5-'6 



NATURE 



[August 30, 191 7 



References will be found, for example, in Mr. H. K. 

 Donisthorpe's recent book on "British Ants" to the 

 species Myrmica rubra and Lasiiis nigcr. which are 

 probably those noticed by Miss Armitage. Her ob- 

 servation is of interest in showing how the workers 

 direct the exodus of the winged forms when weather 

 conditions become favourable. — Editor. 



THE ADOPTION OF THE METRIC 

 SYSTEM. 



THE controversy with reference to the metric 

 system appears to have passed through two 

 stages and to be approaching the climax of its 

 third, and possibly final, stage. In the first stage 

 the glamour of its uniformly applied denary scale, 

 and of its carefully related standards of length, 

 area, volume, and weight, carried the general 

 public in an apparently wholehearted advocacy 

 which was clearly reflected in the early divisions 

 on the Metric Bill in Parliament. Advocates of the 

 binary scale might attend metric meetings and tear 

 up sheets of paper into two, four, and eight 

 parts ; theorists with the duo-denary scale might 

 drag a red-herring across the trail ; workers w ith 

 the most convenient of the English weights and 

 measures might voice their fears of a bad exchange 

 in units of measurement ; but the metric advocates 

 carried the day, in most cases with a wonderful 

 accompaniment of popular, if not business, en- 

 thusiasm. 



The second stage was reached when the practical 

 business men were actually forced to take cog- 

 nisance of the movement and either accept, or work 

 vigorously against, it. The natural thing hap- 

 pened — how could it be expected that British 

 controllers of industry — industry inductively 

 developed — should be other than short-sighted 

 and insular in their ideas? The nation which 

 deliberately attempted to cut itself off from 

 the Continent in the sixteenth century by adopting 

 a different Latin pronunciation was not likely 

 in the nineteenth to be ready to accept at 

 once any Continental standard, even in weights 

 and measures. Every conceivable objection was 

 raised — and it is perhaps as well that this was so ; 

 for we now understand much more clearly the 

 "pros and cons " of the case. 



Possibly the greatest difficulty, which has still to 

 be overcome, is the inborn tendency not only of 

 British, but also of all traders to vary their trad- 

 ing conditions. "Tare and tret" accounts have 

 orilv just vanished from our book-keeping — 

 37 inches are still allowed to the yard ; there are 

 several pounds; apparently a stone may be 8 lb., 

 14 lb., or 16 lb. ; a hundred may be a hundred, 

 or a hundred and twelve, or a hundred and twenty 

 (a great hundred) units ; while we have also such 

 things as "strikes," "bags," "boxes," etc., of 

 very questionable contents. Such variations tend 

 to promote that " opportunism " which is at 

 daggers drawn with the wider and more humane 

 view of commerce. The tendency to perpetuate 

 this heterogeneity is not only British ; it is inter- 

 national, and is undoubtedly one of the weaknesses 

 which mankind as a wholf must face and fight if 

 NO. 2496, VOL. 99] 



larger opportunities for international service are to 

 be won. 



This inherent tendency explains why even among 

 metric nations the metric system has not always 

 conserved its pure form, and why among, non- 

 metric nations the metric system has not been 

 introduced even into recently developed industries. 

 Man has to fight against himself, or rather agamst 

 certain of his iAtuitive tendencies, to become the 

 controller of his own environment. Thus, when 

 Mr. W. R. Ingalls, in his paper read before the 

 Institution of Mining and Metallurgy on May 24, 

 confesses to thinking more clearly in the pound 

 than in the kilogram, the present writer is re- 

 minded of how for years his personal unit of weight 

 was the 8-lb. to 9-lb. hare which he carried when 

 accompanying certain of his relatives on their 

 shooting expeditions. The suggestion undoubtedly 

 is that the sooner we definitely teach our young 

 people to work and think in carefully standardised 

 units, instead of allowing them to adopt units 

 accidentally coming within their cognisance, the 

 better for us as a nation and for the world in the 

 broadest sense. Have we yet realised the advan- 

 tages of deliberate intent, as distinct from casual 

 drift, in this and other similar problems which we 

 must face? 



We are now in the third stage, in which the 

 objections to the denary scale and the metric units 

 have practically disappeared. Thus the two prob- 

 lems W'hich to-day are being seriously debated 

 are : 



(i) If the metric system is the only possible 

 system that may be universally adopted, will the 

 expense entailed in its adoption by non-metric 

 countries be more than balanced by the advantages 

 gained in the reasonably immediate future? 



(2) If it is desirable to adopt wholeheartedly the 

 metric system throughout our industries, how may 

 this best be effected with reference to both our 

 working staffs and the material means by which 

 metric measurements may be made? 



With reference to the first proposition, there is 

 no need to discuss the possibility of the universal 

 adoption of the British system rather than the 

 metric system, for two reasons. The first is that 

 there is no British system. Take the textile in- 

 dustries as an example. The Bradford manufac- 

 turer speaks a more difficult textile language to the 

 Leeds manufacturer than the Continental manu-^ 

 facturer employing the metric system; and in- 1 

 stances might be multiplied. Again, the mostj 

 standardised of all the British systems — the avoir- 

 dupois — scarcelv bears signs of its British origin 

 on its face. The second reason is that year by 

 year, month by month, and almost week by week, 

 our industries are being more and more controlled 

 from their laboratories — and all scientific labora- 

 tories adopt the metric svstem. What confusion 

 and mistakes there will ultimately be unless 

 uniformity is here enforced ! 



Looking at the problem from the broadest basis, 

 Mr. Ingalls' paper is a delightfully unconscious 

 portrayal of the typical British (or American) atti- 

 tude of mind. We must make our drawings in 

 our own units, and if the French want them they 



