October 12, 1893] 



NATURE 



565 



Royal Scciety type of paper is almost necessarily unintelligible 

 to any but specialists, perhaps sometimes even to them. 



But the arrangement should not be regarded as anything but 

 a lamentable necessity. If a more conjoint character could 

 by ary device be given to the meetings of the B.A. it would be 

 an excellent thing : so it seems to me. 



Whelher the British Association can or cannot act as a 

 connecting link between the sciences, there is no doubl but that 

 the pages of Nature do so act ; and long may it be 

 before Nature (I mean the publicaiion) finds herself also 

 bifurcated or otherwise subdivided, and we on either side cease 

 to hear even an echo of what the other side is talking about. 



Perhaps few are able to say that they read Nature all 

 through as Mr. Darwin did, but we all have the chance of doing 

 so ; and I hope it is the practice of the biological side to com- 

 municate to its pages at least an epitome or a popular account 

 of all the researches which have a wide embracing interest. 



Much that the chemist does— still more that the biologist 

 does — we of the physical camp do not care to hear ; partly be- 

 cause we might not understand it, chiefly because the research 

 lies so far from the field we are at present occupied in cultivat- 

 ing, that we can perceive none of the connecting links. 



But some of the problems on which the biologist — especially 

 perhaps the physiologist — is engaged are, or might easily be- 

 come, of supreme interest to phy-icists ; notably everything 

 connected with sense organs and the " mechanism " of sensa- 

 tion. 



The fear is lest wedrift apart so far that we cease to under- 

 stand each other's language. 



The current language of physics consists mainly of adapta- 

 tions of simple English phrases. It is full of common words, 

 redefined and made definite in connotation. We do indeed use 

 the word "coefficient" occasionally, but we are getting ashamed 

 of its length and hiyh-falutin' character. We got it from the 

 Maihemaiicians. We have also a few other long word^, as 

 Electricity and its derivatives, which we sometimes try to abbre- 

 viate without much success. We got them in the Middle Ages. 

 But the words we coin now are as nearly monosyllabic as pos- 

 sible, and as near akin to the ordinary usage of language as 

 may be. 



The current language of biology is quite different. Its sen- 

 tences, as exemplified in parts of the presidential a<ldress, are 

 highly dignified and elaborate structures, not wholly different 

 from a once more prevalent German model. Its words, 

 especially its new words, are hendecasyllabic or, at any rate, 

 polysyllabic. They are extremely classical, and as unlike the 

 languajje of daily life as can be contrived. This is d )neofgood 

 set purpose, viz. to keep free from the misunderstandings arising 

 out ol the atiempt to give to popular words a scientific, i.e. an 

 accurate, meaning. 



I suppose it is inevitable, and no doubt biologists know what 

 is best for their own science ; I only lament it because it seems 

 Hkely to retard that free intercommunication between the 

 sciences which many of us would like to see made more possible 

 than at present it is. I shall have the President with me here ; 

 but may I put a question to him without profanity ? May I ask 

 him if he can imagine a biologist asking about a process, 

 "What is the go of it?" I conjecture, but perhaps I am 

 wrong, that if a young biologist wanted to know more about a 

 most important and interesting process occurring in the blood, 

 ho would ask, " What mechanism do you consider it was which 

 supplied the chemiotactic stimulus impelling these leucocytes 

 towards the morbific microbes which they are devitalising?" 



I do not complain of this language — very likely it is well 

 snited for home consumption — but it does seem to render inter- 

 communion difficult. 



Now, for instance, I am anxious to learn the most recent 

 Tlew of biologists on the subject of life, or vitality, or vitalism, 

 or whatever word conveys the hypothesis that the life of an 

 organism is something different from the chemical and mechani- 

 cal activities of its tissues. I see that the President touches on 

 this very subject, but somehow I cannot seize concerning it any 

 Xlistinct idea, though I rejoice to see his warning against the 

 misuse of the terms "mechanism" and "mechanical." The 

 term '■ mechanical " is regarded by physicists as the ne (ilus ultra 

 of explanation, and it is unlikely that any explanation of physio 

 logical processes will skip the intervening chemical and physical 

 Stages, and land itself straight in simple mechanics. 



