246 



NA TURE 



\Jan. J 2, 1888 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 



[The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions 

 expressed by his correspondents. Neither can he under- 

 take to return, or to correspond zvith the writers of, 

 rejected manuscripts. No notice is taken of anonymous 

 communications. 



[The Editor urgently requests correspondents to keep their 

 letters as short as possible. The pressure on his space 

 is so great that it is impossible othei~wise to insure the 

 appearance even of co?ninunicatipns containing interesting 

 and novel facts. 



" A Conspiracy of Silence." 

 May I asli yo-ir correspondents who have been good enough 

 to read my article on " Darwin's Theory of Coral Islands," pub- 

 lished in the September number of the Nineteenth Century, to 

 begin addres~.ing themselves to the merits of the scientific ques- 

 tion there dealt with, and to cease wasting their own time and 

 your space upon scolding me for a few wjrds — perhips exagger- 

 ated — respecting; the wide-spread reluctance to question any 

 theory advanced by Charles Darwin ? I have already explained 

 in your columns the sense in which I spoke, and, subject to that 

 explanation, I have nothing to retract. I observe in Prof. Tail's 

 notice of Dr. Balfour Stewart, published in your latest issue, a 

 passage which shows that this veiy eminent man of science speaks 

 in a tone very similar of certa-n "advanced" geologists who 

 "ignore" views which "tend to dethrone" their own "pet 

 theories." Moreover, since I last addressed you in explanation, 

 I have observed the remarkable passage ("Darwin's Life," 

 vol. ii. p. 186) in which my censor. Prof. Huxley, positively 

 blasphemes against no less a distinguished body of scientific men 

 than the French Institute for their conduct towards evolutionism, 

 lie speaks of the "ill-will of powerful members of that body 

 producing for a long time the effect of a conspiracy of silence." 

 This is the very same expression which I used, but without the 

 offensive aggravations added by Prof. Huxley. 



Inveraray, Deceiiiber 30, 1S87. Argyll. 



Mr. Seebobm on Physiological Selection. 

 From a footnote to page 23 of Mr. Seebohm's recently 

 published and magnificent monograph on the Charadriidix? I 

 learn tljat I owe him an apology for having inadvertently mis- 

 repi-esented his views upon a point of considerable importance 

 in the philosophy of evolution. In his Briti-;h Association 

 paper (which he now re-publishes) he went even further than I 

 had gone in recognizing the "swamping effects of intercrossing" 

 upon incipient varieties, with the consequent imporance of 

 isolation in the differentiation of species. 1 therefore supposed 

 that he likewise agreed with me in holding it improbable that 

 new species arise as a result of many beneficial variations of the 

 same kind arising nt the same time and in the same place. I 

 now find, however, that he is a strong advocate of the opposite 

 opinion — apparently going further than Asa Gray, Niigeli, 

 Mivart, the Duke of Argyll, or indeed any other evolutionist, 

 in support of the doctrine of teleological variation in determinate 

 lines. I therefore write to withdraw my previous misrepresenta- 

 tion of his views upon this matter, and to apologize for my 

 inadvertency in making it. 



At the same time, I may observe, it does not seem to me 

 quite intelligible how Mr. Seebohm can reconcile his doctrine 

 of teleological variation with his doctrine of the paramount im- 

 portance of geographical isolation For it is evident that, in 

 whatever measure geographical isolation i-; found to be of im- 

 portance as a condition to the origin of species {i.e. by pre- 

 venting free intercrossing), in that measure is the doctrine of 

 teleological variation invalidated. Indeed, Mr. Seebohm him- 

 self puts Mr. Wallace on the horns of a dilemma with regard 

 to a precisely parallel case. In order to meet me where I draw 

 attention to the difficulty which free intercrossing imposes upon 

 the theory of natural selection, Mr. Wallace argue 1 in favour 

 of collective variation, i.e. of the doctrine that a considerable 

 percentage of identical and beneficial variations may arise 

 simultaneously in the same community. Now, Mr. Seebohm 

 very pertinently observes (p. 13):— "It seems to me that, by 

 the admission of this fact, Mr. Wallace has dethroned his theory 

 of natural selection from its proud posiii )n as the main factor in 

 the origin of species." With this, of course, I fully agree ; but 

 does it not equally follow that by his admission of this same 



"fact" Mr. Seebohm is no less effectually dethroning his own 

 theory of the paramount importance of isolation as one of the 

 main factors in the origin of species ? 



