6i8 



NA TURE 



[October 27, 1898 



asymmetry in opposite senses. But nothing of the kind is ob- 

 served. Cellulose, starch, saccharose, have the sann.e right- 

 handed asymmetry, each in its particular degree, whether the 

 plant that produces them grows north or south of the equator. 



Mr. Bartrum suggests that two enantiomorphs may crystallise 

 from their equimolecular mixture with an unequal distribution 

 of the right and left crystals ; that then partial re- solution may 

 occur, "roughly on the lines of the distribution of the two 

 varieties of crystals," giving an optically active solution. Un- 

 like Prof. Fitzgerald, Mr. Bartrum does not propose to vivify 

 this crystalline substance ofi'hand ; he merely suggests that it 

 may have been " the first ancestor of Irevo-rotatory protein." 



This is vague. As far as I follow its meaning I should read 

 it : " Leave a soluble, crystallisable, asymmetric organic com- 

 pound,- of suitable character and composition, which has been 

 formed and separated by the chance play of mechanical forces, 

 long enough exposed to the action of other matter under the 

 influence of these forces, and it will, in due course, first turn 

 into protein and then come to life." I do not think that this 

 statement misrepresents Mr. Bartrum's position, and I will 

 leave it to speak for itself. 



Mr. Bartrum's process of separation is also open to the ob- 

 jection that it would at best yield only an optically active 

 viixture—i.e. with a mere preponderance of one enantiomorph ; 

 and as I have already pointed out, that is not a solution of the 

 problem. 



Mr. Herbert Spencer considers that I have ignored a uni- 

 versal law of "segregation" which he formulated in 1862 in 

 his " First Principles," and which he there referred to three 

 " abstract propositions " now quoted by him. He asserts that 

 this law of segregation would account for the separation of 

 dextro-protein and Isevo-protein, if these were once formed ; 

 and he instances the formation of hematite nodules and flints 

 in chalk-formations as an illustration of the power of segregation 

 in nature. 



I think that Mr. Spencer does not quite realise to what 

 extent enantiomorphous molecules are alike. Every symmetric 

 form of energy (such as heat), and every symmetric material 

 agent, is identical in its action upon two enantiomorphs : what- 

 ever happens to the one happens to the other. And in none of 

 these facts is there the slightest violation of the law of the 

 conservation of energy — although Mr. Spencer's corollary to 

 his third proposition would suggest the contrary. As regards 

 the separation of enantiomorphs, I do not know whether Mr. 

 Spencer would interpret his third proposition to mean that they 

 must be separable by diffusion ; but from the foregoing illus- 

 tration which he gives of segregation in the inorganic world he 

 would seem to have some such process in his mind. In that 

 case I may point out that, as indeed follows from what I have 

 already said, the rate of diffusion of enantiomorphs is the 

 same ; no such separation is possible. 



If Mr. Spencer will consider this absolutely identical be- 

 haviour of enantiomorphs under all symmetric influences, I 

 think he will perceive that the phenomena of " the formation 

 of haematite nodules and flints in chalk-formations, or of 

 siliceous concretions in limestone " — phenomena in which only 

 crystalline or crypto-crystalline compounds of symmetric mole- 

 cular structure are concerned, and which occur under the 

 influence of symmetric forces— are not comparable with the 

 separation of two enantiomorphous colloids such as dextro- 

 protein and l?evo-protein. Short of some asymmetric influence, 

 nothing could separate these ; and I am still waiting for my 

 critics to tell me where, prior to the existence of life, such an 

 influence was to be found. 



Prof. Errera writes with special knowledge of the subject of 

 molecular asymmetry, and I have nothing to criticise in his 

 statements, so far as they deal with known fact or accepted 

 theory. Some of his suggestions are exceedingly ingenious. I 

 must admit, for example, that a force neither intelligent nor 

 living — a symmetric mechanism — might be conceived which 

 would pick out a single crystal from a mixture of crystallised 

 enantiomorphs, and thus yield a single asymmetric compound. 

 This is, then, so far a solution of the problem, although not a 

 solution in the sense which I contemplated, since the mechan- 

 ism cannot be trusted to effect the separation of the same asym- 

 metric form twice running, whereas the living organism, or the 

 intelligent operator, can do so any number of times. This is 

 the essential difference between symmetric chance and asym- 

 metric life. It is a feat which no mechanism could perform, 

 unless its constructor had first embodied in it the idea of asym- 



NO. I 5 13, VOL. 58] 



metry, when it would cease to be symmetric, and would be an 

 asymmetric product of living intelligence. 



