1 86 



NATURE 



\yan. 6, 1876 



1672. In 1682, he says that Grew published an enlarged edition 

 of this smaller work under the safue title. But this is not really 

 the state of the case. The title of the large book is " The Ana- 

 tomy of Plants, with an Idea of a Philosophical History of 

 Plants. " The volume has Sir Christopher Wren's imj>rima(ur, 

 which runs as follows : — 



"At a meeting of the Royal Society, Feb. 22, i68i, Dr. 

 Grew having read several Lectures of the Anatomy of Plants, 

 some whereof have been already printed at divers times, and 

 some are not printed ; with several other Lectures of their 

 Colours, Odours, Tasts ; as also of the Solution of Salts in Water; 

 and of Mixture ; all of them to the satisfaction of the said 

 Society : It is therefore Ordered, That He be desired, to cause 

 them to printed (sic) together in one Volume. 



"CHR. WREN, P.R.S." 



The "Anatomy of Plants Begun" is simply reprinted in this 

 volume. "The Anatomy of Leaves, Flowers, Fruits, and 

 Seeds" is, however, printed for the first time. In the second 

 part of this, called " The Anatomy of Flowers prosecuted with 

 the bare eye and with the microscope," which was read before 

 the Royal Society, Nov. 9, 1676, is contained Grew's discussion 

 of the function of the parts of the flower in which the statement 

 about Millington occurs. 1 



Grew's " Anatomy of Plants " can no more be described as a 

 second edition of the " Anatomy of Plants Begun " than Prof. 

 Huxley's "Lay Sermons" can (r(7//<fc/?V<?/j/ be described as a second 

 edition of any o/ie essay republished in that volume. 



The object of the quotation from Sprengel was to show what 

 was his opinion of the claims of Camerarius to be considered 

 the discoverer of sexuality in plants. As Mr. Bennett (vol. xiii. 

 p. 166) makes a point ot nothing being cited from Sprengel as 

 regards Millington; here is what Sprengel says on that head. 

 Speaking of Grev/ : — ■ 



" Summam vero meruit et serte posteritatis gratitudinem, quod 

 primus sexuum differentiam in partibus vel foecundantibus vel 

 foecundandis non invenerit, sed tamen defenderit ac evulgaverit. 

 Ipse verecunde satis et candide Thomam Millingtonium, Savi- 

 lianum professorem Oxonii nominat, qui sibi dixerit, apparatum 

 eum seminiformem (the anthers) vices partium mascularum pro- 

 babiliter gerere " (" Hist, rei Herb.," ii. 14). 



Next as to Cameratius and Ray, Mr. Bennett says that the 

 observations of the first antedated those of the second by two 

 years. On Mr. Bennett's own showing the date of Camerarius's 

 tract is 1694 (Nature, vol. xiii. p. 86). The date of the first 

 volume of Ray's " Historia," in which he alludes to the subject, 

 is 1686. 



As to Theophrastus it is well known that classical writers on 

 natural history were aware that the unisexual flowers of the date 

 required the "pulvis maris," or pollen, to enable them to set 

 their fruit. But I am not aware that till the time of Grew and 

 Millington the fact that the vast majority of plants contain 

 stamens and ovaries, i.e., both male and female organs, had ever 

 been ascertained. What these persons did for the first time was 

 to point out the function of the essential organs of the flower. 



Mr. Bennett, instead of taking his facts secondhand from Prof. 

 Sachs's no doubt excellent " Geschichte," ought to have looked 

 into the authorities himself. He would \hen avoid the error of 

 quoting non-existent editions and of drawing conclusions which 

 would be inexpugnable if they were not based on erroneous 

 dates. A. B. C. 



Article " Birds " in " Encyclopaedia Britannica " 



In that portion of the article "Birds," which I have lately 

 written for the " Encyclopaedia Britannica," I said (page 729, 

 column 2) that Odontopieryx had "jaws armed with true teeth," 

 and in this respect resembled Ichthyornis. The mistake has 

 just been pointed out to me, and I shall be greatly obliged by 

 being allowed to correct it, as fir as is possible, in Nature. 

