176 



NATURE 



[DECEMBE! 



requisite to substantiate his wholesale and unqualirml con- 

 demnation. May I follow Dr. Reid's example, and quof 

 the whole of his quotation from Prof. Pearson? — "The 

 sameness [in the appearance of moral and intellectual 

 faculties as well as of physical characters] ' surely involves 

 something additional. It involves a lil«; heritajje from 

 parents. The degree of resemblance Ix'twecn childn-n and 

 parents for the physical characters in man may be applied 

 to the degree of resemblance between children and parents 

 for psychical characters. We inherit our parents' tempers, 

 our parfiits' consciousness, shyness and ability, even as we 

 inherit their stature, forearm, and span."' This is the 

 whole of the statement condemned. 



I gather that Dr. Reid thinks as I do, that individuals 

 vary in their capacity for developing various mental 

 characters such as temper, skill in mathematics, music, and 

 the various uses of language, and that such capacities may 

 be. and very frequently are, inherited. Physical characters', 

 different from " eye-colour or hair texture,'"' but such as the 

 capacity for a high or low degree of development of the 

 muscles, bones, or internal organs, and including " stature, 

 fore-arm, and span " to a considerable extent, also vary, 

 and .are very frequently inherited. Such characters, mental or 

 physical, depend upon both inborn capacity and environment 

 for development. Both capacity for development and en- 

 vironment vary, but only the capacity for development is 

 inherited. Therefore I see nothing in Prof. Pearson's state- 

 ment which in any way warrants Dr. Reid in saving that 

 it is "utterly without significance, utterlv void of all 

 content," and " is so vague as to be quite nonsensical." 



It is quite evident that Dr. Reid believes that Prof. 

 Pearson holds that something beyond a capacity for develop- 

 ment, which varies in individuals, is inherited. But there 

 is nothing in the statement which implies anything of the 

 kind, so it appears that Dr. Reid has issued an unqualified 

 condemnation of something, with which he does not dis- 

 agree, that Prof. Pearson has said, because he does not 

 agree with what he believes Prof. Pearson thinks but has 

 not said. 



Now I know that there are people who claim. the peculiar 

 power of knowing what others think without using any 

 of the usual physical means of communication. I. unfor- 

 tunately, have no such power, and I take it that there are 

 niany who, like myself, are in a less fortunate position than 

 the members of Dr. Reid's audience, in whose minds, 

 he tells us, no misapprehension as to his meaning arose! 

 The unfortunate persons who have no means, beyond 

 readmg what has been written, of knowing wliat Prof 

 Pearson and Dr. Reid think, are liable to be seriously 

 misled by what Dr. Reid wrote in his paper. In his 

 anxiety to emphasise the great capacity possessed bv man 

 for makmg acquirements. Dr. Reid runs perilously near to 

 ignonng the facts that this general capacity is made up of 

 many capacities, that all these capacities are variable and 

 that^ the variations are heritable. Is he so annoyed 'with 

 Prof. Pearson for laying what he considers undiie stress 

 upon the heritable part of mental ch.iracters that his 

 criticism has gone beyond what he actually means? This is 

 suggested by the manner in which he treats some of the 

 physical characters in his paper. " Heads, hearts, lungs 

 livers, and the like are inborn and invariably present in 

 parents, and offspring. " Certainly, but the capacity for 

 development varies in different individuals and is heritable 

 For instance, the heart of one individual will react to 

 frequently repeated and violent exercise by increased 

 muscular development, while in another it will give way 

 and dilate under precisely similar conditions. So also with 

 mental characters. No environment will make some men 

 mathematicians, while others will become great mathe- i 

 maticians in a comparatively unfavourable environment. ; 

 Much the same may be said of temper and similar ' 

 characters. i 



After all. it is surely the heritable part— the variations in I 

 capacities for making acquirements in various directions— 

 that really matters from the eugenic point of view. ' 



