CORRESP ONDENCE. 



125 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



A DIFFICULTY REGARDING EVOLU- 

 TION. 



Editor Popular Science Monthly : 



I did not see Mr. Royse's letter on this 

 subject until to-day. As he desires an 

 answer, I will say a very few words. 



The substance of Mr. Royse's difficulty 

 is this : The chicken comes from the egg — 

 true ; but the egg also comes from the 

 chicken — the mature animal is evolved from 

 the germ-cell, but the germ-coll is produced 

 only by the mature animal. So has it been 

 from the beginning. Which is first ? Have 

 we not quite as much evidence that the 

 mature animal, as that the germ-cell or pro- 

 toplasm, was first ? Of the two, he thinks 

 the former the more probable. 



In answer, I would say that Mr. Royse is 

 probably right. Life did commence with 

 the mature organism. But, according to 

 the evolutionist, the primal organism 

 was both germ-cell and mature ; for the 

 germ condition and the mature condition, 

 in the lowest forms of life, are identical. 

 Such lowest forms, even now, can hardly be 

 said to have an ontogenic history, for they 

 simply divide and redivide without essen- 

 tial change. Life, the germ-cell and the 

 mature organism, all came together at the 

 same moment. How, we know not ; but, 

 once introduced, the theory of evolution 

 gives the process of change during the geo- 

 logical history of the organic kingdom, and 

 shows that it is similar to the ontogenic 

 history of the higher organisms. 



Joseph Le Conte. 

 Bbekelst, Cal., March 9, 1883. 



THE ECONOMIC OUTLOOK. 

 Editor Popular Science Monthly : 



Sir : Readers of " The Popular Science 

 Monthly " are greatly indebted to the Hon. 

 David A. Wells for the large amount of 

 valuable information which he has made 

 both accessible and interesting in his re- 

 cent articles on the " Economic Outlook in 

 the United States." But, as could scarcely 

 be otherwise, in handling such a vast mass 

 of material as the extent of the discussion 

 implies, he has sometimes fallen into errors of 

 fact, to one of which I wish to call attention. 



On pages 460 and 461 of the February 

 number he says : " Forty years ago corn was 

 shelled in the United States by scraping the 

 ears against the sharp edge of a frying-pan 

 or shovel, or using the "cob of one ear to shell 

 the corn from another. In this way about 

 five bushels in ten hours could be shelled, 



and the laborer would receive about one fifth 

 of the product." 



Then Mr. Wells goes on to draw conclu- 

 sions, giving the population of the great corn 

 States as over 2,000,000, and saying it would 

 be needful for the whole population to sit 

 astride of pans and shovels for one hundred 

 and ten days to shell the corn-crop of 1880. 



Now, what are the facts ? I have been 

 over the great corn States mentioned, as 

 well as Kentucky and Tennessee. I can go 

 back more than forty years or even sixty, 

 and know whereof I speak. Fifty years ago 

 and more the farmer who wanted to convert 

 his corn into whisky to send by flat-boat to 

 New Orleans, thence to Cuba or Charleston, 

 unloaded from one to two hundred bushels 

 upon his barn-floor, and put from four to six 

 horses to tramp it out, and in two hours he had 

 200 bushels shelled. This was vastly better 

 than sitting astride a frying-pan or shovel 

 and scraping off five bushels a day. I did it 

 many times, and know just how it was done. 



Again, when the farmer wanted to take a 

 load of meal to the market, he threw a load 

 of corn on his barn-floor, say forty bushels ; 

 then took the old-fashioned flail that hung 

 in every bam, and in an hour he had his 

 forty bushels shelled. This, too, was better 

 than sitting astride his frying-pan or shovel. 

 And let me say, for the honor of the " old 

 flail " and its departed uses, that it was about 

 as good a hand-sheller as any that were 

 found in the old barns. 



Griffith Morris. 

 GiJiNBoWBB, Ohio, Februai-y 8, 1888. 



A CORRECTION. 



Editor Popular Science Monthly : 



Sir : My attention has been called to a 

 misquotation from Dr. C. F. Taylor's paper 

 on " Emotional Prodigality," which occurred 

 in my article on " Emotions versus Health 

 in Women," printed in the February num- 

 ber of your magazine. Referring to Dr. 

 Taylor's argument that emotional disturb- 

 ances conduced to certain abnormal condi- 

 tions in children, I have used the terms 

 diseases of the spine as coming under his 

 notice. This is an unintentional misquota- 

 tion, as Dr. Taylor uses the terms lateral 

 curvature and lateral distortion ; and, that 

 my own thought was not of diseases, but 

 of these abnormities, the context will show. 

 In the same paragraph (page 505) the sec- 

 ond quotation, to be entire, should read: 

 " I may say that at least two thirds of all 

 lateral distortions of the spinal column are 

 directly traceable to mental overaction, 



