4o5 



NATURE 



[January 26, 191 1 



volume of the " Principles," Lyell not only rejected the 

 theory of Lamarck, but went far towards abandoning, 

 for the time, any idea of " the transmutation of species." 



It is scarcely necessary here to recall the fact that this 

 second volume of the " Principles," so full of discussions 

 bearing on the changes in organic life, reached Darwin 

 in South America, just at the time when he was startled 

 by discovering the relations between the living and recently 

 extinct mammals of that continent. From that time forth 

 Darwin no longer regarded the question of evolution with 

 indifference. In the critical period between the return 

 of the Beagle, in 1836, and the writing of the first sketch 

 of the theory, in 1842, constant intercourse took place 

 between the two friends : "I saw more of Lyell," says 

 Darwin in his autobiography, " than of any other man, 

 both before and after my marriage " (in 1839). In their 

 frequent discussions, Darwin would become fully 

 acquainted with the arguments of Cuvier and his school, 

 which are, indeed, very clearly and trenchantly reproduced 

 in the first three chapters of the second volume of the 

 "Principles," which Darwin called his "own true love." 



These facts borne in mind, I think we can have no 

 difficulty in realising the source of the statements made 

 by Darwin. I think the sentences may be paraphrased as 

 follows :- — 



" Anti-evol-utionists a<im»( the inheritance of small varia- 

 tions. Well, the inheritance of such small variations is 

 al| I require for my theory of Natural Selection. I can 

 afford to concede the non-inheritance of the greater . 

 variations." 



But it is interesting to notice that in the sentence about 

 plants and sea-shells following the passage in question, 

 and in his discussion of the appearance and inheritance 

 of a sixth digit in man, &c., Darwin was not satisfied 

 that only small variations were transmitted. 



It was the remembrance of facts like these that led me 

 to suggest- that the subject was " constantly present " in 

 Darwin's mind. Prof. Meldola, thinking of the more 

 acute discussion of the question aroused in 1885 by Weis- 

 mann's declaration that no acquired characters are in- 

 herited, naturally expressed doubt on the subject, and I, 

 of course, admit that this phase of the question, in all 

 probability, never presented itself to Darwin, or at least 

 never demanded his serious consideration. 



Kew. John W. Judd. 



The Transference of Names in Zoology. 



" As the preparation of an official list of Nomina con- 

 servanda is now under consideration by the International 

 Commission on , Zoological, Nomenclature, it may not be 

 out of place to direct attention to a point that seems to me 

 of orime importance in this connection, although it has 

 received little notice from recent writers on nomenclatural 

 reform. 



. It is simply this — while the rejection and replacement of 

 familiar names for well-known animals is, of course, an 

 inconvenience to zoologists, it is a trivial matter in com- 

 p.irison with the grave possibility of confusion that arises 

 when the names are used in an altered sense. In the 

 former case we merely multiply synonyms, and, unfor- 

 tunately, they are so numerous already that a few more 

 hardly matter ; in the latter case there is a real and 

 serious danger of ambiguity. Thus, at present, a writer 

 who mentions Trichechus may be referring either to the 

 walrus or the manatee, Simla may mean either the orang 

 or the chimpanzee, Cynocephalus may be either a 

 " flying lemur " or a baboon, and so on through all the 

 grreat groups of the animal kingdom until we come to 

 Kolothuria, which may refer either to a sea-cucumber or 

 to a Portuguese man-of-war. Cases like these seem to 

 me to be on an entirely different plane as regards practical 

 importance, from those in which an old name is simply 

 rejected ; even if the shore-crab is to be called Carcinides 

 for the future, we have only the additional burden of 

 remembering that it was once called Carcinus. 



A striking (if somewhat exceptional) instance of the 

 pitfalls that are in preparation for future students is found 

 in the section on Crustacea in Bronn's " Thierreich " 

 (Bd. v., Abth. ii.). On p. 1056 there is an allusion to 

 *' Astacus," and on the following page to " A!?tacus 



NO. 2152, VOL. 85] 



(=Homarus)." In the bound volume (unless the part- 

 wrappers have been kept in place) there is nothing to show 

 that a change of authorship intervened between those two 

 pages, and that, while the second " Astacus " refers to the 

 lobster, the first indicates the crayfish. 



If the International Commission could bo persuaded to 

 consider first those names that are threatened with trans- 

 ference, before proceeding to deal with those that arc 

 merely in danger of replacement, they would, I believe, 

 secure the support and cooperation of many zoologists who 

 have doubts as to the practicability of the schemes lately 

 put forward. W. T. Calman. 



British Museum (Nat. Hist.), Cromwell Road, 

 London, S.W., January 23. 



Sex Relationship. 



It seem.s a pity that writers should allow their political 

 bias to influence their work, and especially that they 

 should not at least ascertain the facts of a case before 

 writing about it. 



In his article on " Sex Relationship" in Nature of 

 January 5, Dr. R. J. Ewart said, in commenting on the 

 present excess of females over males : — " The result of 

 this is to produce in a community a section of women who 

 cannot possibly perform that function for which they were 

 fashioned. Their energies are naturally directed into- 

 other spheres, as evidence of which we see the revival of 

 the movement for political recognition. The agitation is 

 no new one, and apparently is dependent for its strength 

 and virility on the position of the sex pendulum," &c. 



Now, first, it may be observed that women are no more 

 fashioned to perform a single function than men are ; their 

 natures are as complex, their brains as varied as men's — 

 in fact, " God Almighty made 'em to match the men." 



Secondly, the excess of females of all ages over males 

 in this country is between one and two millions, while 

 five million women earn their own livelihood. Thus a 

 large number even of those who perform " the function for 

 which they were fashioned " are obliged to " direct their 

 energies to other spheres," quite irrespective of any 

 excess of females. 



Thirdly, there is no revival of the movement for political 

 recognition — it has culminated. Since it first began with 

 any vigour, in 1867, it has gone steadily on, and its greater 

 activity during the last five years has been due to the 

 genius and courage of two women, who had the politicaf 

 insight to realise that, by some curious quality in the 

 psychology of men, the only tactics that are successful in 

 obtaining a reform of the franchise are militant tactics. 



Fourthly, the countries in which English-speaking 

 women have already gained their political freedom are 

 not those in which there is an excess of women over men, 

 but are the comparatively new countries — New Zealand, 

 Australia, and some of the western States of .America. 



Dr. Ewart errs in attributing to a purely physical cause 

 a movement which really arises from a mental and moral 

 awakening — and, indeed, his whole article is full of un- 

 supported assertions and loose reasoning ; but I should not 

 have ventured to criticise it had he not so clearly allowed 

 his judgment to be warped by his political bias. 



Hertha Ayrton. 



41 Norfolk Square, Hyde Park, W., January 9. 



I AM sorry that my little paper should have been takerr 

 as prompted by political bias. I am sure that its possible 

 influence on the Suffragette question never entered my 

 head. I should be quite willing to answer any question 

 Mrs. Ayrton may care to put to me should she care to 

 write me privately. I am not willing to enter upon a 

 public correspondence. R- J- Ewart. 



The Health Department, Municipal Buildings, 

 Middlesbrough, January 12. 



The Origin of Man. 



The reference in " Dodsley's .'Vnnual Register for 1767." 

 mentioned in Nature of January 12 (p. 336), is to James 

 Burnett, Lord Monboddo, whose speculations as to the 

 simian origin of man excited so much ridicule amongst 



