1897] 215 
CORRESPON DENCE 
WOMEN WITH BEARDS 
Tue idea of the woman of the future having a beard, noticed in Natural Science, vol. 
xi., p. 2, as set forth by Dr A. Brandt, is scarcely new. If it is not definitely stated 
by Darwin in his ‘‘ Descent of Man,” at any rate it is an obvious conclusion from what 
he has to say concerning the appearance of distinctive masculine characters, such as 
horns, sometimes in the male sex only, sometimes in both sexes. The appearance of the 
beard in Homo is quite analogous to that of horns in other animals ; and just as horns 
have apparently been acquired by the females of certain species by what may be called 
‘‘inherited transference” from the males, so will beards be obtained in time by the 
future females of Homo. 
I thought I had actually drawn attention to this matter of beards in ‘‘Some Laws 
of Heredity” (Proc. Cotteswold Field Club, vol. x., 1892), but I cannot find it. I 
had it and the case of horns, etc., in my mind when I wrote therein (p. 275), ‘A 
marked character of the male sex . . . being transmitted in accordance with the law 
of earlier inheritance, ultimately appears early in life in the male. Then the character 
tends to appear in the female sex also, though why it does so is not clear.” Also the 
transference may be from female to male, which would appear to be the case with 
rudimentary mamme in the male of Homo. 
Let me point out another biological aspect of the case :—Facial hairiness is ex- 
hibited more by the unmarried than by the married women. It seems that each woman 
receives from her male parent latent beard-characters. If she have children she 
certainly transmits such characters to them. If she has no offspring it seems that the 
characters tend to develop in her own person. So it will be in the old woman, and not 
in the ‘‘new woman” of the future, that the beard will ke most prominent—a startling 
retribution that the most masculine characters should appear in those who are the 
greatest old maids. 8. S, Buckman, 
CHELTENHAM.- 
CHEMISTRY IN MUSEUMS 
In his notice of the ‘‘ Report of the Proceedings of the Museums Association,” 1896 
(Natural Science, vol, xi., p. 182), Dr R. H. Traquair, after referring to my paper on 
‘‘Chemistry in Museums” as carrying “‘ the educational theory of museums to a pitch 
of absurdity,” goes on to say: ‘‘ A collection of metals, salts, &c., is no doubt a desirable 
feature in connection with the chemical department of a school or college, but you will 
learn chemistry only in the laboratory, and certainly not ina museum.” The phrase 
** nitch of absurdity ” is too often on the lips and on the pen points of scientific men, and 
coming from the quarter whence it does is only a too effective means of killing sugges- 
tions which might possibly lead to beneficial improvements. As to the sentence I have 
quoted, one might generalise in the same heedless fashion about any of the sciences 
which museums seek to illustrate. But it is not intended in these institutions to supply 
a complete course of study in any branch of science, but to place such illustrations of 
them before the public as will be helpful to those interested in the study. Hundreds of 
cases of stuffed birds and mammals will not teach the science of zoology ; all the dried 
plants and wood sections in the museums of Europe will not teach the science of botany, 
nor can we learn palaeontology by looking at a fossil Glyptolaemus in a museum case. 
These sciences also can only be ‘‘ learnt in the laboratory.” Would Dr Traquair on 
that account refuse the stuffed bird or mammal, the dried plant and the fossil, a place 
in the museum? Do not the many mineralogical cases which litter the floors of museums 
contain simply ‘‘a collection of metals, salts, &c.” ? and these teach, if they teach any- 
thing at all, a very little of the science of chemistry. Is Dr Traquair of opinion that a 
good artificial crystal of common salt is of less educational value than an indifferent 
natural crystal of Halite ? 
At the time when my paper was written I was fresh from the laboratory of a tech- 
nical college, and thought I saw a way to help not only the laboratory student, but 
also that larger class which is interested in science but cannot obtain access to the 
laboratories. I did not, be it observed, advocate the formation of a new museum de- 
partment; I merely asked for the re-arrangement and extension of a department already 
existing in some museums. In the Edinburgh Museum of Science and Art, for instance, 
