366 



NATURE 



[August i8, 1892 



synonymy previous to Rostafinski's monograph is bor- 

 rowed as a whole from that work, " without any attempt 

 at corroboration." Mr. Massee says: — 



" I feel certain that nearly one-third of Rostafinski's 

 work would not have been sacrificed to synonyms unless 

 they mean something more than I have been able to dis- 

 cover, hence I have not felt justified in ignoring them 

 altogether. " 



The geographical distribution has been worked out 

 from the extensive collections already referred to as at the 

 author's command. 



The twelve plates, bearing 313 coloured figures by 

 Mr. Massee himself, call for special mention as a valuable 

 assistance to students of the Myxogastres. They deserve 

 high praise for their accuracy and execution. The 

 printing and get-up of the book are very satisfactory. A 

 review would scarce be complete did it not find fault with 

 some point or other ; and we may do that part of our 

 duty very briefly by taking exception to the rather in- 

 convenient size (large octavo), and to the tendency in the 

 introductory pages to let the sentences run to an incon- 

 venient length. One, taken at random, we found to 

 occupy twenty-five lines. There is no ground for this 

 charge, however, as regards the descriptive portion of the 

 monograph. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 



\Tke Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions ex- 

 pressed by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake 

 to return, or to correspond with the writers of, rejected 

 manuscripts intended for this or any other part of Nature, 

 No notice is taken of anonymous communications. ] 



The Apodidae — a Reply. 



Prof. Lankester's review of my book in Nature (p. 

 267) coatains, as is usual with '''candid opinions," a consider- 

 ftble number of misstatements. These compel me to ask space 

 for a reply. 



Prof. Linkester commences by stating very authoritatively 

 that my account of the hermaphroditism of Apus is erroneous. 

 This question, being purely a matter of evidence, can wait. 

 My account of it in "The Apodidse " is "meagre " because, as is 

 clear to any one who reads the preface, I was constrained to 

 put aside for the present all questions which did not directly 

 bear upon the line of argument embodied in my book. 



These points, however, are not serious. Let us turn, then, 

 to the main charges which are intended to deprive my book of 

 all claim to be a real contribution to zoological science. Prof 

 Lankester, after himself dethroning my title, "The Apodidae," 

 says that I " pose as the discoverer of a new and unsuspected 

 agreement between the Crustacea and the Chtetopoda, and 

 that I bring forward arguments as new which have " long been 

 effectively used " for the same purpose. It is difficult here not to 

 accuse Prof Lankester of deliberate misrepresentation. If he 

 will allow me to keep my title and will read my book, he will 

 find that I go beyond this general standpoint, and specialize the 

 Apodidse as the particular Phyllopods which are to be deduced 

 from a Chastopod. Without, I believe, a single page of 

 digression, my book discusses from beginning to end the relation 

 of the Apodidse to the Annelids, of the Apodidae to Limulus, 

 to the Trilobites, and so on. All the well-known arguments in 

 favour of the more general proposition which deduces the 

 Phyllopods from Annelids I have naturally adopted, adding, 

 however, many new arguments of more or less weight in favour 

 of my special point. Not one of these arguments does Prof 

 Lankester attempt to meet. The only one he refers to he wishes 

 to claim as his own, as, indeed, he does everything else in the 

 book " which will bear examination " ! This charge of whole- 

 sale plagiarism from Prof. Lankester's articles on Apus and 

 Limulus is the more remarkable, because my own investigations 



NO. II 90, VOL. 46] 



compelled me either to modify or to reject almost every position 

 therein adopted by him. This may account for his "candid 

 opinion," but hardly for his charge of plagiarism. The only 

 evidence he adduces to support this charge can merely be meant 

 to throw dust in the eyes ; it is as follows : — 



In describing the absence of articulations in the limbs of Apus 

 I admitted that Prof Lankester had noted the point (which, 

 however, is not absolutely correct), but I added that he had 

 failed to see its significance. Prof. Lankester resents this state- 

 ment, and cites himself to show that he agreed with Claus in 

 holding that the limbs of the Arthropoda were homologous with 

 the parapodia of the Chretopods. This acquiescence in a 

 general proposition does not in any way prove that he applied 

 it to explain the special conditions of the limbs of Apus. 



