DISCO VliRY 



191 



Sir, 



Correspondence 



To the Editor of Discovery. 



Will you kindly allow me to make one or two 

 remarks with regard to Mr. J. S. Huxley's review of my 

 book on Symbiosis, a Socio-Physiological Study of Evolution , 

 which appeared in the June issue of your esteemed 

 journal ? 



Mr. Huxley, I am glad to say, has something favourable 

 to say at least about my exposition of Symbiosis as a 

 factor of progressive evolution. But behind the morpho- 

 logical study of Symbiosis (with which many are content) 

 there lies that of the " payability " of Symbiosis. And 

 this very important subject quite inevitably opens up 

 those economic and pathological considerations which 

 loom so largely in my book. On truly co-operative 

 methods. Symbiosis pays well. On any lapse to methods 

 of mutual plunder it pays less well, and the symbiotic 

 relation, and all that it entails, may come to an end igno- 

 miniously. 



For very good reasons, I hold that the same sequence 

 obtains on the grand scale of Nature ; and in this way I 

 explain degeneration and extinction. Mr. Huxley admits 

 that the principle involved in Symbiosis, namely partner- 

 ship, is the cause of much that is good in evolution. 

 But, like many other biologists, he cannot yet bring him- 

 self to realise that, inversely, the opposite principle, 

 namely predacity, is responsible for much that is evil. 



I will not ask him to accept my conclusion in a hurry, 

 nor as the necessary corollary of the proposition to which 

 he shows greater readiness to subscribe. I hope in due 

 time to publish such facts as to leave no doubts in the 

 matter. All I would urge for the moment is this, that 

 evolutionary pathology is still rather backward, and that 

 the very important matter of " correlations "' has been 

 sadly neglected. Perhaps one should not attempt to do 

 too much in a hurry. But with " correlations " duly 

 focused, I have no doubt Mr. Huxley, and with him 

 a number of broad-minded biologists, will see eye to eye 

 with me much further than they do to>-day. 



Yours faithfully, 



H. Reinheimer. 



Sir, 



THE FAIRY PHOTOGRAPHS 



To the Editor of Discovery 



I notice in the current number of Discovery that 

 the fairy photographs are clever fakes. I should be very 

 glad to know your reasons for this opinion. Mr. Gardner 

 and I have examined this question, know the people con- 

 cerned and their life history and capabilities, have had the 

 second set of results upon plates marked by ourselves, and 

 have had the results enlarged to their full capacity and 

 examined by several of the greatest experts in England, 

 who could find no sign of any fake. 



On the other side is the irresponsible opinion of a young 

 man who has never even taken the trouble to examine the 

 negatives, although it was stated in the article that Mr. 

 Gardner held them for reference. 



You are probably aware that the Westminster Gazette 

 sent up a very critical Commissioner, who shook our story 

 in no way, and declared that he had no doubt as to the 

 bona-fides of the family concerned. He brought out the 

 fresh fact that it was the first time the girl had ever been 

 allowed to use her father's kodak. 



In the face of all this we have a right to ask you what 

 possible precaution we have neglected, and what right you 

 have to brand us as foolish dupes, unless you have some 

 evidence to upset our conclusions. 



Yours faithfully, 



A. COXAN DOVLE. 



[The existence of fairies is something very strange and 

 very new. No one should shout down or think any the 

 less of a man who puts forth a plea for their existence, 

 although to many it appears nonsensical. It may be true 

 or partly true, and even if it be not true an investigation 

 may lead to something important or helpful. Science is 

 not so overburdened with ideas that it can afford to dis- 

 pense with any. On the other hand, we have the right to 

 adopt a doubting-Thomas attitude towards the alleged 

 new fact. If we can be convinced, as Thomas was, well 

 and good; if not, we may either suspend judgment, or 

 point out where we think the putter-forth of the view has, 

 as we think, erred, or been deceived. 



The burden of Mr. Vincent Patrick's remarks which I 

 quoted in the Editorial Notes was that photographic 

 evidence (a) may be untrustworthy even when the 

 photographer is perfectly sincere and trustworthy, and (6) 

 may easily be faked so that people may be deceived. 

 Because of this, photographic evidence must be secondary. 

 It may confirm ; I do not think it can convince. The 

 evidence that is wanted is the assertion by qualified and 

 trustworthy persons (such as the members of a learned 

 society), in normal health, that they have seen the fairies 

 with their own eyes. If this assertion can be made, we 

 need worry neither about photographic evidence nor 

 about the good faith of those who have been concerned 

 in the production or the critical examination of the photo- 

 graphs. Until it can be made, critics have a right, as a 

 matter of interest, to indicate possible ways in which a 

 camera may appear to record things which have not been 

 seen by the eyes. — Editor.] 



Reviews of Books 



Bibliothcca Cheniico-Mathijnatica. A. Catalogue of 

 Works in Many Tongues on Exact and Applied 

 Science. Two Volumes. (Henry Sotheran & 

 Co., 63s.) 



It may be news to some that there is a demand for 

 old books on science. Not only is the demand a real one, 

 it is one that grows from year to year. I do not think 

 that scientists or students of the history of science will 



