246 



NATURE 



[April 20, 191 1 



the mischief. The following facts, however, show thU to 

 be incorrtict. 



In the first place, the tunnf^U, which run in all direction* 

 beneath the cake of mud, are too small to contain the 

 beetles found embedded in it. 



Secondly, the beetles are found in many other parts 

 where there is no sign of damage to the bone, and quite 

 commonly, in the case of mummies, l>eneath the linen 

 wrappings where these are in contact with the skin, in 

 which situation they arc frequently embedded in the resin 

 or bitumen which has been used in the mummifying 

 process. In these situations there is, of course, no mud 

 whatever, while the damage to the bones is always 

 associated with earthworks and tunnels. 



Thirdly, though the same earthworks appear in every 

 direction in the grave containing affected bones, on the 

 roof, walls, coffin, Sec, no beetles are ever found anywhere 

 in association with such workings except on the body. 



Fourthly, in mummified bodies, where, the wrappings, 

 soaked in bitumen, are so hard as effectually to have ex- 

 cluded even the ravages of white ants, the works of which 

 may, nevertheless, cover the outer surface of such wrap- 

 pings, beetles are still found in and about the mouth and 

 nose of the mummy, some stuck to the teeth, others to the 

 linen with which the mouth is filled, but not in this case 

 on the outer surface of the wrappings, where they ought 

 to be if they were the authors of the earthworks which 

 cover the mummy cloths. 



From these facts it seems clear that the beetles were 

 present before the process of mummification was complete, 

 that they became covered over when the body was wrapped, 

 or possibly were not hatched until this was complete, and 

 so are found stuck to the resinous wrappings. In cases 

 where less bitumen or other substance was employed, and 

 the body was merely wound in cloths, the white ants were 

 able to make their way through these with the greatest 

 ease. While doing so they would come in contact with 

 the beetles which had been included in the wrappings, and 

 these would then perforce become embedded in the mass 

 of earth brought up by the termites. It is noteworthy 

 that complete bodies of beetles are seldom or never found 

 in the mud. If carefully examined, their heads, legs, and 

 under parts are usually gone, only the tough wing cases 

 remaining, and these are so strong that to a certain point 

 they will resist crushing with the fingers. On the other 

 hand, beetles complete, so far as the naked eye can detect, 

 in every part, even to the delicate antennae, have been 

 found under the wrappings, and particularly in the neigh- 

 bourhood of the mouth and nose. The inference from this 

 is, of course, that the white ants devoured the softer parts 

 of the beetles' when they found the bodies of these animals 

 in their path,- leaving the hard portions stuck in the mud 

 of their buildings. Douglas E. Derrv. 



Anatomical Department, University College, 

 London, W.C. 



What is the genotype of X . . us Jones, 1900, based 



upon a species erroneously determined as a/dus Smith, 



1890? 



Statement of Case. — Jones proposes a new genus X,.us, 

 1900, type species alhus Smith, 1800. 



It later develops that albus Smith, iSqo, as determined 

 by Jones, iqoo, is an erroneous determination. 



What is the genotype of X . . us, iqoo ; albus Smith, 

 1890, or the form erroneously identified by Jones as albus 

 in 1900? 



Discussion. — The nomenclatorial problem expressed in th& 

 caption of this note is solved in two diametrically opposite 

 ways by different authors. 



Some writers maintain that the original alhus Smith, 

 1890, is the genotype, while others maintain that the geno- 

 type is represented by the species actually studied by Jones 

 and misdetermined as albus Smith. 



Cases of this general nature have given rise to consider- 

 able confusion in nomenclature, and several such cases have 

 been referred to the International Commission on Nomen- 

 clature for opinion. 



.\t the last meeting of the Commission, the principles 

 involved came up for discussion, but it was impossible to 

 reach a unanimous agreement. On account of the differ- 

 ences of opinion, the secretary was instructed to make a 



NO. 2164, VOL. 86] 



careful study of a numb<.-r of cases, and to report upon the 

 same to the Commission. 



