Abstract
ALLOW me to say a few words in reply to your editorial of Feb. 29. It does seem to me to be a pity to “run the risk of spoiling a good work” by multiplying suggestions and urging counter claims. It is not quite fair that when biologists start a proposal for obtaining a necessary but costly aid to their studies, the devotees of other sciences should exclaim, “Oh, we must have one, too !” If all speak at once in this way no one will be heard, and we shall get no stations of any sort. Probably the writer of the article is not aware of the expense and requirements of a zoological station, otherwise he would not propose. to increase the difficulty by thrusting a meteorological and astronomical observatory on the backs of its promoters, and then observe that “the outlay need not be heavy.” It is notorious that there are meteorological and astronomical observatories in almost every part of the globe; but there is nothing of the kind for zoology. Under these circumstances it is to me a disappointment that the suggestion for zoological stations meets with what looks like a somewhat selfish criticism, in place of unqualified support, at the hands of physicists.
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
LANKESTER, E. Science Stations. Nature 5, 399 (1872). https://doi.org/10.1038/005399b0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/005399b0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.