AMER. ZOOL., 28:7-14 (1988)
Why American Marine Stations?: The Teaching Argument1
KEITH R. BENSON
Department of Biomedical History, University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington 98195
SYNOPSIS. Traditionally, historians have stressed the influence of European laboratories
on the development of American marine stations. While there is some justification for
this interpretation, more attention must be directed at the original teaching imperative
for marine studies. Several marine stations emerged in the 1870s with no direct influence
from Europe and with a complete commitment to the education of secondary school
teachers. Later in the century and early in the twentieth century this same pattern was
repeated at several locations on both the east coast and the west coast. All of these
institutions were designed to present a new pedagogical approach for biology in the United
States. Originally as adjuncts to natural history museums and societies and then as important innovations to teach laboratory methods in American colleges and universities, marine
biology stations developed research options only secondary to their primary educational
orientation.
Louis Agassiz's name is synonymous with
late nineteenth-century American biology.
He was the popular professor of zoology
and geology at Harvard, he was the mentor
to most of America's first generation of
biologists, he was the organizing force and
entrepreneurial genius behind the Museum
of Comparative Zoology, and, for the purposes of today's symposium, he was the
inspiration behind the Anderson School of
Natural History, the first marine institution in the United States (Lurie, 1960).
Receiving second billing for synonymy with
nineteenth-century American biology and
often stressed as most crucial for developments at century's end, is European science
especially in the form of the German laboratory (Allen, 1975). This tradition is
reputed to have been the major influence
upon the new appreciation for science in
this country, it provided the model for the
modern American graduate education in
science, and, again for the purposes of
today's symposium, it was the source for
the formation of marine biology institutions, either from Concarneau in 1859, if
one has French sympathies, or from Naples
in 1872 if one is Germanic. Either singly
or taken together, Agassiz and European
science have received the lion's share of
1
From the Symposium on History ofAmerican Marine
Biology and Marine Biology Institutions presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Society of Zoologists, 27-30 December 1986, at Nashville, Tennessee.
credit for American developments in
marine biology.
Unfortunately, historical development
shares the multi-faceted nature of embryonic development; simple causal explanations quickly become problematic when
subjected to critical scrutiny. One of the
objectives of this symposium is to investigate briefly the historical origins of teaching and research in American marine biology and marine biology institutions in order
to provide a more enlightening explanation than the simplistic Agassizian or Germanic influence. At the same time, my
remarks are not intended to denigrate
either of these contributions. Rather, my
intent is to illustrate how both Agassiz and
German science wove into the American
fabric of marine biology. Instead of contributing both the warp and the woof of
the fabric, they represented only two of
the multitude of threads (Benson, 19876).
A fruitful area to explore for its role in
the emergence of marine biology is science
education, conceived in a broad sense.
From this perspective it becomes immediately evident that marine biology and its
institutions were not the simple products
of the linear development of a professional
biology community in the United States
based upon European ideas. Sally Gregory
Kohlstedt's numerous studies of mid-century natural history and her analysis of
museums in nineteenth-century developments in biology all point to several
8
KEITH R. BENSON
developments outside of the usual laboratory-oriented influences from Europe
(Kohlstedt, 1987). Even when only the
European science is considered with care,
as Philip Pauly has done in his studies on
the role of German laboratory science on
medical education in this country, it is evident that Americans looked to Europe as
only an ideal (Pauly, 1984). What actually
developed in this country was different.
Jane Maienschein has often referred to the
unique development in this country of
American programs in biology, especially
at the Marine Biological Laboratory and
the University of Chicago (Maienschein,
1985). My own work has been an attempt
to exhibit the importance of considering
the Americanness of the biology that
developed on this side of the Atlantic, especially in terms of the morphology tradition
at Johns Hopkins and the marine biology
traditions at a variety of marine stations
(Benson, 1987a-c). And while all these
studies are unique, they are united by the
common theme of the continuity of
developments in American biology. Americans often invited Europeans like Agassiz
to conduct biology programs; Americans
borrowed heavily from European institutional models; but Americans also had a
long tradition in natural history endemic
to these shores upon which the marine
biology work at the end of the century was
appended. In particular, after the Civil War
there was a tremendous emphasis to evaluate science education on university campuses. The impetus for marine investigations and marine biology institutions came
from this incentive.
