Dec. 1 6, 1875] 



NATURE 



127 



his reader's feelings that the author does not at once 

 disclose the astounding discovery which is to revolutionise 

 chemical science, but leads the imagination gently up to 

 it — first informing us that he has spent his life in trying 

 to practise the precepts of Newton and Watt— then in- 

 dulging in a series of disparaging remarks on modern 

 chemical theory, which remarks we may state en passant, 

 perfectly bristle with mis-statements. The discovery which 

 we are now approaching is, we are told, the result of an 

 attempt to apply mechanical principles to chemistry — 

 then the author lets us into a trait of his personal cha- 

 racter, after which comes the denouement. Here it is : 

 "What I claim is the discovery of an element whose 

 weight is 5 ; it combines directly with nitrogen, and 

 forms fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine ; with carbon, 

 and forms oxygen and siUicon {sic.) ; and with hydrogen 

 and forms sulphur and lithium." This extraordinary and 

 pantogenic element " is best described as being the oppo- 

 site of hydrogen," which " opposition constitutes its 

 energy, and this energy constitutes, or rather will consti- 

 tute the science of chemistry. Its combinations, direct 

 and indirect, with hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen, 

 form all the other elements except phosphorus." In 

 the new chemistry potassium is " ammonia acid," 

 sodium, " ammonium acid," lithium, and sulphur, 

 "hydrogen acids," &c. We find no evidence in the 

 pamphlet of the method employed in discovering the 

 new element — before listening to Mr. Coutie's vague spe- 

 culations, chemists will be justified in calling upon him to 

 produce his Panto^en, and describe its properties — at 

 present it exists only on paper. We may appropriately 

 conclude this notice with a quotation from Priestley, 

 printed by the author in the preface to the present 

 rhapsody. " For my own part I will frankly acknowledge 

 that at the commencement of the experiments recited in 

 this section, I was so far from having formed any hypo- 

 thesis that led to the discoveries I made in pursuing them, 

 that they would have appeared ver>' improbable to me 

 had I been told of them." Mr. Coutie lays this missile so 

 very temptingly within our reach, that we may be excused 

 for throwing it at his very fragile fabric. 



The author's language does not properly fall into our 

 -province, bui enough has been quoted to give our readers 

 a fair specimen of its quality ; — of Mr. Coutie's science no 

 further criticism is necessary. R. M. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 



[ Tlu Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions expressed 

 by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake to return^ 

 or to correspond with the writers of, rejected manuscripts. 

 No notice is taken 0/ anonymous communieations.] 



Theophrastus versus Millington 



ly a letter in Nature, vol. xiiu pp. 85, 86, Mr. Bennett 

 appears to contend — 



1. That if the credit of suggesting the true function of the 

 stamens of flowering plants is to be attributed to either, it 

 belongs to Grew rather than to Millington. 



2. But that even the views of the former were not materially 

 advance of those of Theophrastus. 



First, as to a bibliographical matter, Mr. Bennett speaks of a 

 second edition of Grew's book. There is no such thing. The 

 " Anatomy of Plants," 16S2, contains four books ; the first of 

 these was published in 1671, the second in 1673, the third in 

 1675. The fourth book, not published till 1682, contains the 



i . celebrated passage on the sexuality of plants. This .was read 



1 before the Royal Society, Oct. 26 [Nov. 9], 1676. 



I Tuniing to p. 172, we find Chap. V, "Of the Use of the 



I Attire " (stamens). 



I In § 1 he alludes to the " Secundary use." This (book L 



p. 39) he explains to be the provision of food for animals. 



'* We must not think that God Almighty hath left any of the 

 whole Family of his Creatures unprovided for ; but as the Great 

 Master, some where or other carveth out to all ; and that for a 

 great number of these Uttle Folk, He hath stored np^ their 



peculiar provisions in the Attires of Flowers ; each Flower thus 

 becoming their Lodging and their Dining- Room both in one." 



Having given this proper recognition to the pious teleology of 

 the time, he proceeds to remark in § 2 that " the Primary and 

 chief Use of the Attire is such as hath respect to the Plant it 

 self." He infers this very conclusively from the constant occur- 

 rence of stamens, even when the more conspicuous parts of the 

 flower are wanting. 



