766 JOURNAL, BOMBAY NATURAL EISTORY SOCIETY, Vol. XIX. 



earth where nature can be studied under the most favourable conditions 

 and those who conduct scientific breeding experiments." A charmingly naive 

 assumption, which will be cordially endorsed by the members of our Society ! 

 Has India risen to a position of "scientific supremacy " with all her advantages 

 for adopting these lines of research ? We fear the present deplorable condi- 

 tion of biology in India is due to the almost total neglect of laboratory and dis- 

 secting room research. The morphology of the authors is but skin-deep to 

 judge by the proportion of the book devoted to colour and superficial variations. 



What progress are we to expect from the " systematists/' such as the 

 entomologist who in a few years will have invented over million species of 

 insects ? Nomenclature and classification are the be-all and the end-all of 

 certain naturalists. To us it seems like learning (he index of a book before 

 reading its contents. Why is not work done by the graduates of our Indian 

 Universities, our B. Sc's., and M.A's. with Honors in Biology? The reason is 

 they do little practical work in the laboratory. Their learning is obtained 

 from books and wax models. 



Notwithstanding Darwin has described climate as " the most effective of all 

 checks," the authors complain : " In our opinion Darwin did not lay nearly 

 enough stress upon the importance of climate as a check on the increase of 

 'species.' Darwin failed to notice the potent effects of damp." The authors 

 then proceed to give instances most of which are the results of parasites rather 

 than of damp. 



" Wet snout, " which decimates rabbits in damp climates, is the result of an 

 animal parasite. Camels, sheep, etc., are destroyed by flukes and other parasites 

 in most climates, not by the actual damp itself. Pneumonia and malaria both 

 popularly attributed to damp are due to the flourishing of a vegetable and 

 animal parasite respectively. 



Kay Robinson's statement " Fruits are more generally scented than flowers" 

 is quoted with approval in support of an argument, that the scents of flowers 

 are not an attraction to insects or birds. Are tliey serious in this ? Have they 

 considered the relative odours of the fruits and the fluwers of the Pea, Rose, 

 Hawthorne, Pink and other plants ? The odour of fruits is distinctively func- 

 tional in ensuring the dispersal of seeds in many cases, and is frequently 

 associated with a strong testa or endocarp so that the animal who devours the 

 outer succulent portion will not digest the seed. " Therefore, if we say that 

 plants have scents for the purpose of attracting insects, we accuse all plants 

 which have scented fruits of attempted suicide." 



In the middle of the discussion of Mendel's theory Weissman's experiments 

 with the pupae of Vanessa prorsa and V. levana are quoted. We cannot 

 perceive any relevance. 



Bateson is claimed as of the " school to which we belong" steering " a course 

 between the Scylla of use-inheritance and the Charybdis of the all-sufficiency 

 of natural selection." We fear the open mind of Professor Bateson has yet 

 to be satisfied with an undoubted instance of use-inheriiance. 