Moreover, as Prof. Errera will perceive from my reply to the 

 arguments of Prof. Fitzgerald and Mr. Bartrum, I do not con- 

 sider that the separation of enantiomorphous crystals brings us 

 much nearer to the spontaneous formation of those non-crystalline 

 asymmetric substances that build up the living organism. 

 Prof Errera, it is true, goes a step further in this direction than 

 my other critics by pointing out that — as indeed I emphasised 

 in my address — the further chemical transformation of such an 

 asymmetric compound by the introduction of new asymmetric 

 groups need not yield more than a single asymmetric 

 compound. 



Prof. Errera admits that his suggestions as to the manner in 

 which the separation of enantiomorphs may have occurred be- 

 fore the origin of life — thus, that different asymmetric crystals 

 may have been whirled by a vortex into difterent planets — are 

 not very probable. In fact, all my critics seem to be moving in 

 that unreal world where a fount of type, if jumbled together 

 sufficiently often, ends by setting up the text of Hamlet. 



In conclusion, I repeat that it is the impossibility of any 

 mechanical (symmetric) force constantly producing the same 

 asymmetric form, or constantly selecting the same one of two 

 opposite asymmetric forms — a constancy which is manifest in 

 the same processes when effected by vital agency — to which I 

 referred in my address. I certainly nowhere used the word 

 " constantly" ; but the ideals present throughout. 



Most of my critics clearly recognise this impossibility, and 

 therefore seek to avoid the difficulty by supposing only a few 

 asymmetric events — or even, only a single asymmetric event — to 

 occur. The desired result having been obtained, the initial 

 process is assumed to stop. But in making this assumption 

 they seem to me to do violence to all probability. Given a 

 practically unlimited period of time, why should a particular set 

 of mechanical conditions, acting by pure chance in a given way, 

 not act over and over again ? One can understand a gambler 

 stopping after a run of luck in his favour ; but why should a 

 mechanical process do so ? 



I see no reason to withdraw any of the conclusions at which I 

 arrived, although, had I to write my address over again, there 

 are parts which, to guard against misunderstanding, I might 

 express differently. 



I wish to point out that the term " tetartohedral," used in my 

 printed address in describing the asymmetric facets of quartz, is 

 erroneously given in the Nature report (this vol., p. 454, col. i> 

 as "tetrahedral." F. R. Japp. 



The University, Aberdeen, October 24, 



Potential Matter. 



Allow me to refer once more to the subject of my letter ot 

 August 18, in order to draw attention to two previous invest- 

 igations with which, at the time of writing, I was unacquainted. 

 Prof. Karl Pearson has, under the title of "Ether Squirts" 

 {American Journal of Mathematics, vol. xiii. No. 4), worked 

 out mathematically the theory of matter considered as sources 

 and sinks of fluid, and draws attention to the fact that this theory 

 implies the existence of "negative matter," which may exist 

 outside the solar system. More recently A. Foppl, in a com- 

 munication to the Munich Academy, dated February i, 1897 

 {Sitzungsber. der k. b. Akad. d. IViss., 1897, i. p. 93), has pub- 

 lished a short paper under the title, " tjeber eine mogliche 

 Erweiterung des Newton'schen Gravitations-Gesetzes." Starting 

 from the idea that there is a difference in kind between the 

 electrical and magnetic fields of force on the one hand, and the 

 gravitational field on the other, because the flux of force through 

 a sphere converges towards zero with increasing radius of the 

 sphere for the electric and magnetic fields, but not, as usually 

 defined, for the gravitational field, Foppl gives the necessary 

 extension to Newtonian law of gravitation in order to remove 

 the distinction. This, of course, implies "negative matter." 

 There is a marked difference between the expression for the 

 energy of the gravitational field on Foppl's hypothesis with that 

 which is derived from the ether squirt theory ; but it is not 

 necessary to enter into this question. 



There are some points in my former communication, to which 

 previous writers on the subject have, however, not, as far aS I 

 know, drawn attention. Among them is the insufficiency of 

 the ordinary hypothesis to account for the rotational momentum 