 The sentence should run thus : "jaws armed with tooth-like 

 processes, and in this respect differing from Professor Marsh's 

 Ichthyornis." ALFRED Newton 



Athenaeum Club, Jan. 3 



Fertilisation in the Basidiomycetes 



In your review of Dr. Pringsheim's " Jahrbiicher " (Nature, 

 vol. xiii. p. 156) you refer to Dr. Max Reess' paper on the Ferti- 

 lisation of the Basidiomycetes ; this paper you compare with the 

 results recently obtained by Van Tieghem, Dr. Eidam, and my- 



self, and you say that the observations of thej three former all 

 tend in one direction, which fact should lead botanists to look 

 with very great caution on my results, which are somewhat 

 different. 



As I am tolerably well acquainted with the three papers first 

 mentioned, perhaps you will kindly allow me to point out that 

 Dr. Reess' carpogonium, and the carpogonium of Dr. Eidam, 

 are very different bodies, and that the latter author, in the 

 " Botanische Zeitung," even puts a note of interrogation before 

 his own interpretation of the body he figures as a possible carpo- 

 gonium. 



The spermatozoids as described and illustrated by me in the 

 Gardeners' Chronicle for Oct. 16 and 23 last, are not essentially 

 different from Dr. Eidam's spermatia ; they agree in size, bat I 

 maintain that the threads which bear these male bodies come direct 

 from the cystidia, and not from the basidia, and that they are at 

 first spherical. In Dr. Eidam's excellent phte there are sixteen 

 germinating spores shown which do not produce spermatia, and 

 in each instance the spores are shown as ruptured. Three other 

 spores are shown as producing spermatia ; now these latter spores 

 are engraved to twice the size of the former, and all three are 

 unruptured. The explanation simply is that the latter threads 

 have not come from the spores at all, but from a cystidium — the 

 spores engraved have not germinated, and hive merely been 

 washed against the spermatia-beaiing threads. 



As for the species experimented upon abroad (except Van 

 Tieghem's plant), one is rare, and the other not British ; the 

 plants I have been working upon are common everywhere. 



In the January number of the Popular Science Review will 

 be found an illustrated paper of mine on the " Reproduction'of 

 Agarictts lacrymabundus." In this essay will be found not only 

 some new facts as to the reproduction process in the Basidio- 

 mycetes, but a risui7ii of the views now generally held on this 

 subject. 



WORTHINGTON G. SmITH 



The Late Eclipse 



I FIND in Nature, vol. xiii. p. 86, a letter from Dr. 

 Schuster, commenting on some remarks made by me last April 

 respecting the photographic results of the late eclipse. He 

 appears to consider that these remarks related to him personally, 

 which certainly was not my intention. He speaks further of a 

 mathematical solution promised by me, for which he has ' ' had 

 to wait already a considerable time." I remember nothing of 

 such a promise, nor can I conceive how I could have promised, 

 instead of giving at once, the solution of so simple a matter. 

 Dr. Schuster proves very readily that the spectrum of the corona 

 can be photographed in one minute ; but I am not aware that 

 anyone has questioned the fact. Wliat I questioned myself was 

 whether the spectral images of the corona can be so photo- 

 graphed that the true extension of the corresponding coronal 

 envelopes can be shown. To quote my own words (" Science 

 Byways," p. 168) : "The whole light" [of the corona] "acting 

 at once to form a photograph does not show the full extension 

 of the corona, the outskirts simply losing themselves through 

 excessive faintness. . . . How, then, can a minute portion of 

 that light produce any photographic trace " [of the outskirts'] ? 

 " How much less can this minute portion show the zuhole exte7i- 

 sion oi the green solar envelope ? " It was the hope that this 

 might be effected which I described as mathematically unsound. 



I am so busy that I cannot enter further into this matter. 

 But in any case the only justifitation of controversy respecting it 

 would be the hope that some purpose useful to science might be 

 subserved. This seems unlikely. Richd. A. Proctor 



New York, Dec. 16, 1875 



Blowpipe Analysis 



Thanking you sincerely for the very well written and not alto- 

 gether uncahdid (if rather severe) review of my lately publirhed 

 work on this subject (Nature, vol. xiii. p. 164), against any part 

 of which I would not at present presume to appeal, I would ask 

 for a corner of your valuable space to explain, with regard to 

 "the production of a precipitate" of sodium sulphide by the 

 addition of a drop of water to a fused mass of soda with a sul- 

 phide on aluminium plate, that the term " precipitate" undoubt- 

 edly used by me (as the reviewer says so) is obviously a "slip of 

 the pen," for there can be no room to p^rcipitate anything in a 

 drop of water from a fused mass on aluminium plate. ^ 



