Abstract
I SUSPECT that there are many others of the rank and file like myself who have followed this correspondence, and feel, like a man who is a bad guesser of riddles, that there is somewhere in the questions asked by Sir Archdall Reid a “catch,” and cannot yet see it. Of course, he is too busy and earnest a worker in science to ask mere riddles, and many would be thankful for a concise statement of what has been gained so far. The leading biologists have held aloof lately, and the physiologists seem disinclined to answer the appeal made to them. Is this because Sir Archdall Reid has convinced both these groups, or because they are indifferent to the issues raised, or because they are waiting for them to be put explicitly and some proposals made?
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
KIDD, W. Biological Terminology. Nature 108, 11–12 (1921). https://doi.org/10.1038/108011a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/108011a0
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.