While I do not at all share his jealousy in matters of priority, 

 and will gladly yield the point to him if he can base his claim on 

 something more definite than the passage he cites, the fact that 

 he wishes to claim this argument for his own is specially interest- 

 ing. There is far more meaning in this than in his use of such 

 expressions as " fanciful conceptions, crude speculations, and 

 dogmatic assertions," because, if this particular argument holds 

 — and Prof Lankester would not claim it unless he acknowledged 

 its validity — it goes far to show that my theory can hardly be 

 called a "fanciful conception." The reviewer's statement that 

 "there is no evidence " that I "made use of well-preserved 

 material," looks as if he had not taken the trouble to read the 

 book, and further as if he did not understand the importance of 

 the issues at stake ; the histological points, which are the only 

 ones likely to be affected by the state of preservation of the 

 material, are insignificant as compared with the main argument. 



If, instead of indulging in such loose charges, Prof Lankester 

 had endeavoured to show where, in his opinion, my argument 

 breaks down, and what are some of the more glaring misstate- 

 ments in my book, which cause him to "regret" that he 

 cannot recommend it as "a repository of fact," he would 

 have done science(andperhaps(?) myself personally) much better 

 service. I should also persotially have been grateful to him had 

 he himself set an example to the more "inexperienced" zoolo- 

 gist of " how morphological problems should be attacked." I 

 did not, in my speculations as to the relation of Apus to the 

 Annelids, feel inclined to follow the example set by Prof Lan- 

 kester in his own speculations as to the relations of Limulus to 

 the Arachnids. I was especially recommended to ripen my 

 ideas, and to publish them together in book-form. Would Prof. 

 Lankester have advised me to publish my speculations, as he did 

 his, in separate articles, occasionally, perhaps, advancing 

 theories and arguments in one article which have to be with- 

 drawn in the next ? This plan may be convenient for the writer, 

 but is most annoying to all who have to work over the same 

 ground again. 



To conclude, my book is an argument from beginning to end ; 

 the argument may be absurd, but it must be met by argument. 

 In the meantime, until Prof Lankester demolishes it, I have the 

 good fortune to know that several leading zoologists, among 

 whom Prof Haeckel kindly permits me to mention his name, 

 think it — well, to say the least — not absurd. 



August 2. Henry M. Bernard. 



Calculation of Trajectories of Elongated Projectiles. 

 {Additional N'ote.) 



It has been already pointed out (Nature, March 1892, p. 474) 

 that the range table of the 4-inch B.L. gun, selected by the autho- 

 rities, afforded a more satisfactory test of the value of the co- 

 efficients of resistance than the results of the special experiments 

 carried out with that gun in 1887. This range table was based 

 on practice of 17/5/83, 7/3/84, and 21,23/4/84. The muzzle 

 velocity was iQOof.s. ; the weight of the shot 25lbs. ; and the 

 diameter of the shot 4in. But no information is given respect- 

 ing the height of the barometer or thermometer. In this table 

 the elevations are given at which the gun must be laid to obtain 

 ranges of 100, 200, 300 .... 7600, 7700 yards, and also the 

 time of flight for each range, expressed to the i^ijth of a second 

 for ranges below 5000 yards, and to the jijth of a second for 

 ranges 5000 to 7500 yards. 



In calculating the ranges for elevations of 1°, 2°, 3° ... . 20°, 

 the temperature was supposed to be 62° F., and height of the 

 barometer 3oin., at the level of the gun. The coefficient k was 

 supposed to be 0*97 to adapt the tables to a head struck with 

 a radius of two diameters. 