It is not diflicult to foresee that, no matter how the cases 

 are finally decided, great dissatisfaction will arise among 

 zoologists, Ixrause the opinion rendered is not the direct 

 opposite of what it eventually will be. 



Recognising that this is one of the most difficult cases 

 that has ever b<;en submitted to the Commission, and 

 recognising the fact that, regardless of our action, wc shall 

 probably be criticised more on the basis of our decision on 

 this case than because of any other opinion that we have 

 rendered, I am desirous of studying at least too cases, if 

 possible, that would come under such a ruling, before my 

 report is formulated. 



In view of the foregoing premises, I respectfully request 

 zoologists in different groups to direct my attention to as 

 many instances of this kind as possible with which they 

 are acquainted in their differf^nt sp«-cialities. Further, since 

 the arguments on both sides of the problem app*,'ar to be 

 almost equally valid, it do<'s not seem impossible that the 

 final decision will have to be based upon the arbitrary 

 choice between the two possible rulings, and on this account 

 I am desirous of obtaining all possible arguments on both 

 sides as they occur to different zoologists, and also any 

 personal views based upon convenience or inconvenience, or 

 other grounds, which may be held by different colleagues. 



I will hold the case open at least until September i, for : 



the presentation of arguments by any persons w! 



desire to submit their views. 



C. W. Stiles, 



.April 4. Secretary of the Commission. 



A Kinetic Theory of Gravitation. 



.As one who for many years has been attracted by the 

 problem of gravitation, I was greatly interested in Mr. 

 C. F. Brush's " Kinetic Theory of Gravitation " (Nature, 

 March 23), and in Sir Oliver Lodge's letter relating thereto 

 (N.ATURE, March 30). 



About three years ago I made an attempt to examine 

 how far gravitation might be accounted for by waves of 

 compressional type propagated through the aether (cf. Phil. 

 Mag., January, 1909). Before any such theory can be, 

 admitted, even as a working hypothesis, it must be shown 

 by rigorous dynamical methods to be capable of accounting 

 for gravitational attraction. This in itself involves no 

 elaborate analysis, though questions arise as to the funda- 

 mental nature of matter and of its motion with rf^n. 1 1 t . 

 the aether. 



It appears, in opposition to what might readily 

 posed, that Mr. Brush's assumption of a directionally 

 indifferent (isotropic) distribution of waves is not needed : 

 a single progressive train of plane-waves would answer 

 equally well. The real difTiculties of the theory are en- 





countered when we consider the several effects, other than 

 gravitational attraction, which might arise from the impact 

 of compressional aethereal waves upon atomic matter. It 

 has to be shown that, under admissible assumptions, the 

 direct action of the waves would not give rise to any 

 observable phenomena of motion, and that the heating 

 effect might be »ii7, or small enough to escape observation. 

 Other points no less important have also to be considered ; 

 they aredealt with at length in mv paper. 



I fully concur in Sir O. Lodge's objection to regarding 

 the atom " as a foreign substance — a sort of * grit ' in the 

 ;ether, " and, in the paper referred to, matter was treated 

 as of purely aethereal constitution, the motion of a material 

 body through the aether being reg.irded as unaccompanied 

 bv any bodily transference of ultimate matter through finite 

 distances. .As to whether the gravitative property of 

 matter is essentially bound up with its constitution, or is 

 due to something external, I think .Sir O. Lodge will agree 

 thnt, notwithstanding metaphysical prepossessions (in which 

 I largely share), we should yet keep an open mind. The 



i real solution of the question is perhaps very different from 



' what we are reasonably entitled to expect ! 



j It may be mentioned, however, that some experiments 



I now in progress seem likely to add very considerably to 

 th" difticultv of accepting a compressional-wave theory of 

 gravitation.' C. V. Bcrtos. 



Boar's Hill. Oxford. April 2. 