T h e educational influence was not
monolithic nor was it linear. Instead, there
were a number of directions and avenues
that contributed to marine developments
at the end of the century. Often, in fact,
the influences had an idiosyncratic nature;
all institutions did not develop in exactly
the same fashion. But the general pattern
was one of educational reform. The best
known and most-documented of the educational reform episodes in the nineteenth
century, and one intimately related to biology, was medicine. The efforts to increase
the scientific literacy of physicians (and even
their literacy in a fundamental sense!) was
begun in 1860 when the newly-reformed
American Medical Association (AMA)
attempted to require all medical schools to
have preliminary educational requirements (although no bachelor degree) for
all medical students, to have a three-year
medical curriculum, to have a clinical experience (albeit brief), and to have an examination prior to granting the medical
degree. Prior to this date, Yale's curriculum was standard: a two year program in
which a four-month basic science course
was repeated each year. There were few
entrance requirements (except for one's
vital signs), no extensive basic science
course, no laboratory experience, no exposure to clinical medicine, and no exit examination. Lamentably, the reforms of 1860
were lost in the tragic excesses of the Civil
War and the medical reforms had to wait
until century's end.
Biology, although not known universally
by this moniker until the 1900s, had a parallel reformation. When the AMA called
for change, only Harvard and Yale offered
advanced instruction in biology—and this
instruction was in the museum-oriented
area of natural history. Both institutions
formed separate "Scientific Schools" for
science studies. These special schools were
not "separate but equal," however. The
distinctive character of the science programs indicated the secondary status
science enjoyed in the 1860s; the classic
nineteenth-century American university
education was centered around the
humanities and the arts. Biology, as part
of science, offered little opportunity in
American society and, therefore, was
largely eschewed. Nevertheless, there were
a number of enlightened educators who
noticed the lack of scientific opportunities
in this country compared to Europe. If they
were to stem the flow of bright Americans
to the universities and laboratories of
Europe, they had to address the educational failings of American institutions.
Like changes in medicine, however, these
changes also waited on the end of the century (Benson, 1987rf).
The earliest sign of dramatic reform in
biology occurred in the 1870s. Of the great
THE TEACHING ARGUMENT
reforming presidents at the last quarter of
the century, Charles W. Eliot at Harvard,
Johns Hopkins's Daniel Coit Gilman,
Andrew D. White of Cornell, and David
Starr Jordan who served both Indiana and
Stanford, Eliot may have been the first to
point the direction for change. In 1871 he
encouraged H. P. Bowditch to establish a
program of study in vertebrate function,
perhaps the initial American experience in
physiology and the first to be aimed at
improving medical education (Frick, 1986).
But the failure of this to exact change also
illustrates the extent of the problem. At
Harvard, biology was haphazardly divided
between the egocentric Agassiz at the MCZ,
the soft-spoken Asa Gray at Harvard's herbarium, and Bowditch. None of these men
collaborated or even envisioned a biology
program in which they cooperated. In fact,
biology departments or centers of investigation or teaching in biology were unheard
of in the early 1870s (Pauly, 1984).
Not surprisingly, therefore, new directions in biology were not pioneered originally within colleges or universities; the
early changes were first observed in the
secondary school community. Additionally, the inspiration for this change was
outside the university. Most of those concerned with the state of scientific literacy
in this country were in the amateur-dominated, society-oriented, natural history
tradition. Beginning in 1871, the Boston
Society of Natural History began short
winter courses in "physical and natural-history branches of knowledge" to expose secondary teachers to new teaching methods
that emphasized the study of nature from
nature. Before this date, virtually all teaching in biology was rote, textbook learning.