Then in the § 3 he tells us how Sir Thomas Millington gave 

 him the clue — 



" In discourse hereof [not as Mr. Bennett puts it, but on the 

 nature of the Primary use of the Attire] with our Learned Savi- 

 liaa Professor, Sir Thomas Millington, he told me he conceived. 

 That the Attire doth serve as the male, for the Generation of 

 the seed." 



In § 4 he proceeds : "I immediately reply'd, ' That I was of 

 the same opinion ;' and gave him some reasons for it, and an- 

 swered some objections, which might oppose them." 



Surely it is hardly necessary to comment on this 'charming 

 little history. Grew gets the hint of the true solution from his 

 friend, immediately perceives its importance, and eagerly pro- 

 ceeds to apply it to facts and to explain away apparent difficulties 

 in accepting it Surely scientific historians can hardly set aside 

 Grew's own modest pleasure in attributing the discovery to Mil- 

 lington. 



Next, however, we are told it is no discovery at alL It will 

 be sufficient, in answer to this, to quote from p. 172 a few lines, 

 omitting unnecessary analogies. 



*' The Globulets [pollen grains] and other small particles , . . 

 in the Thecse [anther-cells] are as the vegetable sperms which 

 . . . falls down upon the seed-case [ovary] or womb, and so 

 touches it with a prolifick virtue." 



To say that Theophrastus in the fourth century B.C. possessed 

 all the detailed information necessary to come so near the truth 

 as Grew did in this statement, shows a wanton disregard for 

 facts which it is sad to contemplate even though it be a momen- 

 tary lapsus in the case of Mr. Bennett. 



As to attributing all the credit in the matter to Camerarius, I 

 cannot do better than appeal to an authority of which no one 

 can question the impartiality. 



Sprengel, in his " Historia rei Herbariae," vol, ii. pp. 14, 15, 

 has the following remarks : — 



"Una fere cum Grewio Jacobus Bobartus, horti Oxoniensis 

 prsefectus, experimenta ciun Lychnide dioica institoit (16S1), quae 

 ovula in capsnla obvia haudquaquam foecunda esse, dum fila- 

 menta apicibus suis seu antheris careant, docuerunt. Id e Sherardi 

 ore accepitPatricius Blair (" Botan. Essays," p. 243). Moxetiam 

 Jo. Rdius eamdem sententiam, de foecundandi functione anihe- 

 rarum {1686) . . . uberrime et optime defendit. Unde elacet, 

 quantopcre aberrent a veritate, qui Rud. Jac. Camerarium inven- 

 torem credunt, Hcet plura hie argumenta pro sexuum differentia 

 adduxerit. Cum historia spemat nationum arrogantiam, fatendam 

 etiam est, Anglorum gloriam esse, quod primi turn phytotomiae 

 turn doctrina:, quam sexualem dicnnt, fundamenta jecerint." 



There really is no case for discussion. Everyone is familiar 

 with the fact that a large amount of time, paper, and ink may 

 be wasted in contentions of this kind, and it is to be regretted 

 that Mr. A. W. Bennett should employ his energies in furnishing 

 additional experimental proof on this head. That the writer in 

 Nature and the reviewer of Sachs were each and severally 

 justified in their allusion to MiUmgton is also clear enough. 



A, B. C. 



Estimation of Fractions 



The question of " Personal Equation in the Tabulation of 

 Thermograms," &;c., which was recendy considered in this 

 journal, is but a portion of the general subject of the estimation 

 of fractions, and the various influencing causes connected with it. 

 Having made some experiments on this matter some time ago, 

 and more fully of late, I subjoin some of the results, as it is a 

 subject on which there seems but litde accurately known in 

 general, and which is important in thousands of readings made 

 every day. 



The experimental readings were made with apph'ances varying 

 in each case, but in all cases the whole space or division was 

 perfectly free from any visible marks besides the movable index, 

 as they might bias or help the division ; also the reader avoided 

 noticing during each set of readings whether they were mostly 

 + or — the truth, as this would bias the judgment. Moderate 

 simlight shinmg on white paper led to more accurate results than 



