At a later date (1876. On the Study of Biology) Huxley says: “For whatever view we may entertain about the nature of man, one thing is perfectly certain, that he is a living creature. Hence, if our definition is to be interpreted strictly, we must include man and all his ways and works under the head of Biology; in which case, we should find that psychology, politics, and political economy would be absorbed into the province of Biology. In strict logic no one can object to this course.... The real fact is that we biologists are a self-sacrificing people ... [so that] we feel that we have more than sufficient territory.... But I should like you to recollect that that is a sacrifice, and that you should not be surprised if it occasionally happens that you see a biologist apparently trespassing in the region of philosophy or politics; or meddling with human education; because, after all, that is a part of his kingdom which he has only voluntarily forsaken.” Whether sociology is regarded as a response of man to his fellows or to the whole of his environment is inconsequential in its bearing upon whether or not it is ecological. The response of man, as an animal, to a part or the whole of his environment is strictly ecological. Huxley recognized one relation very clearly, and that is that the ecological relations of _individuals_ do not currently include the higher synthesis which deals with them as associations, or “aggregates” as he terms them. So far as known to the writer, human activities in general have never been fully and comprehensively oriented from the ecological standpoint, even by the humanitarians themselves, although some important preliminary steps have been taken. It looks as if such a viewpoint might give a new unity to all studies of human relations.