Fieldwork and laboratory exercises were
unheard of. While some opportunistic students may have taken advantage of university sponsored collecting trips to augment museum holdings, most students
lacked any substantive exposure to the natural world.
It was within this natural history tradition of reform that Agassiz's contributions
to marine biology must be appreciated. In
1872 he advertized his new "course in
instruction in natural history, to be deliv-
ered by the seaside, . . . chiefly designed
for Teachers who propose to introduce the
study into their schools and for students
preparing to become teachers" (Wilder,
1898). Actually, the idea for the venture
came from Agassiz's student, Nathaniel
Southgate Shaler, who developed a similar
summer experience, the summer geology
field station, which remains an integral part
of modern training in geology (Shaler,
1909). But priority disputes aside, study in
nature was central to Agassiz's educational
philosophy. Preferring to "Study nature,
not books," he wrote to Spencer Fullerton
Baird before the Anderson School of Natural History opened in 1873, that the station was to serve as an adjunct to the MCZ.
"It is to be a sister institution of the Museum
of Comparative Zoology, to work hard with
it, in fact to stand as the Educational Branch
of the Museum, with an Independent estate
. . . our students shall be taught what they
ought to know to teach successfully . . . each
pupil will have a specimen of some kind or
other before him, in place of books, which
I shall completely exclude from our working rooms" (Herber, 1963). The new station, therefore, continued the reforms that
Agassiz attempted to implement at the
MCZ—students examined nature firsthand.
The concerns of Agassiz echoed
throughout the country. In Popular Science
Monthly, F. W. Clarke expressed the hope
that reforms in natural history would eventually replace the archaic methods in practice in American institutions. Something
needed to be done ". . . toward breaking
up the present vicious and absurd mode of
teaching science by mere textbook recitations, and so helped forward the adoption
of correct methods, . . . Nature must be
studied at first hand to be properly understood" (Clarke, 1876). Penikese was the
first institution to follow Clarke's admonitions. As Agassiz told his students:
I have never had in my own laboratory better
opportunities for work than I place at your disposal. Our way of studying will be somewhat different from the instruction generally given in
schools. I want to make it so very different that it
may appear that there is something left to be done
in the system adopted in our public schools. I think
10
KEITH R. BENSON
that pupils are made too much to turn their attention to books, and the teacher is left a simple
machine of study. That should be done away among
us. I shall never make you repeat what you have
been told, but constantly ask you what you have
seen yourselves. (Wright, 1950)
The summer experience at Penikese provided a group of American educators and
scientists-in-training with their first exposure to studying nature in nature. There
were no formal courses, no prepared lectures, and no systematic treatments of
marine fauna and flora. Instead, Penikese
provided a powerful illustration of the value
of marine studies to teach students how to
investigate nature without relying on the
printed word.
The value of Penikese extended beyond
its brief two years of existence. By exposing
the students to the bountiful specimens that
could be studied in the marine environment and by demonstrating the methods
of natural history on marine organisms,
many came away impressed with the utility
and possibilities of marine studies. But even
here, there was little immediate impact
upon academic biology. After all, there
were no courses, the summer experience
was brief, and no American colleges or universities offered courses during the summer, especially in the sciences. Instead, the
impact was felt most directly in the dominant institution for biological work in the
1870s, the natural history museum.
Two of those who attended Penikese
were Alpheus Packard and Alpheus Hyatt.
Not only did the two Alpheus's share the
same distinguished name, they were also
both involved with museums, Packard with
the Peabody Academy of Science and Hyatt
with the Boston Society of Natural History.
