NA TURE 



369 



THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 1894. 



THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION. 



,OxFORD, August 15. 



'ipHE meeting which is now ending is in many ways a 

 -I- memorable one. To those who are engaged chiefly 

 in the serious work of the Sections it will be memorable 

 because of the unusual fulness of the sectional meetings 

 and the exceptionally high standard of the communica- 

 tions which have been brought before them. To the 

 popular mind the great feature of the meeting is the 

 Presidential address. Apart from the accessory advan- 

 tages derived from the eminence of the speaker, his 

 position as Chancellor of the University, his command 

 of the English language, his oratorical powers, and the 

 unusual splendour of the University ceremonial, the 

 address must be considered as one of the most remark- 

 able that has been given from the Presidential rhair for 

 many years past. Its effects are likely to be considerable, 

 because, unlike the majority of scientific addresses, it was 

 thoroughly comprehended by the whole audience, and was 

 written in such clear, vigorous, and easy English that 

 there is no educated person who cannot understand every 

 word of it. Whether the effect will be for good or for 

 evil, time will show. Lord Salisbury passed in review 

 the weaknesses of all branches of science, but his ex- 

 posure of the incompleteness of the ethereal and atomic 

 theories are not likely to prejudice the general belief in 

 them. These are impersonal questions which the average 

 . layman is content to leave m the hands of specialists. 

 It is otherwise with Evolution, which came in for a large 

 share of criticism, much of which, it must be said, was 

 criticism of a somewhat unfair kind. Evolution and the 

 Darwinian hypothesis have been accepted of late by ihe 

 people in a somewhat reluctant and hesitating fashion ; 

 there has been no great champion of the opposite view, 

 and the " lay " mind has been overwhelmed with masses 

 of technical argument until it has relapsed into sullen 

 acquiescence. For the first time for some years pr-t a 

 voice has spoken from a seat of authority, and has raised 

 the hope that the bondage under which unwilling minds 

 were lying may be broken, that the doctrine of Evolu- 

 tion may be overthrown, and that of design resuscitated 

 in place of it. One has only to read the articles which 

 have appeared in all the leading newspapers to under- 

 stand how real this hope is, and how gladly a large 

 number of educated people would undo the labours which 

 were begun by Treviranus and Lamarck, carried on to 

 success by Charles Darwin and by Wallace, and elaborated 

 by Huxley, H.ieckel, Wcismann,and many others. The 

 biologist knowswell the answer to most of Lord Salisbury's 

 criticisms, and can show that most of them have often 

 been raised before, and have been completely answered. 

 They were partly answered by Prof. Mu.xley in the admir- 

 able speech in which he seconded the vote of thanks, 

 and it is to be hoped that he has not said his last word in 

 response to the challenge thrown down. A perusal of 

 the newspaper articles ol last week betrays a weakness 

 in the armour of scientific debate, a weakness from which 

 Prof. Huxley alone, or almost alone, is exempt. Since 

 the "Origin of Species" was first published, much 

 has been spoken and written on the subject, and 

 an enormous mass of evidence has been accumulated, 

 much of which is of the nature of verification, and 

 carries, or should carry, as much weight in support of the 

 theory of descent with modification as did the discovery 

 of new elements in support of the theory of Mendelcef. 

 Lut the subject is a large and intricate one, and the 



NO. 1294, VOL. 50] 



writings of many of the staunchest adherents of Evolution 

 have failed to influence those who are not professed 

 biologists because they have been couched in such 

 technical, and, at times, in such uncouth language that 

 they could not possibly be understood except by those 

 who have had a long training in the special subject. 

 Lord Salisbury has taught us that a skilled debater and 

 a master of epigram may, by a sudden and brilliant 

 attack, make a breach of some considerable extent in 

 what we have come to consider as an almost impregnable 

 stronghold. That the breach will be rapidly repaired, 

 there can be no doubt, and in repairing it biologists will 

 feel the advantage of having to improve the range and 

 penetration of their weapons of offence and defence. It 

 is not enough that a scientific truth should be the 

 possession of a privileged few; those who value the 

 truth should try to spread it and make it common 

 intellectual property, and this can only be done when 

 they realise that simplicity of language, a correct style, 

 and a good arrangement are essential to its propaga- 

 tion. It is unnecessary to remind readers of N.vrURE 

 that the questions in dispute among biologists are not 

 as to whether evolution has taken place, but as to the 

 manner in which it has taken place ; that the selection 

 of favourable variations is not denied, but that the opera- 

 tions of natural selection are still imperfectly under- 

 stood, and that arguments drawn from artificial selec- 

 tion, if they are applicable at all, are applicable only to 

 a very limited extent. Nobody supposes that the methods 

 of artificial selection, the mating of the favourably vary- 

 ing bridegroom with the favourably varying bride, find 

 their exact parallel in nature. The argument from arti- 

 ficial selection was originally brought in to prove that 

 under certain conditions species were capable of trans- 

 formation, and the different conditions under which 

 transformation may be effected, and the extent of trans- 

 formation under known conditions, are now the most 

 promising subjects of biological study. This fact was 

 very well exemplified in the discussion which followed 

 Prof D'Arcy Thompson's paper "On some Difficulties 

 of Darwinism," on Monday last. It might appear that 

 the debating of such a question in Section D was proof 

 of the truth of Lord Salisbury's contention, that there is 

 a reaction against Darwinism ; but it is to be observed 

 that none of the eminent authorities who took part in the 

 debate doubted the fact of progressive modification ; the 

 question at issue was whether the direct effect of external 

 conditions is or is not a factor of importance in causing 

 and perpetuating variations. The sum and substance of 

 Lord Salisbury's address was that science is not infal- 

 lible, and still far from having attained an exact know- 

 ledge even of fundamental problems. This science 

 knows very well, and the proceedings of Sections show 

 how very much is still to be learnt. 



It is impossible to review the work of each Section in 

 detail, but it may be said that never in recent years has so 

 much matter of novel or remarkable character been com- 

 municated in every department of Science. Section A has 

 been particularly active. When it has not been occupied 

 in holding joint discussions with Section G, on Flight and 

 on Integrators, or with Section I, on the Theory of Vision, 

 it has divided itself into three departments — two for 

 Physics, and one for pure Mathematics — and in each the . 

 number and the quality of the communications have 

 been of the highest order, one of the most remark- 

 able being that of Prof. G. Quincke, on the formation 

 of soap-bubbles by the contact of alkaline oleates with 

 water. 



But, so far as the scientific importance of the communi- 

 cations made to the present meeting is concerned, it is 

 conceded on all hands that a verbal and really an in- 

 formal announcement made by Lord Rayleigh to Section 

 H, on .Monday, on behalf of himself and Prof Ramsay, 



R 



