350 



KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



[Oct. 24, 1884. 



viscid fluid exuding from the tubular hairs surrounding its pulvilli, 

 and which ordinarily enables the fly to walk in any position, but 

 continues to flow after the victim, from the destruction of its 

 riscera, Ac, has become too weak to more ; it then becomes covered 

 with a white powdery efflorescence, consisting of the stems and 

 sporangia of the fungus. 



The fly has dropped from some cause, fallen upon its back, and 

 scattered the fungoid growth about the place where it struck. 



Empusami(sc(B appears to be the aerial form of Sapsoleijnia fcra,T, 

 the fungus which has caused so much destruction to salmon in 

 many rivers of late years ; hence, those who have aquaria should 

 on no account feed fish with flies, as this practice may introduce a 

 supply of germinating spores certain to kill the inhabitants. 



Anent note on eclipse of 4th inst., p. 302, " Editorial Gossip," 

 here at Newcastle-on-Tyne, the moon's place at totality could only 

 be distinguished by a faintly luminous spot. A field-glass was 

 required in order to bring the dusky disc into view. The night 

 was fine, with some haze, but the more conspicuous stars were all 

 visible. il. H. Robson. 



[14V6] — Your correspondent, St. John, in the last number of 

 KnowleiiGE, mentions haWng found a dead fly surrounded by a 

 multitude of spores. He may be interested to know that flics at 

 this time of year are often killed, as his evidently was, by a fungus 

 (Empiisa musca-). This fungus attacks house-flies and completely 

 fills their bodies, which become very much swollen with its spawn 

 or mycelium. The segments of the body are stretched far apart, 

 and the fungus protrudes through the thin connecting membrane, 

 which is thus studded by numberless small, transparent bodies, 

 shaped much like a child's ninepin, but with no neck, packed close 

 together. When ripe, the head or spore is apparently thrown off 

 with some little force, and forms the dust-like ai^pearance round 

 the fly. I was examining a fly, attacked by this fungus, under the 

 microscope the other day. Between the segments were white bands 

 about the same width as the segments, which were entirely covered 

 with these little glass-like ninepins, and formed a very beautiful 

 object. G. S. S. 



FOOD OF THE DRONE-FLY. 



[1477]— Mr. H. J. Slack in " Pleasant Hours " for this week, 

 Oct. 17, speaking of the drone-fly says : " Unlike the biting insects, 

 the beetles, no solid particles suit these creatures." 



I should like to caU Mr. Slack's attention to the fact that all the 

 members of the drone-flj- group (Syniihido:), eat the pollen of 

 flowers. The pollen, though small, is I think, quite solid. I have 

 in my possession micro-slides showing the stomachs of various 

 flies of the Synphidac, containing pollen of various flowers on which 

 the flies have fed. In dissecting dung-flies, and very large blue- 

 bottle-flies that have fed upon dung, I have noticed very small 

 particles of solid matter in the stomach. If Mr. Slack has not 

 noticed this fact, I shall be pleased to send him a few micro-slides 

 for inspection upon receipt of Mr. Slack's address. John Moore. 



ESTIMATING DISTANCES. 



[1478] — With reference to the excellent method quoted in 3-our 

 paper lately from La Nature of finding distances by a silhouette 

 cut to size, 1 find an easy way of measuring distance wheu any 

 people are in sight is to reckon a furlong distance to a man of 

 average height when he appears half a degree high — i.e., the 

 breadth of either the sun or the moon against the sky. Half a moon 

 high^will, of course, mean double the distance — viz., a quarter of a 

 mile. C. T. B. 



LIFE AFTER DEATH. 



[1479] — I read with much pleasure the letter of yonr corre- 

 spondent, Mr. Selwyn Thorne, fori, too, take a deep interest in the 

 question of a future life. But I do not see how Mr. Thorne could 

 solve the problem, even for himself, by *' shuffling off this mortal 

 coil." He could only know that there is a future Vife, if there i.'i ; 

 if there is not, he would not know that he had ever wondered or 

 questioned about the matter at all, or, indeed, that there had ever 

 been a he to wonder or a q^ieslion to be solved. To quote the 

 words that Mr. Howells, the novelist, puts into the mouth of one 

 of his characters, " if we awake, we shall know it ; if we do not 

 awake, we shall not even know that we have not awakened." 



A boy was drowned while bathing here at Worthing a few weeks 

 ago. His body was brought to shore after it had been some time 

 in the water. Every means were taken to reanimate it ; but, un- 

 like the case spoken of by your correspondent, these means were 

 quite unavailing. Now, are we to believe that in the one instance 

 the soul or spirit of the man was merely dormant within his body, 

 while, in the other case, the boy's spirit was alive and awake, and 



conscious outside his body ? If so, at what moment did he awake ? 