After Penikese closed in 1874, Packard
made plans to open the "Summer School
of Biology" in 1876. Similar to Penikese,
this was a six-week experience in various
aspects of marine botany and zoology for
school teachers, although no formal courses
were offered. Packard's methods of
instruction mirrored those he observed on
Buzzard's Bay. In 1877 he told his students, "The idea I would impress upon you
is to spend the bulk of your time in the
thorough study of a few typical forms of
life, dissect and draw, learning how to
observe; and when you have learned to
observe for yourselves, it will be easy to
teach others" (Dexter, 1957). Hyatt's
marine station, the "Teacher's school of
science" sponsored by the Boston Society
of Natural History and Boston's Women's
Educational Association (WEA), had an
identical theme. Known popularly as
Annisquam, after its location, the marine
station was designed "to afford opportunities for the study and observation of the
development, anatomy, and habits of common types of marine animals under suitable directions and advice" (Dexter, 1952).
The latter referred to the same methods
of natural history that were practiced by
museum-oriented naturalists; that is, collecting, preserving, drawing, and classifying marine organisms.
It is interesting to note that Hyatt's summer session was supported by the generosity of the Women's Educational Association. The WEA exhibited a profound
concern for the state of teaching, especially
on the level of secondary schools. It had
previously supported the efforts of the Boston Society of Natural History through its
short winter course in science and then
supported Hyatt's summer station, again
for its educational mission. And Hyatt's
seaside laboratory was a success. The report
of the 1882 session read: "Several of the
teachers after their work was finished
expressed their gratefulness for the new
powers the course had developed in themselves, and the fascinating pleasures they
had experienced in learning to use their
own eyes and hands in the study of things
hitherto unappropriate for their uncultivated senses, except through the deceptive
meditation of books" (Anonymous, 188283). Clearly here is another example of the
pedagogical worth of marine studies in
teaching the rudiments of observing in
nature.
But as I have emphasized earlier, Penikese, Peabody, and Annisquam did not
address the problems of science teaching
in the university. And these problems were
T H E TEACHING ARGUMENT
great. In the second volume of Science,
printed in 1883, the editors claimed that
the " . . . gravest danger before this branch
of learning [natural history] is to be found
in the radical imperfection of the methods
of science-teaching in use in our schools"
(Anonymous, 18836). But despite this recognition, the only university to address
directly this problem was the new graduate
university, Johns Hopkins. Both H. Newell
Martin, a physiologist, and William Keith
Brooks, a morphologist, made laboratoryoriented teaching, including exposure to
the latest methods of biology, an integral
part of the academic year in Baltimore
(Benson, 1987<z). Brooks even instituted his
own marine station, the Chesapeake Zoological Laboratory, in 1878. But this marine
center was different from the earlier natural history stations because it taught the
methods of research in morphology and
did not offer any introductory courses in
marine biology that American undergraduates so desperately needed.
Not until 1886 did the leaders of American biology propose to develop a marine
laboratory that had an educational objective aimed at university students. In that
year, the WEA circulated a letter among
eastern naturalists to "test the waters" for
the interest in establishing a permanent
summer laboratory. The response was positive and by 1887 plans were underway to
organize and build the Marine Biological
Laboratory (MBL) at Woods Hole. Similarly and in the same year, Joseph LeConte
of the University of California at Berkeley,
attempted to hire Brooks from Johns Hopkins to begin a program in marine biology
on the west coast. LeConte wanted ". . .
some one who can tell us and show us what
modern Biology is, and also stir up the
Regents on the subject of a Marine Station" (LeConte, 1887). By the end of the
1880s, and most notably in the 1890s,
marine biology's educational imperative
became fixed to the new science orientation of American universities and several
new stations emerged.
When the MBL opened in 1888, with
generous support of the WEA, it had a
clear debt to the natural history orienta-
11
tion of the earlier stations. B. H. Van Vleck,
the instructor at Annisquam, was the original instructor at the MBL teaching the
original course, invertebrate zoology. The
difference was that the course at the MBL
was directed at university students. By 1893
four organized courses were taught—
invertebrate zoology, marine botany,
invertebrate embryology, and general
physiology—and all the instructors were
faculty members from major universities.