But I wonder if I am right in supposing that the definition of 

 life, given apparently by Treviranus, satisfies the modern biolo- 



gist, viz. (I put it only in paraphrase, for more exact word- 

 ing see Nature, September 14, p. 464), " that property of an 

 organism which enables it to respond similarly to a variety of 

 different stimuli " ; because a steam engine or any other prime 

 mover can do as much as that. It matters nothing by what 

 means the throttle valve is opened, whelher by the proper driver, 

 or by a larky boy, or by a piece of string, or a falling weight, or 

 an electric current ; the result is the same — wheels go round. 



This property of responding to stimuli, and responding always 

 in the same way if at all, may be characteristic of a clock-wotk 

 mouse, but surely it is not a special peculiarity of life. If a 

 muscle can only twitch, then, however you tickle it, it must 

 either twitch or do nothing. 



But life surely is something other than a power of response 

 to a stimulus ; it is more like a something which directs the 

 stimulus, more like the driver who decides whether the throttle 

 valve shall be opened or not. But it is absurd for me to 

 attempt to answer such questions. I only want to ask them : 

 all I clearly perceive from the physical standpoint is that live 

 creatures have the power of directing energy into otherwise 

 unoccupied channels, and that life in itself, whatever it is, is 

 not a form of energy. 



But this leads me to a subject which though apparently trivial 

 may, if not attended to, have serious or at any rate inconvenient 

 consequences, I mean the occasional misuse by one science of 

 the language of another science. 



The term " energy " is a physical one given us by Thos. 

 Young, and it has been fought for by us through a great part of 

 this century. It will be wanted seriously by Physiologists before 

 long, in its proper sense, and it will be a thousand pities if they 

 misuse it. 



If it be urged, "but Helmholtz used the term specific 

 energies," I reply yes, a long time ago, and so also he used 

 the phrase, Erhaltung Jer Krajt. But precision in the use of 

 the term energy is of comparatively modern growth, and every 

 one now translates Erhaltung der Kraft as "conservation of 

 energy." So, also, I venture to think, they should usually trans- 

 late the phrase "specific energy " by the words normal activity 

 or normal reaction. Of course if normal activity of an organ or 

 tissue does not represent the thing meant, that is another matter 

 — so far as I can judge, it usually does ; but whether it does or 

 not, I am clear that specific energy is usually wrong. There 

 is one definite theory or hypothesis, to express which the words 

 energy in some form would be correct — viz. when it is meant to 

 assert that, for instance when light falls upon the retina, all it 

 does ii to pull a trigger, and the explosion or nerve stimulus 

 which results is due to energy in or near the nerve ending itself. 

 If that is a true statement of the case, and there must be a great 

 deal to be said for such a view, the latent energy of the organ 

 can no doubt be measured. But inasmuch as energy is all one 

 thing in many forms, the adjective specific is better omitted ; 

 moreover the phrase is not usually limited to this particular 

 hypothesis ; and by "the specific energy of an organ," is usually 

 meant, not anything quantitative, but simply the mode in which 

 it normally reacts. 



Another case of terminology occurs to me. For specification 

 of small lengths microscopists have introduced the term micron 

 for a thousandth of a millimetre, or a millionth of a metre ; 

 and very handy'is both the magnitude and the name, and I hope 

 physicists will adopt it. But everyone should consent to use it 

 in the same sense. There was a discussion about it in the pages 

 of Nature a few years ago, but I am not sure that the usage 

 even now is quite distinct. Many biologists call it a micro- 

 millimetre, which it is not ; and though they may mean the 

 same thing, it can only be by an eironeous, because uncon- 

 ventional, use of the prefix micro. All these things are con- 

 ventions, and once made the convention should be rigorously 

 adhered to. Sometimes the word is written micro instead of 

 micron ; a very small divergence, but better avoided. Either 

 term will do perfectly well, but not both. 



May we understand then that a micron is a micro-metre, or a 

 milli-milli-metre, or io~'' centimetre ; and that a millimicron 

 is a micro-millimetre, or lo~' centim. ? 



And may I incidentally protest against too much public use 

 of the meaningless and wasteful symbols ^ and fifi. for these two 

 lengths. If these symbols are found too handy in technical 

 microscopy to be abandoned, they must be used there ; but 

 they should never be allowed to obtrude into anything intended 

 for the general reader, nor for workers in other departments of 

 science. 



NO. 1250. VOL. 48] 



