200 



NATURE 



[Jan. lo, 1878 



ture. From the fact that ^ enters into the investigation at all it 

 is evident that this is only an approximation to the true distribu- 

 tion. In accordance with this Mr, Stoney has shown con- 

 clusively that in a compressed Crookes's layer the number of 

 molecules moving parallel to the direction of the transference of 

 heat is greater than the number of those moving in any direction 

 normal to it, so that the expression Clausius derived from his 

 assumption cannot be considered as expressing the whole state 

 of affairs. 



It is remarkable that to this order the expression for the pres- 

 sure on any plane is the same, but Clausius gives another term 

 in his expression for the pressure on a plane normal to the direc- 

 tion of transference of heat to which he attaches, indeed, only 

 an indefinite coefficient because it is of the order ^, and he was 

 purposely neglecting quantities of that order. He might have 

 prophesied, however, from the existence of such a term that at 

 distances comparable with e a force would be manifested such as 

 Mr. Crookes has since discovered. Now this e is by definition 

 a quantity of the order ot the length of the mean path between 

 successive encounters, and hence these terms, varying with e^ 

 would become of importance at distances comparable with the 

 length of this mean path. 



I believe, then, that I have shown that neither CUusius nor 

 Clerk Maxwell have considered the case in disp xte bet^^een Mr 

 Stoney and Mr. Osborne R<ryn 'Ids, and th4 as far as thtir 

 invotiganons bear upon it they tend very much to strengthen 

 Mr. Sioncy's ca-e, I have also shown that Clausius was on the 

 point of anticipaUng buta Crookes's tore and Mr. Stoney 's 

 explana ion of it. GEu, FraS. FiTZGERALD 



Trinity College, Dublin 



Prof. Einaer on the Nervous System of Medusae 

 Some of your readers may reme nber that a few months ago I 

 published in Natuke an abstract of a lecture which I liad 

 deliv red at the Royal Institution on " The Evolution of Nerves " 

 In this lecture I mainly treated of ray recent researches on tne 

 nervous system <■>{ M> dusa ; and sated, among other things, that 

 I was the fiifct to pub.i^h fie observation c njernitig ihc pira- 

 1\ sing eflcct of removing the margins o' nect calyces.' Within 

 the lat few days, however, I have received a communication 

 from PiO'. Eiaier, 01 Tiiningen, informing me that ne has trie 

 right to claim priority as regards the publishing of this observation. 

 1 thereiore send you this note in order that I may rectify the 

 injustice wf ich I previously did to Dr. Eimer in your columns. 



The faints of the case are simply the- e : Dr. Eimer made his 

 observation a few months later than I made mine ; but, as he 

 communicated his obser^atim within a few weeks after he had 

 made it to the Physikalisch-medicinischen Ges>ll chaft zu WUrZ' 

 burg, his publication preceded mine. He h s therefore the right 

 to claim priority as legards this otiservation, and also as regards 

 some further physiological experiments by which he followed it 

 up — all of which I have been careful to detail in my Royal 

 Society publications. 



So much in justice to Dr. Eimer. In justice to myself I must 

 now explain that, although, since the pubiicaiion of my Croonian 

 lei_ture m 1875, I have been aware ihai. Dr. Elmer's work was 

 independent of mne, it is only within the la-t few days I 

 have learned from him that the putJication of his work was prior 

 to mine. The reason of the ambiguity on this head is explained 

 in a newly.pub ished memoir by Dr. Eimer, where it is stated 

 that his previous memoir, having been published in the fVu>-z- 

 burg Verhandlungtn without its proper tide- page, the initials 

 ** d. /." ("this year"), which occur in the paper itself, refer, 

 not to the date on the volume, but to the year preceding. My 

 prolonged ignorance concerning Dr. Eimer's claim to priority, 

 has, therefore, not been due to any fault on my part ; and as in 

 all my previous publications on this subject 1 have spoken of 

 Dr. Eimer's work as subsequent to my own, I may here add 

 that I think the fact of his having been so long in acquainting 

 me with the true standing of the case, displays a laudable spirit 

 of indifference on his part to the matter of mere priority. 



George J. Romanes 

 18, Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N. W. 



Mr. Crookes and Eva Fay 

 After Mr. Cooper's courteous explanation which appeared 

 in last week's Nature (p. 183), I gladly exonerate him from 

 blame. 



1 1 first published this obstrvatioaiu a note to Nature, which appearsd 

 in November, 1874. 