But no sooner had this educational mission
been articulated than a subtle tension
developed. The WEA had been a long-time
champion of undergraduate education;
others at the MBL wanted to encourage
research. C. O. Whitman, the director,
preferred a middle ground that was not
overtly incompatible with the goals of the
WEA. "The aim from the outset has been
to provide for both investigation and
instruction, but for the latter as subsidiary
to the former. The problem has been to
combine the two in such relations that each
would contribute most to the same end—
the advancement of science" (Whitman,
1893). The WEA did not appreciate the
dual purpose of the MBL and, by century's
end, had largely withdrawn support from
the MBL. Whitman was left to deal with a
problem that has continued to confront
marine biology institutions, the balance
between the teaching mission and the
research objective (Terwilliger, 1987).
A similar pattern of development, that
is the emergence of marine stations as
teaching centers prior to their incorporation of research, was repeated in several
other American institutions. For example,
John S. Kingsley at Tufts founded a marine
station on Mount Desert Island for undergraduates at Tufts, beginning the station
in 1898. By 1913, the station became a
private laboratory, the Harpswell Laboratory, for independent research activity.
Its present name was adopted in 1923, but
it has retained its function primarily as a
research facility after its original teaching
orientation. On the west coast, similar patterns occurred.
While LeConte may have desired a
marine station in 1887, Berkeley's tradi-
12
KEITH R. BENSON
tional academic nemesis, Stanford, was the
first academic institution to sponsor a
marine station when it established Hopkins
Seaside Laboratory in 1892. David Starr
Jordan, a veteran of Penikese and Stanford's first president, wanted a marine station to supplement university courses in
zoology, botany, and physiology. He had
already, in 1891, visited Pacific Grove, the
center of the Pacific Coast Chautauqua
Assembly, and was impressed by the educational opportunities available in the area
and the favorable setting of the area on
Monterey Bay for marine studies. In the
fall of 1891, Jordan sent Charles H. Gilbert, the zoologist at Stanford, and Oliver
P.Jenkins, the university's physiologist, to
survey the same coastline and they affirmed
the desirability of Pacific Grove. With
money from Timothy Hopkins, the Hopkins Seaside Laboratory was built for the
summer of 1892 and opened to offer
courses in zoology and marine botany for
teachers wishing to become familiar with
marine biology and to learn the practical
methods of study. Although another aim
for Hopkins was to provide a research facility, the teaching function predominated
and little research was done in the early
years. In fact, the first outside investigators
did not arrive at the station until 1897; by
this time the vast majority of participants
at Johns Hopkins were undergraduates and
teachers enrolled in the introductory
courses in marine zoology and botany. Gilbert and Jenkins continued as directors of
the laboratory until the end of the 1910s.
At this time, Hopkins provided additional
funds and a new site to build a completely
new facility that was equipped with the latest equipment for sophisticated research.
In 1918, the new Hopkins Marine Station
opened for year-round teaching and
research under the direction of a full-time
director, W. K. Fisher.
In a certain sense, William Emerson Ritter attempted to duplicate Stanford's
experiment by establishing a southern California marine station. After collecting in
the San Diego area for a number of years,
Ritter decided that the location was ideal
for a marine laboratory. But the laboratory
was not to serve only as a collecting site.
After all, Ritter developed the first laboratory course in zoology at Berkeley in
1892; certainly a marine station under his
guidance would have a similar focus. To
solve the ever-present funding problems,
Ritter was able to supplement the meager
allowance from the state with finances from
an unusual alliance of wealthy San Diegans,
and together they formed the Marine
Biological Association of San Diego in
1903. The laboratory the association sponsored was, at the outset, an extremely modest undertaking. Introductory marine
courses were originally held in the boat
house of the Coronado Beach Hotel. Then,
in 1904, Ritter struck a firm relationship
with George and Ellen Scripps that guaranteed he would never again be at pains to
find money. The laboratory moved to a
new site, the Green Laboratory at Alligator Head, and all introductory teaching was
dropped. In its place, Ritter began to construct what eventually became (in 1912)
the Scripps Institution for Biological
Research and the new institution moved
into its present location at La Jolla. After
a brief year of instruction, Ritter's institution shifted completely to research.