 Was he, perhaps, looking on at the futile efforts of those engaged 

 in trying to bring him back to life in this world ? 



It would be pleasant to be able to believe something of this sort, 

 but as you say, sir, in your review of Mr. Reynolds's book, " belief 

 is not voluntary" ; in spite of the preachers there is no such thing 

 as wilful itnhelief. A man has no choice but to believe what seems 

 to him to be true. M. T. H. 



[1480] — We would have no cause to complain of your very 

 wholesome rale which excludes theological subjects from the pages 

 of Knowledge, if that rule were impartially enforced. I trnst you 

 will excuse me if I say (since I say it in no unfriendly spirit), that 

 while you exclude the theological, yoa insert much that is anti- 

 theological, and, in this, I think that we who believe at once in 

 religion and in science, have some cause of complaint. The letter, for 

 example, which appeared under the above heading is distinctly of 

 this class. It is plainly an attack upon theologians — "those who 

 teach the doctrine of a hereafter." Now, is this fair ? 



But more on this subject, as on every other, the scientific man 

 and the theologian take entirely different methods. Yonr corre- 

 spondent has adopted the theological, not the scientific, method, 

 and then 3'ou, Mr. Editor, in your note, tie our hands and tell ns 

 that we must not reply by the same method. Science bases its 

 conclusions on phenomena. Theology bases its conclusions partly 

 on phenomena, but chiefly on testimony. Now, the reasoning of 

 Mr. Thome is altogether founded on testimony, and that of the 

 most unsatisfactory and unreliable kind — negative testimony. We 

 have some positive testimony on the same subject, but your rule 

 excludes it — it is not " purely scientific." Neither is the reasoning 

 of your correspondent. 



Now, meeting Mr. Thome, not on his own ground, but on the 

 ground which you say must be occupied in this discussion, let me 

 present some considerations both for him and for your readers. 



1. The scientific conclusion from all that Mr. Thome relates 

 (admitting the correctness of his relation) is that the question 

 remains untouched. As regards the mind and soul, there are no 

 phenomena, therefore science gives no judgment in the matter. 

 It could not be otherwise, for — 



2. Admitting for the moment that the man was really deed. 

 and that he had actually passed into another life, we can only 

 argue here from analogy, and analogy would lead us to believe 

 that in the time he would have gained no knowledge, and that 

 his memory would retain no impression of that new life. For, 

 in this world, at all events, it is only when impressions have 

 been often repeated that the mind is affected. The mind of the 

 newly-born infant does not even receive the idea of light for 

 some time. In after years the mind is able easily to receive im- 

 pressions of comlinations of objects which have been made 

 already familiar by repeated presentation; but, as far as we can 

 know, if an unfamiliar phenomenon were to appear once, and 

 only once, it would make no impression whatever either on mind 

 or memory. And this is exactly what must have happened in 

 the supposititious case before us. The man received no impression, 

 because the mind was not prepared for such a sudden change. 



3. But, as a matter of fact, the man was not dead. He was only 

 unconscious. It is simply ridiculous to say that because a man is 

 in a faint he is practically dead. If so, the number who were dead 

 and have come to life again would be large indeed. I have mj-self 

 gone through the process more than once. We would find, too, 

 that it is not in every case that the mind in returning has no 

 account to give of its period of seeming absence from the body. 



4. To persons who, like Mr. Thorne, form their opinions on this 

 subject from the evidence casually obtained on occasions like that 

 which he narrates, we may fairly adduce the testimony of those 

 who declare that they have been visited by deceased persons at the 

 time of, or immediately after, death. Such evidence is at least as 

 trustworthy as the merely negative testimony that " no symptom 

 of change whatever" passed over the man who was unconscious. To 

 ns (poor theologians, who cannot argue scientifically) who believr 

 that there is something more certain on which to found our belief 

 than the testimony of unconscious or hysterical individuals, it 

 matters little whether we receive such evidence or not. 



Ballyboy Rectory, King's Co. John Healy, Clk., LL.D. 



[By " much that is anti- theological," I can only conceive that 

 Dr. Healy must refer to scientific conclusions opposed to his own 

 views. How many scientific men, who are entitled to be listened 

 to, now dispute the great antiquity and primitive savagery of the 

 human race, and the doctrine of evolution ? All of which my 

 correspondent would doubtless regard as "anti-theological" in a 

 high degree. Yet in this they have facts and not merely testi- 

 mony to appeal to. I say boldly that there is no evidence in ex- 

 istence as so the appearance of a deceased person, upon which a 



