REFERENCES ON THE ECOLOGICAL STANDPOINT
In this I have listed only those papers which have seemed to me particularly significant because of their point of view, regardless of whether or not they are primarily zoölogical or specifically mention ecology.
Brooks, W. K.
1899. The Foundations of Zoölogy. pp. 339. New York.
Introductory, pp. 1-29; Huxley, and the Problem of the Naturalist, pp. 33-46; Nature and Nurture, pp. 49-79.
1906. Heredity and Variation; Logical and Biological. Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., Vol. XLV, pp. 70-76.
An extremely suggestive paper which should be read by every ecological student.
Ganong, W. F.
1907. The Organization of the Ecological Investigation of the Physiological Life-Histories of Plants. Bot. Gaz., Vol. XLIII, pp. 341-344.
1904. The Cardinal Principles of Ecology. Science, N. S., Vol. XIX, pp. 493-498.
Burdon-Sanderson, J. S.
1894. Biology in Relation to Other Natural Sciences. Smithsonian Report for 1893, pp. 435-463.
Möbius, K.
1877. Die Auster und die Austernwirthschaft. pp. 126. Berlin.
On page 72 he proposes the term “biocœnose” for the group of animals which live together in the same habitat. Not seen by writer.
1883. The Oyster and Oyster-Culture. Rep. U. S. Fish Comm., 1880, Part VIII, pp. 683-751.
Translation of preceding paper. On pp. 721-729 he discusses “An Oyster-Bank as a Biocönose, or a Social Community”; on page 723 he proposes the word “biocœnosis.” An illuminating paper.
Dahl, F.
1902. Die Ziele der vergleichenden “Ethologie” (d. i. Biologie im älteren engeren Sinne). Verh. V. Inter. Zoöl.-Cong. 1901, pp. 296-300.
1908. Grundsätze und Grundbegriffe der biocönotischen Forschung. Zool. Anz., Bd. XXXIII, pp. 349-353.
1898. Experimentell-statistische Ethologie. Verh. der Deutsch. Zool. Gesell. Bd., 1898, pp. 121-131.
1901. Was ist ein Experiment, was Statistik in der Ethologie? Biol. Centralbl., Bd. XXI, pp. 675-681.
Wasmann, E.
1901. Biologie oder Ethologie? Biol. Centralbl., Bd. XXI, pp. 391-400.
Wheeler, W. M.
1902. ‘Natural History,’ ‘Œcology’ or ‘Ethology’? Science, N. S., Vol. XV, pp. 971-976.
Advocates the use of the term ethology.
St. Hilaire, I. Geoffray.
1859. Histoire Générale des Règnes Organiques, Vol. II.
Not seen by writer. Dr. W. M. Wheeler, of Harvard University, has kindly sent me the following note from p. 285. “‘It is to ethology therefore that the fourth part of this work is devoted, to which belongs the study of the relations of organisms within the family and the society in the aggregate and in the community.’ In a volume of the same work, page xx, St. Hilaire gives his program and speaks of the general facts belonging to ethological laws. These are defined as ‘relating to the instincts, habits and more generally to the external vital manifestations of organisms.’” About the preceding Dr. Wheeler remarks: “You see this covers precisely the field which was a few years later called ‘ecology’ by Haeckel. Apparently the part of the work in which St. Hilaire wished to give a detailed account of the ethological phenomena of animals was not published. Only three volumes of the work exist. He died November 10, 1861, without having completed the work.”
Thus ethology has priority over ecology, but to my mind this fact carries no special weight, particularly since the word has become current in botany. To use a different name for the same subject or process in botany and zoölogy is as undesirable as to use a different term for heredity in plants and in animals.
Lankester, E. R.
1889. Article “Zoölogy.” Ency. Britannica, 9th ed. Amer. Reprint. Vol. XXIV, pp. 842, 856.
Lankester defines “Bionomics.—The lore of the farmer, gardener, sportsman, fancier, and field naturalist, including thremmatology, or the science of breeding, and the allied teleology, or science of organic adaptations: exemplified by the patriarch Jacob, the poet Vergil, Sprengel, Kirby and Spence, Wallace, and Darwin.... Buffon (1707-1788) alone among the greater writers of the three past centuries emphasized that view of living things which we call ‘bionomics.’ Buffon deliberately opposed himself to the mere exposition of the structural resemblances and differences of animals, and, disregarding classification, devoted his treatise on natural history to a consideration of the habits of animals and their adaptations to their surroundings, whilst a special volume was devoted by him to the subject of reproduction.... Buffon is the only prominent writer who can be accorded historic rank in this study.”
