1898] I 431 



CORRESPONDENCE 



LLHUYD 



Youii interesting notice of LUniyd does liim no more tlian justice ; it is indeed 

 strange that Prof. Sollas shoidd liavo forgotten to mention liim in his inaugural lecture. 

 SutOi was not the treatment Llluiyd j-eeeived at the hands of Edward Forbes, who 

 dedicated to him the starfish genus Liiidia, and thus wrote : "He was a man of great 

 knowledge and great talent. His studies were extended over large tracts of science and 

 literature, and he enlightened both with his researches and his writings. He united a 

 comi)reliensive and philosophical mind with an observing eye and the energy to execute. 

 Amid the multiplicity of his studies there was no confusion. He wrote on insects, 

 plants, fossils, antiij^uities, and languages ; on all much and well. Ray praised him. 

 Strange to say his name is omitted in many of our cyclopedias, which ilevote whole 

 pages to men of less repnte." W. B. Carijenter, also, in his " Researches on Antedon," 

 spoke of Llliuyd as a " naturalist who deserves more honour than he has gained." His 

 " Lithophylacii Britannici Ichnographia " is "a work which, the more it is examined, 

 leaves a stronger and yet stronger impression of the industry and sagacity of its author. 

 To elucidate the nature of Fossils by the comparison of their forms with those of existing 

 Animals and Plants — familiar as the principle now seems to us — had not been systemati- 

 cally attempted by any previous Naturalist ; and no one who may bestow a little atten- 

 tion on the contents of the ' Lithophylacium ' can fail to jjcrceive that it is something 

 much more valuable than a mere collector's catalogue, and deals with questions far more 

 important than those of nomenclature." The addition of my own opinion to those of 

 these eminent naturalists would be an impertinence ; but, since my studies have recently 

 led me to peruse the writings of Llhuyd, as well as of his predecessors and contemporaries, 

 I may be permitted to contirm the statements of W. B. Carpenter, with reference to 

 Llhuyd's work on Crinoidea. Not only did he place all fossils showing what we 

 now recognise as echinodermal structure in his class Crufitacea jmncfulata, but he dis- 

 tinguished Antedon as the particular sea-star to which the stalked Crinoidea were most 

 nearly related. Rosinus, to whom the merit of recognising the animal nature of fossil 

 crinoids has often been ascribed, published his views sixteen years later, and compared 

 the fossils not with Antedon, but with Euryalc, which is an ophiurid. 



F. A. Bather. 



MR TAYLER ON EVOLUTION 



The article in the April number, p. 231, on 'The Study of Variations' must find a 

 responsive echo in the minds of all who, in these later days, have struggled strenu- 

 ously to contemplate the facts of nature in a true scientific spirit. Mr Tayler opens his 

 remarks by asserting that the tendency in all branches of science is just now to neglect 

 all purely theoretical conceptions, yet at the end of his paper he very properly fails to 

 see the use of continuing the discussion anent the various theories of evolution as it 

 now stands. He does not supply any hint as to the ' what next ' theory that ought to 

 be discussed in its place. After quoting a passage from Prof. Poulton, which reads like 

 one from a light and early essay of Macaulay or De Quincey, and in which, as might be 

 expected, the poetical imagination is hopelessly confounded with the scientific intellect, 

 Mr Tayler states that " this passage appears to me to be singularly applicable to evolu- 

 tionists of the present day," meaning, I .suppose, that "the strictest self-criticism and 

 the soundest judgment' have not been exercised anent the problems for and against 

 use-inheritance, etc. Now, it would be exceedingly interesting to be informed as to 

 the ways and means whereby any sort of scientific judgment can be pronounced, other 

 than those directly deduced from or dependent on experiment. I might, for instance, 

 theorise that the elements are really one, that they have been evolved from a primordial 

 substance, a single principle, etc. ; but if, like Stas, I tried to prove the hypothesis ex- 

 perimentally, I should certainly fail. My theory would be very nice, and if I were a 

 poet, I should cling fondly to it, or, like a certain F.C.S. with plenty of cash, I might, 

 in furtherance thereof and having denounced Stas's experiments, ofter a prize of £100 

 to anybody who could show a spectrum of thallium having only one green line, etc. 

 If such be the mode whereby questions of physics and chemistry admitting of ocular 

 demonstration can only lie settled, where does 'the strictest self-criticism,' etc., come 

 in in matters of biology, which admit of no such precision and exactitude, or anything 

 like them ? Given the correct and proper scientific idea, and your self-criticism, etc. , 

 will be found to take care of itself. 



