366 



NATURE 



[Feb. 20, 1890 



Hungary, with existing Australian genera. Baron Ettings- 

 hausen himself is largely responsible for these identifica- 

 tions, which have been questioned " by certain critics 

 insufficiently acquainted with the subject." He claims that 

 he was supported in his views by such eminent palaeontolo- 

 gists as Franz Unger and Oswald Heer. It is now some 

 years since Unger published his sensational " Neuholland 

 in Europa." In this little work almost every one of a set 

 of Eocene fossil plants is identified with some essentially 

 Australian genus, and often, we should add, on the very 

 slenderest of material. The late Mr. G. Bentham, who, 

 as is well known, handled and described every Australian 

 plant of which specimens had been collected up to his 

 time, disputed the correctness of the identifications, and 

 endeavoured to prove that the remains might well be those 

 of genera still found in the northern hemisphere ; yet 

 Baron Ettingshausen gives us to understand that Mr. 

 Bentham confirmed his determination of a European 

 fossil leaf as belonging to the genus Dryatidra. 



Quite recently the Marquis de Saporta has attacked 

 Baron Ettingshausen's position, and the present pamphlet 

 may be regarded as a reply. The author concludes 

 with the statement that, to prevent misunderstanding, he 

 wishes it to be known that any objections or criticisms 

 will meet with no response from him, because he is con- 

 vinced of the accuracy of his " facts," and his time is too 

 valuable to enter upon superfluous discussion. Without 

 discussing his " facts '' one by one, and without actually 

 denying their accuracy, we may say that the illustrations 

 given are by no means convincing, as most botanists who 

 have worked many years in herbaria on plants from all 

 parts of the world, we believe, will agree. Few persons 

 probably have paid so much attention to the venation 

 and forms of leaves as Baron Ettingshausen, yet we find 

 none of his determinations absolutely beyond doubt. So 

 far as we are aware, not a single fruit of Eucalyptus or of 

 the assumed/'r^'/^af^^ has been discovered in the European 

 Tertiary formations. As to his leaves of Eucalyptus, they 

 might be matched in the genus Eugenia, and we see no 

 reason why any of the others are necessarily remains of 

 species of Australian genera. W. B. H. 



Is the Copernican Systet/i of Astronomy True ? By W. 



S. Cassedy. (Standard Publishing Co., Kittanning, 



Pa., 1888.) 

 An astronomer nowadays would find it a hard task to 

 bring forth any facts which would throw doubt upon the 

 truth of the Copernican theory, but it appears that there 

 are still people amongst us who are bold enough to attack 

 the strongholds of astronomy. Such attempts are always 

 hopeless failures, and the one under notice is no exception. 

 It is, indeed, doubtful whether the author knows what is 

 meant by the Copernican system, for he goes so far as to 

 suggest that the known diameter of the earth's orbit 

 (assuming that it exists) should be used as a base-line for 

 determining the distance of the sun ! He also states that 

 he has " found by experiment " that similar right-angled 

 triangles have sides proportionate in length, though it is 

 only fair to say that he is aware of the existence of the 

 first book of Euclid, if not of the sixth. 



We have already said enough to show that the book 

 need not be considered seriously ; but we cannot refrain 

 from stating that the author, by sighting the sun along 

 straight-edges at the equinoxes, has found that " the 

 distance of the sun from the surface of the earth, at 

 40° N., is one million miles (p. 49)." This result is about 

 as near the mark as could be expected from the method 

 employed. 



Naturalistic Photography. By P. H. Emerson, B.A., 



M.B. (London : Sampson Low, Marston, Searle, and 



Rivington, 1890.) 



The quick call for a second edition of this work indicates 



the approval with which it has been received, and we may 



safely say there is not a better or more instructive book 

 on the art principles of photography than the one before 

 us. Dr. Emerson is a photographer of the first rank, his 

 artistic compositions are everywhere admired, and the 

 energetic manner with which many of the old and cher- 

 ished ideas of the ordinary photographer are attacked 

 and others established makes it very manifest that he 

 only writes what he knows to be true. The hterary style 

 of the book is excellent, and the exposition has the 

 merit of being strikingly original ; it should, therefore, 

 be studied by every photographer, both amateur and 

 professional, who desires to excel in his art. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 



\The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions ex- 

 pressed by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake 

 to return, or to correspond with the writers of, rejected 

 manuscripts intended for this or any other part of Natxjre, 

 No notice is taken of anonymous communications. '\ 



Acquired Characters and Congenital Variation. 



Beyond this letter I cannot pursue my interpolated adversary,. 

 Mr. Dyer. 



The syllogisms which he attributes to me are entirely his 

 own. I willingly admit, therefore, that they are as ingeniously 

 bad as they can well be. 



T will now state shortly what my position was, and is : — 



(i) The assumed antithesis between "acquired characters" 

 and "congenital variation " has arisen out of the cult of Darwin 

 as opposed to Lamarck. 



(2) The theory of Lamarck fails, in my opinion, as much as 

 the theory of Darwin, to give any adequate or satisfying explana- 

 tion either of the genesis, or of the development, of organic 

 forms. 



(3) But the theory of Lamarck is more philosophical than the 

 theory of Darwin, in so far as it seeks for, and specifies, a 

 definite natural cause for the phenomena of variation. 



(4) The theory of Darwin is essentially unphiiosophical in sa 

 far as it ascribes these phenomena to pure accident, or fortuity. 



(5) That Darwin himself, at one time, if not always, admitted 

 this idea of fortuity to be a mere provisional resort under the 

 difficulties of ignorance. 



(6) That the later worshippers of Darwin depart, in this 

 respect, from their master, and making the weakest part of his 

 system the special object of their worship, have set up Fortuity 

 as their idol. 



(7) That it is under the influence of this superstition that they 

 now seek to deny altogether that acquired characters can become 

 congenital. 



(8) That this denial is against the most familiar experience of 

 Nature, and especially of artificial selection, which is the ante- 

 type and foundation of the whole theory of evolution. 



(9) That in all domestic animals, and especially in dogs, we 

 have constant proof that many acquired characters may become 

 congenital. 



(10) That it is no answer to this argument to demand proof 

 that the babies of a blacksmith are ever born with the abnormal 



j arm-muscle of their papa. 



( 1 1 ) That in order to avoid and evade the force of innumerable 

 facts proving that many acquired characters may, and do, become 

 hereditary, iortuitists have invented a new verbal definition of 

 what they mean by "acquired." 



(12) That this definition is full of ambiguities and assumptions, 

 concealed under plausible words, but the object of which is ta 

 limit the meaning of "acquired characters" to gross, visible, 

 palpable changes affecting single individuals, and which the 

 analogies of Nature do not lead us to expect or to suppose can 

 be repealed in a single generation, even if a tendency to their 

 development is really implanted in the race. 



(13) That, still farther to render impossible the proof they 

 demand, our fortuitists affix to their definition of the word 

 " acquired," conditions which beg the whole question in dis- 

 pute. Not only must the new characters be gross, palpable, 

 visible — cases of " hypertrophy," of " extension," or of " thick- 

 ening," — but also they must be "obviously due to the direct 

 physical action of the environment on the body of the indi- 

 vidual." This is a condition which is irrational. It excludes. 