In conclusion, I cannot understand why Mr. Seebohm should 

 have igno"ed my answer to the criticisms which he now re- 

 publishes. For, as I have pointed out in these columns before, 

 the whole brunt of his criticism (like that of Mr. Wallace) was 

 directed against a theory which never so much as occurred to 

 me. Both my critics took it for granted that I supposed my 

 "physiological complements " to arise only in pairs ; and there- 

 fore they both had an easy case in showing how improbable it 

 was that the two complements should chance to come together. 

 But even in my original paper there were passages to show that 

 I supposed these -physiological variations to occur in large 

 numbers, or "collectively," leading to what botanists now call 

 " prepotency," and thus explaining why hybridization is so rare 

 in Nature. Possibly in that paper I was not sufficiently explicit 

 in guarding against a misconception which it never occurred to 

 me could arise. But certainly in my reply to this misconception, 

 no further doubt as to my meaning could possibly remain. I • 

 confess, therefore, to being not a little surprised at this re- 

 appearance of Mr. Seebohm's criticism, without allusion to my 

 full repudiation of it a year ago. I should much like to learn 

 his views upon the theory which I have published, but must 

 protest ajainst this absurd substitution being still attributed to 

 me, after I have disclaimed it with all the emphasis of which the 

 English language is capable. George J. Romanes. 



An Incorrect Footnote and its Consequences. 



In all the five editions of Baltzer's " Theorie und Anvvendung 

 der Determinanten " there stands at the foot of the first page an 

 historical note, in which reference is made jto a work entitled, 

 " Demonstratio eliminationis Cramerianre," by Mollweidc 

 (Leipzig, iSii). About a year ago it became necessary to 

 exanine this demonstration for the purpose of having it reported 

 upon in an historical work. The University Libraries in Scot- 

 land were applied to in succession, but no copy could be heard 

 of Inquiries made at the more important libraries in Cambridge 

 by fiends resident there, or by letter, ended in the same un- 

 satisfactory way. Letters, followed by an actual visit, to several 

 libraries in London, brought no better result ; and after every 

 possible biographical scrap about Mo'lweide had been ferreted 

 out in the British Museum, the suspicion began to form itself 

 that som^ c.irious error had crept into Baltzer's footnote. In 

 order to get to the bottom of the matter, the excellent mathe- 

 matical library of Go^tingen University was next applied to, 

 and the library of Giessen University, where Baltzer was Pro- 

 fessor ; but in both cases in vain. A last effort was then made 

 about a month ago in a letter to the University Library of 

 Leipzig, wdiere the reputed author Mollweide had taught, and 

 where the " Demonstratio" {ox Demon, as it had for more th\n 

 one reason come to be called) had been published. Even here, 

 at first, there was failure. But Prof. Virchl, who most kindly inter- 

 ested himself in the matter, was soon successful in his quest. What 

 he found, however, was not a " Demonstratio " l)y Mollweide ; the 

 title was simply as follows : " Ad memoriam Kregelio-Sternbach- 

 ianam in auditorio philosophorum die xviii. Julii, MDCCCXI. 

 h. ix; celebrandam invitant ordinum Academia; Lips. Decani 



seniores ca^terique adsessores 'Demonstratio eliminationis 



Crameriana;.' " Either, tharefjre, no author should have been 

 mentioned by Baltzer, or an indication should have been given 

 that MoUweide's name was an interpolation in the title. One or 

 other of these courses would likewise have been less hurtful to 

 Baltzer's reputation for accuracy ; for, after all, Mollweide was 

 not the author. In the Leipzig Library Catalogue the work is 

 entered under the name of De Prasse, and Prof Virchl had no 

 doubt whatever, for perfectly conclusive reasons which he gave, 

 that De Prasse was the author. The work extends to only 

 15 pages quarto, and is considered by the same authority to 

 be very rare. 



The ]ooint which we have now reached in the story might seem 

 a not unfitting one to stop at ; but the end is not yet. De 

 Praise's modesty requires explanation, and so likewise does the 

 intrusion of Moilweide's name. Both are partly cleared up by 

 the following facts supplied by Prof. Virchl. (i) The Kregel- 

 Sternbach dissertation (which the " Demonstratio" was) falls to 

 be delivered by the Dean of the Philosophical Faculty for the time 

 being : the author's name was thus not an absolute necessity on 

 the invitation title-pige. (2) Mollweide wr.s De Pras e's sue- 



