead of having only a dried skin, skeleton, or shell. Consequently the study of vegetable anatomy and physiology has grown up naturally and in a healthy way in strict relation to the rest of botanical knowledge, whilst animal anatomy and physiology have been external to zoology in origin, the product of the medical profession and, as a consequence, subjected to a misleading anthropo- centric method. Restricted Whilst we may consider the day as gone by in which use of zoology could be regarded as connoting solely a special the term i i j j: i / c physio- museum knowledge of animals (as twenty-five years ago logy. was still the case), it is interesting to observe by the way the curious usurpation of the word &quot; physiology,&quot; which, from having a wide connotation, indicated by its etymology, the physiologus of the Middle Ages being nothing more nor less than the naturalist or student of nature, has in these later days acquired a limitation which it is difficult to justify or explain. Physiology to-day means the study of the physical and chemical properties of the animal or vegetable body, and is even distinguished from the study of structure and strictly confined to the study of function. It would hardly be in place here to discuss at length the steps by which physiology became thus limited, any more than to trace those by which the words &quot;physician &quot; and &quot;physicist&quot; (which both mean one who occupies himself with nature) came to signify respectively a medical prac titioner and a student of the laws of mechanics, heat, light, and electricity (but not of chemistry), whilst the word &quot; naturalist &quot; is very usually limited to a lover and student of living things, to the exclusion of the so-called physicist, the chemist, and the astronomer. It is probable that physiology acquired its present significance, viz., the study of the properties and functions of the tissues and organs of living things, by a process of external attraction and spoliation which gradually removed from the original physiologus all his belongings and assigned them to newly relation to real knowledge, but was part of a peculiar and in itself highly interesting mysticism. A fantastic and elaborate doctrine of symbolism existed which comprised all nature ; witchcraft, alchemy, and medicine were its practical expressions. Animals as well as plants were regarded as &quot; simples &quot; and used in medicine, and a knowledge f them was valued from this point of view. Plants were collected and cultivated for medicinal use; hence the physic gardens and the botanist s advantage. named and independently constituted sciences, leaving at last, as a residuum to which the word might still be applied, that medical aspect of life which is concerned with the workings of the living organism regarded as a piece of physico-chemical apparatus. Whatever may be the history of the word &quot; physiology,&quot; Rise of we find zoology, which really started in the 16th century sciential with the awakening of the new spirit of observation and zool gy- exploration, for a long time running a separate course uninfluenced by the progress of the medical studies of anatomy and physiology. The history of every branch of science involves a recognition of the history, not only of other branches of science, but of the progress of human society in every other relation. The century which de stroyed the authority of the church, witnessed the dis covery of the New World, and in England produced the writings of Francis Bacon is rightly regarded as the start ing-point of the modern knowledge of natural causes or science. The true history of zoology as a science lies within the three last centuries ; and, whilst the theories and fables which were current in earlier times in regard to animal life and the various kinds of animals form an im portant subject of study from the point of view of the history of the development of the human mind, they really have no bearing upon the history of scientific zoology. The great awakening of western Europe in the 1 6th century led to an active search for knowledge by means of observa tion and experiment, which found its natural home in the universities. Owing to the connexion of medicine with these seats of learning, it was natural that the study of the structure and functions of the human body and of the animals nearest to man should take root there; the spirit of inquiry which now for the first time became general showed itself in the anatomical schools of the Italian uni versities of the 16th century, and spread fifty years later to Oxford. In the 17th century the lovers of the new philosophy, Influenc the investigators of nature by means of observation and of a&amp;lt; : a experiment, banded themselves into academies or societies J^^A for mutual support and intercourse. It is difficult to ex- ti es. aggerate the importance of the influence which has been exercised by these associations upon the progress of all branches of science and of zoology especially. The essential importance of academies is to be found, as Laplace, the great French astronomer, has said, &quot; in the philosophic spirit which develops itself in them and spreads itself from them as centres over an entire nation and all relations. The isolated man of science can give himself up to dogma tism without restraint ; he hears contradictions only from afar. But in a learned society the enunciation of dogmatic views leads rapidly to their destruction, and the desire of each member to convince the others necessarily leads to the agreement to admit nothing excepting what is the result of observation or of mathematical calculation.&quot; The first founded of surviving European academies, the Academia Naturse Curiosorum (1651), 1 especially confined itself to the description and illustration of the structure of plants and animals; eleven years later (1662) the Boyal (Society of London was incorporated by royal charter, having existed without a name or fixed organization for seventeen years previously (from 1645). A little later the Academy of Sciences of Paris was established by Louis XIV. The influence of these great academies of the 17th century on the progress of zoology was precisely to effect that bringing together of the museum-men and the physicians or anatomists which was needed for further development. Whilst the race of collectors and systema- tizers culminated in the latter part of the 18th century 1 The Academia Secretorum Naturte was founded at Naples in 1560, but was suppressed by the ecclesiastical authorities.