plete and detailed a knowledge of the quantitative as well as qualitative relations of the phenomena involved as we possess for nerve-muscle physiology does not exist to-day in any other branch of biology.
But both in anthropology and physiology quantitative methods of work were only an incident. In many cases, as we can now see, the mathematical methods used were inadequate, or incorrect. Until Pearson, following the pioneer investigations of Galton, began his work no one had ever made any consistent and systematic attempt to develop a special calculus directly adapted to the discussion and analysis of biological data. Because he did just this thitig Karl Pearson will stand as the founder of biometry, as a definite subdivision of the science of biology.
The publication of the earlier memoirs in Pearson's fundamental series of Mathematical Contributions to the Theory of Evolution in the period from 1895 to 1900 excited much interest among biologists all over the world. The possibilities opened out by these new methods of research were quickly noted, and served as a stimulus to start a number of workers off on the new paths. The growth of interest and accumulation of results on the subject was such as to necessitate the launching of a new journal « Biometrika » (now in its seventh volume) devoted entirely to the publication of researches in this held. Thus, biometry started on its career as an independent twig of the biological tree with a very vigorous and apparently healthy initial growth.
Events proved, however, that much of this growth was not by any means of a healthy character. A very decided reactionary feeling on the part of biologists regarding biometry began to make itself felt. In place of the enthusiasm with which efforts towards a quantitative biology were at first received, an intensely critical and in some cases distinctly hostile attitude appeared. Students were advised to have nothing whatever to do with this iniquitous biometry. It was felt that biometrical literature could safely be, and to a large extent was, disregarded by the general biologist.
The reasons for the development of this reactionary attitude are now, I think, tolerably clear. The first and most important was that biologists very generally misunderstood the significance and possibilities of biometric methods as