Farther north, the teaching orientation
of the University of Washington's marine
station predominated even as Scripps
moved to research. The Marine Station, as
it was called until 1910, was begun in 1904
under the leadership of Trevor Kincaid,
the university's naturalist cum zoologist,
and T. C. Frye, the newly-hired botanist
from the University of Chicago. The enterprise at the outset was modest; in fact, during the first two years Kincaid and Frye
selected only a few students for a six-week
venture to collect specimens and to learn
field methods. The program was expanded
in 1906 to include two formal courses,
marine zoology and marine botany. As the
popularity of the Station grew, additional
courses were added including embryology,
microscopy, and marine ecology. The last
course was a new development in American marine biology, taught by H. C. Cowles
from Chicago. By 1914, when Frye became
permanent director of the Puget Sound
Biological Station, the educational program was further specialized into an uni-
THE TEACHING ARGUMENT
versity curriculum and a "normal" program. The former was directed toward
introductory students in marine biology
who sought a foundation in marine studies
prior to more advanced training. The latter included courses offered for students
planning careers in education. In addition,
but secondary to teaching, the Station
offered laboratory space for independent
investigators. After 1924 when the Station
moved to its present site at Pt. Caution,
research opportunities at Friday Harbor
increased. But from the early years, the
clear orientation of the institution emphasized teaching.
Teaching at marine institutions also led
to another uniquely American phenomenon, the development of formal courses.
Remember, prior to 1873 Americans
lacked any experience in teaching in the
marine environment. Furthermore, prior
to 1888, there were no formal courses in
marine biology. The original teaching
method borrowed heavily from Agassiz's
natural history approach and from T. H.
Huxley's laboratory approach. The latter
used selected common types of organisms
to illustrate general principles in morphology and physiology. This style of
teaching, combining Agassiz and Huxley,
became standard fare at Peabody and
Annisquam.
With the recognition of the need for a
more formal preparation for American
students seeking either an introduction to
marine biology or a firm grounding for
more advanced work, Huxley's method was
expanded. Laboratory texts were written
and systematic survey courses were developed. At the MBL, Hopkins and Friday
Harbor, the introductory course in invertebrate zoology and marine biology
attempted to cover all the representative
forms located in these respective locations.
Biologists realized that this kind of experience was necessary even if the student
was preparing to teach secondary school.
For more advanced students, a similar education was imperative.
In addition to developing specialized
courses, most of which represent standard
marine biology courses, the stations also
served as the loci for the dissemination of
13
new techniques in biology. The 1870s was
a decade of innovation: new physiological
apparati from German laboratories, new
staining and preserving techniques, the
rotary microtome allowing serial sections,
and improved optics in the microscope are
examples (Benson, 1987c). These techniques, all European, were virtually inaccessible to Americans because the instruments were not routinely imported to this
country, there were no handbooks printed
in the United States to describe the innovations, and Americans had generally poor
access to European biological journals. One
major objective of Brooks's Chesapeake
Laboratory was to expose his graduate students to the latest research techniques from
Europe. Other American microscopists and
experimentalists shared this objective. In
fact, the Society of Naturalists of the Eastern United States, formed in 1883 and
arguably a relative of ASZ, made this same
goal the objective of the society. The naturalists wanted to encourage "the discussion of methods of investigation and
instruction, laboratory technique and
museum administration, and other topics
of interest to investigators and teachers of
natural history, and for the adoption of
such measures as shall tend to the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of
natural history in the community" (Anonymous, 1883a). Marine stations served as
excellent vehicles to teach technique. Not
only did C. O. Whitman publish his work
on microscopical technique in 1885,
America's first handbook to teach these
procedures, but he also instituted the first
course in embryology at the MBL, which
became the area of biological investigation
at marine stations and a critical factor in
the formation of the American cytological
community. Similar courses were taught
later on the west coast as young professors
trained in marine biology obtained academic positions in the west and brought
the new techniques with them.