Dr. Reid fears that " Prof. Pearson will pray ardently to 

 be delivered from his friends." Unfortunately' I have no- 

 the slightest claim to the friendship of Prof. Pearson. l" : 

 neither fear nor hope with regard to his feelings as to what 1 

 1 Inserted to make the meaning of the context clear. | 



I have written about hU statement. Even should he publi- 

 a repudiation of my interpretation in every detail, n 

 position would be precisely what it is now — one of prot«- 

 against a wholesale, unqualifK-d. and one might aim" 

 violent condemnation without any very evident re.i 

 condemnation likely to cause misunderstandings in a »v....j- 

 in which I am particularly interested. Such methods i 

 controversy can serve no useful purpose, 

 (flasgow, December 2. Charles Walk- • 



On the Occurrence of Brown Cannel Coal (" Kerosene 

 I Shale ") with Keinsckia australis in the Falkland Islands. 



.\.MONosT an interesting exchange series of fossils sent \ 

 j the National .Museum, Melbourne, by the honorary curat< 

 of the Falkland Islands Museum, there is a specimen < 

 " kerosene shale," which, on account of its deep ' 

 I colour, resinous lustre, and eminent conchoidal fracti 

 I once reminded me of the oil-bearing rock of lia. .. 

 New South Wales. Upon slicing this specimen and con 

 paring the structure with a slide of the Hartley rock 

 our museum cabinet it was evident that they were p: 

 ally identical. The Falkland Islands specimen is f.. 

 like that of the New South Wales rock, almost entir*;!) 

 the small (?) thallophyte described by MM. Renault' a r. 

 Bertrand under the name of Reinschia australis, an ' 

 believed by thein to be nearly related to the Hydro- 

 dictyacea; or \'olvocine;E. The deep yellow coloured ^^< - 

 are of the same dimensions in both examples. The -; 

 gravities of the Falkland Islands and the New South \ 

 rocks were found to be approximately equal, being in bo: 

 cases slightly more than 1. Prof. Liversidge gives that < • 

 the Hartley, New South Wales, specimen as 1-052. A 

 Liversidge points out, this rock is scarcely a shale, sin< • 

 the shaly structure in hand-specimens is absent, but woul ' 

 be more aptly termed a " Cannel coal," or, as suggest'- • 

 by the Rev. W. B. Clarke, " brown cannel." 



The P'alkland Islands specimen was found near Hi! 

 Cove, West Falkland, and I have since been kind;, 

 furnished with further information as to its occurring r 

 fair distance up several river valleys ; so that this fact 

 together with its tolerably fresh appearance and onl 

 slightly water-worn surface, does not support the idea thn' 

 it may be drifted from a great distance. There is cor, 

 siderable probability that deposits of this " kerosene shale ' 

 will eventually be found in situ, since the fact of a t}picn' 

 Glossopteris flora occurring in East Falkland has alrni. 

 been proved by J. Halle, the geologist to the S%v. ii^i 

 Magellanic Expedition (Geol. Mag., looS, p. 265). T> 

 quote that author's own words : — " JFossils, principall} 

 leaves of Glossopteris, occur in many places, and '" '- 

 evident that the whole southern part of East Fai; 

 south of Wickham Heights belongs to the Gonti . 

 system." Not only does the fossil flora correspond in thi- 

 remarkable way with other areas of Gondwanaland, but 

 amongst the brachiopods in the above collection several of 

 the Spirifers bear a close resemblance to New South Wales 

 species. Frederick CuAPXfA' 



National Museum, Melbourne. 



NO. 2197, VOL. 88] 



Optical Projection of Figures in Full Relief. 



At the recent Glasgow Exhibition an optical illusion 

 was exhibited which showed very distinctly and daintily 

 living human figures in full relief, standing upon a desk, 

 on a scale of about 8 inches = 6 feet. 



The production has caused much debate in private circles, 

 and I write in the hope that someone may be able to 

 inform me how it was produced. 



I may say that the images were shown in ordinary 

 electric light, and no optical apparatus of any description 

 was visible. 



Behind the figures the wall, which was at a distance of 

 about 8 inches, was covered by what seemed an ordinary 

 flowered tapestry. 



The writer saw the same thing about seven years ago 

 on the stage in Paris, and then, as now, the explanation 

 eluded him and many of his friends. CuRioi - 



