368 



NATURE 



[November 17, 192 1 



me some information on the point in question which 

 will, no doubt, interest British men of science, whose 

 deep religious feeling 1 had the opportunity of ad- 

 miring during the days when I studied in England 

 some forty years ago. 



According to this professor's experience, the aim 

 of this "popularisation " of science is to replace the 

 old religion by a new religion— Bolshevism. It is 

 announced to the completely uneducated people that 

 the Old and New Testaments are myths, that God, 

 Creation, and the sublime Christian morals connected 

 with our religion are mere prejudices of the " bour- 

 geois, " and that man is only an animal somewhat 

 more developed than the ape, etc. 



As regards education in the universities, there are 

 still capable professors teaching who are unable to 

 leave the country, but they have practically no rights, 

 and there is no possibility of free scientific work. 

 The place of the rector of the university to which my 

 friend was attached is occupied by a former demon- 

 strator, " whose only printed matter is his visit card," 

 but he is a trustworthy Bolshevik, just as are the 

 stewards ruling the university. 



The only qualification for the teachers in secondary 

 and primarv' schools is a Bolshevik faith — other quali- 

 fication is not needed. It is, therefore, easily under- 

 stood that the teaching of the old religion and morals 

 is abolished from all types of schools. 



A translation of Geikie's "Physical Geograph}' " 

 has been known in Russia for some years, but nowa- 

 days there are few people whose preliminary scientific 

 education would allow them to read this or a similar 

 work with any profit. My friend also assures me 

 that ostensible editions of the popular scientific books 

 quoted by Dr. Jameson are, to use a household word, 

 "Potemkin's villages," the object of which is to 

 acquire sympathy for Bolshevism among men of 

 science who are far away and unable to witness the 

 charms of this "paradise." 



As regards the passage quoted in Dr. Sokoloflf's 

 article in Nature of September i, 1921, p. 20, which 

 gave rise to the present discussion: "There is Prof. 

 Behtereff, who declares that all Russian men of 

 science now abroad should return to Rusia " — this is 

 fortunately impossible, since, according to the recent 

 " ukaz " of the Soviet Government (see Rul of 

 October 14), no Russian is allowed to return to 

 Russia unless he possesses food enough for three or 

 four months. 



This challenge was also answered at the meeting 

 of Russian men of science, mostly university pro- 

 fessors from all parts of Europe, held last week 

 in Prague, which is to-day the centre of Slavonic 

 scientific culture. Resolutions were accepted at this 

 meeting bv which the Russian savants who were 

 present organised themselves for permanent scientific 

 work outside their country. Moreover, steps were 

 taken to enable Russian students, with the aid of our 

 Government, to study in our university and in other 

 schools (we know Russian, and they learn Bohemian 

 easily). Surely all this proves that Russian professors 

 are bv no means willing to accept Prof. Beehterev's 

 (or Behtereff's) invitation. 



The President of our Republic, Dr. Masaryk, 

 formerly professor of philosophy and sociology in this 

 universitv, has just published a remarkable article, 

 "Political Anthropomorphism," in which he states 

 that Bolshevik Government placards in Moscow 

 have inscriptions: "Religion is Opium for People." 

 In his opinion the social and political ideal of an 

 uneducated and uncultured (" negramotnyj ") Russian 

 mujik (mulik) is to stand on the dunghill and to 

 crack the whip instead of working, and to use it 



NO. 2716, VOL. 108] 



not only on his horses, but also on his fellow-creatures. 

 The President concludes: "The Bolshevik experiment 

 did not succeed, and cannot succeed, because the Bol- 

 sheviks, who are not at the level of human culture, 

 succumbed to rude anthropomorphism." 



I conclude with the question : What is left now of 

 the jata Morgana of Bolshevism ? 1 am very glad 

 that no other Government in the world is following 

 its example. BoHUSi.AV Brauner. 



Chemical Laboratory', Bohemian University, 

 • Prague, October 20. 



Biological Terminology. 



Dr. Bather in Nature of October 27, p. 271, 

 referred Sir Archdall Reid to Prof. Goodrich's presi- 

 dential address to Section D of the British Association 

 at its Edinburgh meeting this year for a discussion 

 of certain questions, and characterised that address 

 as "clear and thoughtful." It appears to me that 

 Prof. Goodrich had adopted Sir Archdall Reid as his 

 guide and authority in questions of evolution, and it 

 is. difficult to understand how the teacher could learn 

 from his pupil. Prof. Goodrich's address ignores the 

 greater part of all the new conceptions and new results 

 obtained by recent research on heredity and genetics. 

 The only recent work of importance which he men- 

 tions is that of Guyer on the effect of lens-destroying 

 serum injected into rabbits. 



Prof. Goodrich states that the newest characters may 

 be inherited as constantly as the most ancient provided 

 they are possessed by both parents, stating in a foot- 

 note that he sets aside complications due to Men- 

 delian segregation, which do not bear on the questions 

 at issue. But surely Mendelian segregation bears 

 most fundamentally on the proviso that a character 

 must be possessed by both parents in order to be 

 inherited, since Mendelian researches have shown that 

 a character may be inherited when it is apparent only 

 in one parent or in neither. It may be asked whether 

 "possessed" means "apparent" or not, but the con- 

 tex-t shows that Prof. Goodrich meant the two terms 

 to be synonymous, since he states that the question, 

 "Why are some characters inherited and others not?" 

 is the same as the question, "Why do some characters 

 reappear in the offspring and others not ? " Characters 

 could not reappear in the offspring if they did not 

 appear in the parents. When a person bearing the 

 abnormalitv brachydactyly marries a normal person, 

 half the children are' brachydactylous. Here the 

 character is possessed by only one parent. In many 

 other cases, where the one parent is homozygous for 

 a dominant character which is absent in the other 

 parent, all the offspring show the character. Again, 

 there are cases in which a man with normal sight 

 marries a woman with normal sight, and half the 

 male children are colour-blind. According to Prof. 

 Goodrich's definitions this would not be inheritance 

 at all, but we know it is due to hereditv, and that is 

 more important than any arbitrary definition of in- 

 heritance. The antlers of stags are normally pos- 

 sessed by one parent only, but they are certainly in- 

 herited. 



Prof. Goodrich states that inheritance depends on 

 the condition that the germinal factors and the en- 

 vironmental conditions which co-operated In the 

 formation of a character in the ancestor should both 

 be present. Suppose we consider the case of an albino. 

 What are the environmental conditions which co- 

 operated In the formation of this character? The fact 

 Is that a new character or a change of character may 

 be due either to an alteration of the germinal factors 

 or of the environmental conditions. In the former 