By the second decade of the twentieth
century there was a powerful argument for
marine biology programs and marine biology institutions in the United States. Paralleling the recognition for a major overhaul of science education in American
14
KEITH R. BENSON
schools and universities, and a greater utility for scientific careers and appreciation
for the culture of science, the new institutions originally served as important
teaching facilities. Here Americans were
exposed to the new area of marine biology,
they were introduced to major biological
principles using the ever abundant marine
organisms, and they were taught the latest
biological techniques. All these factors
contributed to the vital character of marine
biology and marine biology institutions in
the growth and development of the American biology community. What remained
for the twentieth-century inheritors of the
tradition was to work out the relationship
between teaching and research on the
ocean shores.
REFERENCES
Allen, G. 1975. Life science in the twentieth century.
ican development of biology. University of Pennsyl-
vania Press, Philadelphia. (In press)
Clarke, F. W. 1876. American colleges versus American science. Pop. Sci. Month. 4:467.
Dexter, R. 1952. The Annisquam Seaside Laboratory of Alpheus Hyatt. Sci. Month. 74:112-116.
Dexter, R. 1957. The Summer School of Biology at
the Peabody Academy of Science, 1876-1888.
AIBSBull. 7:21-23.
Frick, D. 1986. The life and career of Henry Newell
Martin: Pioneer in American physiological education and research. Master's Thesis, University
of Washington.
Herber, E. C. 1963. Correspondence between Spencer
Fullerlon Baird and Louis Agassiz—two pioneer
American naturalists. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington.
Kohlstedt, S. G. 1987. Museums on campus: A tradition of inquiry and teaching." In R. Rainger el
al. (eds.), The American development of biology. Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. (In
press)
LeConte, J. to W. K. Brooks, 9 April 1987. Johns
Hopkins University, Eisenhower Library, Manuscript Room, Gilman Collection.
Lurie, E. 1960. Louis Agassiz: A life in science. UniCambridge University Press, Cambridge.
versity of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Anonymous. 1882-83. Annual meeting. Proc. Boston
Maienschein, J. 1985. Agassiz, Hyatt, Whitman, and
Soc. Nat. Hist. 22:9-11.
the birth of the Marine Biological Laboratory.
Anonymous. 1883a The Society of Naturalists of the
Biol. Bull. 168(Suppl.):26-34.
Eastern United States. Science 1:411-412.
Maienschein,
J. (ed.) 1986. Defining biology. Harvard
Anonymous. 18836. The American Association for
University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
the Advancement of Science. Science 2:151-153.
Benson, K. R. 1987a. H. Newell Martin, W. K. Brooks, Pauly, P.J. 1984. The appearance of academic biology in late nineteenth-century America. J. Hist.
and the reformation of American biology. Amer.
Biol. 17:369-397.
Zool. 27:759-771.
Shaler, N. S. 1909. The autobiography of Nathaniel
Benson, K. R. 1987*. Laboratories on the New
Southgate Shaler: With a supplementary memoir by his
England shore: The 'somewhat different direcwife. Houghton, Mifflin Co., New York.
tion' of American marine biology. New England
Terwilliger,
R. C. 1988. Teaching and research at
Quart. (In press)
marine stations: Present priorities, future direcBenson, K. R. 1987c. The Naples Stazione Zoologica
tions. Amer. Zool. 28:27-34.
and its impact on the emergence of American
marine biology: Entwicklungsmechanik and cell-lin- Whitman, C. O. 1893. A marine biological observatory. Pop. Sci. Month. 42:459-471.
eage studies. J. Hist. Biol. (In press)
Benson, K. R. 1987rf. From museum research to lab- Wilder, B. G. 1898. Agassiz at Penikese. Am. Nat.
32:89.
oratory research: The transformation of natural
history into academic biology. In R. Rainger, K. Wright, A. H. and A. A. Wright. 1950. Agassiz's
address at the opening of Agassiz's Academy. Am.
R. Benson, and J. Maienschein (eds.), The AmerMid. Nat. 43:503-506.