HARD WICKE ' S S CIE NCE - G O SSI P. 



i5 



sense is evident, as " vestige " and " rudiment " are 

 used by him interchangeably, and his own explanation 

 of the word " rudimentary" is as follows. He says, 

 " In order to understand the existence of rudimentary 

 organs, we have only to suppose that a former pro- 

 genitor possessed the parts in question in a perfect 

 state, and that under changed habits of life they 

 became greatly reduced." But he especially contra- 

 dicts the latter meaning attributed to him by Mr. 

 Fenn. 



Far from stating that rudimentary organs are 

 "beginnings of structures in process of development," 

 Mr. Darwin explains that they "are either absolutely 

 useless," or "tending in this direction," and that 

 they must be distinguished from "nascent organs," 

 which, he says, " on the other hand, though not fully 

 developed, &c, are capable of further development." 



From this it is plain that in the one sense only 

 does Mr. Darwin allow that the word is used by him ; 

 and to show the confusion of ideas that the retention 

 of the terms in this sense is bound to involve, was the 

 object of my paper. 



Mr. Fenn's statement that " many able anatomists 

 and naturalists would now use ' vestiges ' in the place 

 of 'rudimentary,' " only tends to suggest a doubt of 

 its correct application. Why should vestigial be 

 substituted, unless rudimentary appeared unsuitable ? 

 And we have only to refer to its derivation, and to 

 the authority of numerous writers, to perceive at once 

 that it is eminently unsuitable. Dryden, Addison, 

 Bacon — all used the word rudimentary in its true 

 sense of "first, inaccurate, unshapen, beginning or 

 original of anything." 



With Shakspeare, Locke, Milton, and others, it 

 also meant "first principles and first elements" ; and 

 many authors of repute might be quoted to confirm 

 this as the rightful use of the word. Only, I believe, 

 among modern scientists would the strange perversion 

 of the word be found. 



Mr. Fenn is of opinion that I have read Mr. 

 Darwin's works with a "preconceived idea" of 

 their teaching ; but I am bound to acknowledge 

 that if I had any bias at all, it was strongly in favour 

 of the honest, painstaking scientist ; and if Mr. 

 Darwin, by his persistent accuracy, has taught his 

 readers to submit terms as well as facts to a strict 

 investigation, he would have been the last to 

 complain of the jealous regard for truth which 

 cannot sanction the misuse of a single word, even 

 were that word misapplied by himself. 



To Mr. Fenn's question, "Why should we claim 

 perfection for ourselves, and deny it to all other 

 organisms ? " I reply, that, arguing upon evolution 

 grounds, we are bound to look upon anything lower 

 than the ideal form as an arrested development ; and, 

 for the sake of the argument, I adopted that position. 



The subject being a very wide one, and requiring 

 more room than may be claimed for mere corre- 

 spondence, I should be glad at any future time to 



answer the query in full in an article, could space be 

 afforded me to do so. 



I cannot quite reconcile Mr. Fenn's question with 

 the two following statements in his paper. He says, 

 " Perfect as all our organs are at the present, we 

 have no reason for supposing that evolution has 

 reached a limit," &c. Are all our organs perfect at 

 the present time ? Then why does your correspondent 

 object that " Miss Layard would take man as per- 

 fection " ? It seems that we are agreed in this 

 particular. But the next sentence is perplexing. 

 Mr. Fenn continues, "Of all our organs which we 

 have handed down to us, &c, som have been 

 developed, &c. ; others, falling into disuse, have 

 become partially degenerate." Here are two state- 

 ments hard to reconcile. 



"All our organs," we are told, are "perfect at 

 the present time," but some of our organs "have 

 become partially degenerate " ! As it is impossible 

 here to enter at any length into the vast subject of 

 evolution, I would return to the special point at 

 issue — namely, the advisability of retaining or re- 

 jecting the word "rudimentary" in the sense in 

 which it is used by Mr. Darwin. 



Unless abetter excuse can be made for its retention, 

 it would still appear to be misleading and incorrect. 



Nina F. Layard. 



ASTRONOMY AND METEOROLOGY. 

 By John Browning, F.R.A.S. 



THE observations made at the Royal Observatory 

 of the Collegio Romano during April, May, 

 and June, give particulars of the distributions of the 

 solar spots, faculre, and protuberances, and a table of 

 the numbers and comparative extent of the spots and 

 faculce observed from July to September. A great 

 diminution took place in both spots and faculse 

 towards the end of August, and in the intervals 

 between the 23rd of August and the 2nd of Sep- 

 tember, and the 51I1 to the 12th of September, no 

 spots or faculae were seen. 



At the meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society, 

 held on the nth of November, a letter from Mr. 

 Roberts was read, in which he offered to place at 

 the disposal of Fellows of the Society photographic 

 negatives of stellar groups which will enable them, 

 by using a proper microscope and micrometer, to 

 obtain, by measurement, results that may be useful 

 to astronomy. 



Professor Pritchard read a paper on Further 

 Researches in Stellar Parallax by Photographic 

 Methods. 



Mr. Creswick exhibited some photographs of star- 

 groups which had been taken at Greenwich with 

 the Sheepshanks Equatorial on curved plates, to 

 determine the extent of the field that would be made 

 use of for purposes of measurement. The result 