To the publication of my letter in the Banner 0/ Lis^ht, if 

 Mr. Cooper thought it likely to do Eva Fay any good, I have 

 no ground of complaint ; but what I did, and do now, protest 

 against, is the unauthorised publication of a lithographed fac- 

 stviile of my letter in such a manner, and with such surroundings, 

 as to leave no doubt that the intention was to throw discredit on 

 my testimony as a trustworthy experimentalist. 



I am glad to find that Mr. Cooper was no party to this breach 

 of etiquette, and I willingly w ithdraw any expressions in my 

 letter m Nature (vol. xviii. p. 43) which may appear to reflect 

 on him. 



As a fitting climax to this controversy, may I request you to 

 publish the subjoined letter from Eva Fay, which appeared in 

 the Banner of Liqht for December 22 last ? 



London, January 7 William Crookes 



"To the Editor of the Banner of Light, Boston, U.S., 

 December 22 



" I WISH to state a few facts in reference to an article in your 

 paper of December 8, referring to myself, in a letter of Mr. 

 Crookes on Dr. Carpenter's attack. 



" First, it is untrue that Mr. Crookes gave me a letter speak- 

 ing of the spirit uilistic nature of my ma,ni*estauons, and referring 

 to Fellows of the Royal Society. The only letter, to m* know- 

 ledge, that Mr. Cro ikes ever wrote regarding my m^; iiumship 

 (with the excepcioi of the one written t > Mr. Cooper) appeared 

 in the London Daily Telegraph, and other journals, M^rch II, 



1875. 



"Second, in reply to Dr. Cipenter's statement that an offer 

 was made by my manigers in Vlay, 1875- of an equvalcnt sum 

 of money ftr me to 'expose the whoie iffaii,' 1 will now say 

 to Dr. Carpenter, as I did to my managers, / have nothing to 

 expose. 



" 1 am in receipt of a letter, dated November 18, 1877, asking 

 me it I will fix a price to visit England under the title of 

 an ' Exposee,' and show how I am supposed to have hoodwinked 

 mem tiers of the Royal Society. 



" My reply was as fo 1<jws : — ' A> poor as I ain, an! as clever 

 as I am supposed to be by Dr. Careen er and others, I am 

 ob iged to decline your tempting prop jsition to rep enish my 

 excnequer by attempting impos^ibiliues. I sincerely h ipe to be 

 able to maintain myself and chill in a more honourable ojcu- 

 pation.' " Annib Eva Fav 



"Akron, Ohio, December 10, 1877" 



Volcanic Phenomena in Borneo 



Mr. Wallace, in his work on the " Geographical Distribu- 

 tion of Animals," has the remark that no volcano, active or 

 extinct, is known to exist within the area of the island of Borneo, 

 notwithstanding that it is almost environed by a volcanic t^elt in 

 full activity at a short distance. In facr, it seems to be generally 

 understood that this vast island now represents, and has con- 

 tinued to represent for long past time, a perfec ly quiescent area 

 in so far as manifestations of subterranean energi s are concerned. 

 This view is doubtless strictly correct in regard to the exi-tence 

 of any volcanic vent which is now in action, or which has been 

 so wuhin the historical period ; but it would be erroneous to 

 deduce from it, as seems natural to do at first sight, the inference 

 that the area is one of entire quiescence, or that it has been so 

 free from volcanic action in any but the most recent times. 



Speakmg solely with reference to the north-west district, it 

 may be observed that shocks of earthquake have been recorded 

 more than once by credible witnesses ouring late years, viz., one 

 in June, 1874, a second in June, 1876, ani two more in July, 

 1876. These were recorded the first m S dong, the three others 

 in Sarawak. According to native testimony, slight shocks are 

 by no means rare, and a severe one is particularly held in 

 remembrance, which took place seventy or eighty years ago, and 

 was accompanied by " a rain of ashes." Seismometrical obser- 

 vation would probably show that they are very frequent. These 

 shocks seem to indicate that the island is directly affected by the 

 proximity of the volcanic band above referred to. 



As for the period of time preceding the historical epoch, there 

 are not wanting signs that this pare of Borneo was the theatre of 

 a display of considerable volcanic energy, and it has yet to be 

 shown that its date of activity was anterior to the deposition of 

 the sandstone conglomerate formation of the country, which is, 

 with the exception of very recent deposits, the most modern of 

 the stratified rocks of this part of the island, it having been 

 assigned — I know not with how much truth — to a later tertiary 