As I have access to but few of Buffon’s writings, I quote the above. Bionomics is seen not to be synonymous with ecology, as defined by most students, although it includes much that is ecological. The chaotic and unorganized “lore of the farmer” has no unifying or guiding principles, and although it contains many facts, from which a science may be built, to call it science seems undesirable.
It is of course advantageous in some ways to have agreement as to the limitations of ecology, or any science, but even the more exact sciences seem to fare little better, as is shown by the following statement: “It is not long since I heard a university professor begin a lecture on physics somewhat in this way: ‘Physics is the science of matter and energy. This field is so large that it is customary at present to break off the physics of the molecule and its reactions and call it chemistry. Also to put to one side the physics of the heavenly bodies and call this a part of astronomy,’ etc.” (Strong, Science, N. S., Vol. XXXIV, p. 409, 1911.)
Forbes, S. A.
1895. On Contagious Disease in the Chinch-Bug (Blissus leucopterus Say). 19th Rep. State Ent. Ill. (8th Rep. of S. A. Forbes), pp. 16-176.
In this paper Forbes defines (pp. 16-18) ecology and points out, I believe for the first time, that economic entomology is simply applied ecology. He says, “The study of œcology is thus to the economic entomologist what the study of physiology is to the physician.”
1909. Aspects of Progress in Economic Entomology. Journ. Econ. Ent., Vol. II, pp. 25-35.
Especially pp. 28-32 on the relation of ecology to economic entomology.
Herdmann, W. A.
1896. Oceanography, Bionomics, and Aquiculture. Smithsonian Report for 1895, pp. 433-454.
Emery, C.
1905. Éthologie, Phylogénie et Classification. C. R. 6me Cong. inter. de Zool. Berne, 1904, pp. 160-174.
Clements, F. E.
1905. The Foundations of Ecology, pp. 1-17.
Research Methods in Ecology, pp. 334. Lincoln, Nebraska.
Adams, Chas. C.
1906. Introductory Note. An Ecological Survey in Northern Michigan. Ann. Rep. Mich. Geol. Surv. for 1905, pp. 11-12.
1909. The Ecological Succession of Birds. Ann. Rep. Mich. Geol. Surv. for 1908, pp. 121-154.
Shelford, V. E.
1912. Ecological Succession. V. Aspects of Physiological Classification. Biol. Bull., Vol. XXIII, pp. 331-370.
The standpoint of this paper is very much in harmony with that advanced in this book.
Case, E. C.
1905. Œcological Features of Evolution. Bull. Wis. Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. III, pp. 169-180.
Wheeler, W. M.
1905. Ethology and the Mutation Theory. Science, N. S., Vol. XXI, pp. 535-540.
Flahault, C., and Schröter, C.
1910. Phytogeographical Nomenclature. Reports and Propositions. IIIᵉ Cong. Inter. de Botanique. Bruxelles, 1910. pp. 28 + x. Zurich.
White, C. A.
1893. The Relation of Biology to Geological Investigation. Ann. Rep. U. S. Nat. Mus. for 1892, pp. 245-368.
This paper and the two following references illustrate the intimate relation of ecology to phases of geology.
Grabau, A. W.
1899. The Relation of Marine Bionomy to Stratigraphy. Bull. Buffalo Soc. Nat. Sci., Vol. VI, pp. 319-367.
Walther, J.
1893-94. Einleitung in die Geologie als historische Wissenschaft. I. Bionomie des Meeres. II. Die Lebensweise der Meeresthiere. III. Lithogenesis der Gegenwart. Jena.
Shows the close relation between ecology and geology. The process standpoint is emphasized and the past is interpreted in terms of processes now in operation.
Adams, Chas. C.
1908. Some of the Advantages of an Ecological Organization of a Natural History Museum. Proc. Amer. Associa. Museums, Vol. I, pp. 170-178.