Abstract
THE progress of science, and human perversity, are jointly responsible for remarkable variations undergone by scientific words and terms with the lapse of time. Natural science, which once comprised all knowledge obtained by experiment and observation, now, as many think, only signifies natural history; physical science includes chemistry; physical astronomy is no longer the astronomy of Kepler, but that of the telescope and spectroscope; and physical geography is gradually assuming the name of physiography without acquiring the breadth of view which characterises this science. An article by Prof. W. M. Davis in the School Review, published by the University of Chicago Press, brings this nominal metamorphosis prominently before us. Prof. Davis defines physical geography—or physiography—which he considers as synonymous, as “the study of those features of the earth which are involved in the relation of earth and man; that is, the study of man's physical environment.” So far as physical geography is concerned, this statement of its boundary lines is satisfactory, but when Prof. Davis uses the definition as a touchstone to test the character of physiography as understood by the examiners for the Department of Science and Art, he employs a criterion having no logical basis whatever.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
G., R. Physiography and Physical Geography . Nature 63, 207–208 (1900). https://doi.org/10.1038/063207a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/063207a0