2 12 



HARDWICKE'S SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



Devon. This was abundant higher up the glen ; but 

 was out of flower, as was also the sea cabbage 

 (Brassica oleracea), with large racemes and pods. 

 Among the masses of stone, the wild madder [Rubia 

 peregrina) luxuriously winds its stems and spreads its 

 prickly leaves in profusion, and on searching among 

 the ivy, on its roots, I met with the find of the afternoon, 

 Orobanche hederce. It has a more lax spike than that 

 of the O. minor, and its flowers are paler and were 

 in some instances quite white. Two plants which I 

 sought for, I'icia sylvatica and Melittis melissophyllum 

 recorded from this place, I did not fall in with, from 

 some reason or other. Again climbing the steep 

 ascent, above which were whistling the bullets of the 

 volunteers who were at practice, and listening to 

 their "ping" as they struck the target, many more 

 common but scarcely less interesting species were to 

 be seen, such as, Dancus maritimus, Cardials tenui- 

 florus, Geranium columbinum, and G. lucidum, Hyperi- 

 cum monlauum, Linum angusti/olium, Spinra 

 Filipendula, Cotyledon umbilicus, Silene maritima, 

 Iris fiitidissima, Viburnum Lantana, Pyrus aria in 

 plenty, and Arabis hirsuta, rather sparingly. All the 

 plants above mentioned, including Ligustrum vulgare, 

 were undoubtedly indigenous. Time did not admit 

 of the full exploration of the southern cliffs which 

 are covered with shrubs, among which grew Solidago 

 Vtrgaurca and Inula Conyza, and after a row across 

 the placid waters of the cove, at sunset, in the direc- 

 tion of Berry Head, a pleasant return was made to 

 Paignton. — F. H. Arnold. 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



Rudiments. — Ten months " ago I started the 

 question as to the appropriateness of Mr. Darwin's 

 use of the term " Rudimentary." 



In the course of the argument many other subjects 

 of equal interest have been discussed, until the 

 particular point at issue is likely to be overlooked. 



To some of the readers of Science-Gossip, the 

 question has appeared a "useless quibble," to others 

 it savours of a want of " generosity or magnanimity," 

 and yet, on looking over the remarks that bear 

 immediately upon the subject, I am inclined to think 

 that there is an underlying general feeling that a 

 better word might be substituted. 



Leaving alone, for the present, the question, as to 

 the truth of the conclusion that the word "rudi- 

 mentary " is meant to suggest, I return to the first 

 question. Does the term express what it is intended 

 to, in the " Descent of Man" ? 



Mr. F. G. Fenn, writing in the November number 

 of Science-Gossip, allowed that "Darwin used the 

 word rudimentary where many able anatomists and 

 naturalists would now use vestigial." 



Mr. T. Alfred Dymes, while defending Darwin's 

 use of the word, himself suggests the mental substitu- 

 tion of " modified," " since," he says, " the desire to 

 have the word altered seems to exist." 



"T" who is jealous for the honour of Darwin's 

 memory, and seems to fear that it is at stake, because 

 of the possible misuse of a single term, has neverthe- 



less himself substituted the word "vestigial" for 

 "rudimentary" in the following quotation. "It is 

 not needful," he says, "in these days, to demonstrate 

 again, that the senses of sight, hearing and smell, in 

 man are inherited in an enfeebled and vestigial 

 condition. " * 



Why does "T" substitute "vestigial" for Mr. 

 Darwin's "rudimentary," unless he too is conscious 

 that the latter term is misleading? 



Mr. A. G. Tansley, though disagreeing with the 

 general drift of my last paper, recognises the objection 

 to Mr. Darwin's use of the word "rudimentary," 

 "on the ground that it is not used by him in the 

 generally accepted sense," &c, and suggests, as a 

 more appropriate word, either " reduced " or 

 "degenerated." As the special object of my article 

 was to challenge a defence of the word, and as no 

 adequate defence appears to be forthcoming, perhaps 

 it is useless to weary your readers further with the 

 etymological phase of the question. But while rather 

 a reluctant recognition of the inadequacy of the teim 

 " rudiment " has been obtained, none of your corre- 

 spondents appear willing to allow that the machinery 

 of the human organism (the brain excepted) is up to the 

 "typical standard." An evolution of retrogression 

 is cheerfully accepted as the gradual means by which 

 man has arrived at his present physical condition, and 

 on this poor "degenerate, enfeebled, reduced, 

 modified, inferior, vestigial " instrument, his brain, 

 which apparently alone has progressed, is to act, 

 with this astonishing result, that he is " the most 

 perfect animal known." The inconsistency of a 

 brain that has progressed, being prepared to work an 

 organism that has retrograded, appears to me most 

 apparent. 



It is like Mozart attempting to play on a worn-out 

 lodging-house pnno. 



No one would have recognised Mozart if he 

 had had nothing better to play upon, and the 

 superiority of the human brain power can only be 

 recognised through the instrument that it works. 



Moreover, if we are to believe such an authority as 

 Dr. M. Foster, it would appear that, of the two, the 

 brain is even more dependent upon the machinery, 

 than the machinery upon the brain, for the demon- 

 station of its powers. 



An animal from which the cerebral lobes have been 

 removed can be induced to perform all the 

 movements which an entire animal would be capable 

 of, by means of the application of appropriate stimuli. 



" The machinery," says Dr. M. Foster, " for all the 

 necessary and normal bodily movements is present in 

 all its completeness. The share therefore which the 

 cerebral hemispheres take in executing the movements 

 of which the entire animal is capable, is simply that 

 of putting this machinery into action." Again he 

 says, " The relation which the higher nervous 

 changes concerned in volition bear to this machinery 

 is not unlike that of a stimulus. We might almost 

 speak of the will as an intrinsic stimulus. Its 

 operations are limited by the machinery at its command." 



With such statements of fact before us, it is difficult 

 to see why "it is absurd to import into the question 

 the phenomena belonging to the mind," as your 

 correspondent "T" declares it to be. 



In conclusion I would repeat, that arguing upon 

 evolution ground only, should I compare the organs of 

 different classes of animals one with another, to find 

 the greatest degree of perfection : for while com- 

 parative anatomy has revealed to us the unmistakable 

 family likeness running throughout creation, it does 

 not necessarily follow that we are justified in making 



* The inverted commas and italics are mine. 



