November 2t„ 1893] 



NATURE 



79 



The circumstances spoken of by Prof. Yonng, as alluded 

 to in the accompanjing letter, tell of special solar activity at the 

 time of magnetic di>tuibance, observed solar paroxysms 

 occurring apparently in ciTrespondence with magnetic move- 

 ments ; but the ques ion whether definite connection exists-, is 

 the really critical point, as in the Carrington observation of 

 1859. Prof. Young himself says ("The Sun," p. 159) : — " So 

 far as appears, the magnetic action ofthei-un was instantaneous. 

 After making allowance for longitude, the magneiicdisturbance 

 in England was strictly simultaneous, so Jar as can be Judged, 

 with the spectroscopic disturbance seen on the RocUy Moun- 

 tains." ( The italics are mine.) Without being over-cm ical, it 

 may be remarked that the terms "instantaneous" and 

 "strictly simultaneous " are somewhat strong, in the circum- 

 stances o! the case. 



Feeling that too much importance had been by various writers 

 attached to the Carrington observa'ion, I may have been led to 

 the expression of a too pronounced opinion thereon. Rather it 

 might be said that direct connection is not pr(.ved. It is to be 

 remembered that the cases of recoided occurrence together of 

 solar and magnetic phenomena are few, whilst solar change (such 

 as is s(mietniics actually observed, or as is remarked in the 

 changed solar appearance from day to day) withuut magnetic 

 action, and very frequently magnetic action without recorded sohir 

 change, both occur in greater degree than, on the supposition 

 of direct connection between the two classes of phenomena, 

 would be expected. Prof. Young, indeed, further says : — 

 "No two or three coincidences such as have been adduced are 

 sufficient to establish the doctrine of the suu's immediate 

 magnetic action upon the earth, but they make it so far probable 

 as to warrant a careful investigation of the matter — an investi- 

 gation, however, which is not easy, since it implies a practi- 

 cally continuous watch of the solar surface." One main diffi- 

 culiy is here p<iinted out. Continuous magnetic registration is 

 easily maintained, lut how far the observation of solar change 

 is adequate (in spite of the numbers of observers) for the 

 purposes of such an inquiry is possibly somewhat doubtful. The 

 problem of a sufficiently comprehensive and satisfactory com- 

 parison of the irregularities in solar and magnetic changes is 

 evidently one of very considerable difficulty. 



Greenwich, November 14. WiLLiAM Ellis. 



Artifical Amcebse and Protoplasm. 



I REVIEWED in Nature, No. 1251, Prof. Buischli's recently 

 published work " Mikroskopische Schaume und das Proto- 

 plasma.' The book is distinctly polemical, and on pages 5 

 and 6 the author refers to his own, and his colleague Prof. 

 Quincke's work, and states his indebtedness to the latter's in- 

 vestigation upon physical emulsions, but accuses him of having 

 adopted his own view as to the structure of protoplasm, and that 

 without acknowledgment. 



" Ich babe Herrn Collegen Quincke, bevorer seine Hypothese 

 der Plasmaliewegungen veroffenilichte, mehrfach meine Ansicht 

 ueber die wahrscheinliche .^tructur dieser Substanz gesprachs- 

 weise mitgetheilt und betonf, dass gewisse Eigenschaden des 

 Plasmas wuhl mit dieser Bau irect ziisammenhangen diirften. 

 Quincke hat in seiner Mitlheilung von 1888 das Plasma noch als 

 einfache Fliissigkeit behandelt, von einer Schaumstructur 

 desselhen nirgends gesprochcn ; wenn er spiiter (1889), nach 

 Veroflentlichui g meines eisten Berichtes (1889) die Schaum- 

 structur bttont, so kann ich darin nur den Einfluss metner 

 Erfahrungen erkennen, auch wenn er derselben in dieser Publi- 

 cation, welche liber das Plasma und seine Bewegungser- 

 scheinungen handelt, nirgends gedenkt." 



{Trans.) — In the course of conversation, and before he pub- 

 lished his hypothesis of protoplasmic movement, I frequently 

 mentioned my view as to the probable structure of this substance 

 to my colleague Quincke, and I emphasised the probability of a 

 direct relation between certain properties of the plasma and 

 this structure. In his note of 1S88 Quincke still treated the 

 plasma as a simple fluid, and nowhere made mention of the 

 foam-like structure. When, later on, in 1889, after the publica- 

 tion of my first report, he emphasises the foam structure, I can- 

 not but recognise the influ' nee of my ow-n experiences, though 

 he makes no mention ot them in this publication, which treats 

 of the plasma and of the phenomena of its movement. 



In Na'I URE, No. 1253, a letter appeared from Prof. Quincke, 

 stating that he "was the first to point to the foamy nature of 

 protoplasm, which was later on further investigated by Prof. 

 Biitschli." 



Prof. Quincke is evidently annoyed that his prior claim to the 

 discovery, if di covery it be, was not made clear by me in the 

 review. But my duty as a reviewer was with Prof. Butschli, 

 whose views as to the foamy nature of protoplasm I sketched to 

 the best of my ability, and I ventured to criticise them ad- 

 veisely. If Prof. Butschli was not the first to describe the 

 (oamy nature of protoplasm, and i( he was anticipated by Prof. 

 Quincke, then it is the latter's duty, not mine, to make this 

 clear. I could not possibly be expected to deal with such a 

 controversy in a review, for such an extended historical inquiry 

 as this would imply, would hardly have found acceptance. 



As Prof. Biitschli distinctly states that before 1889 Prof. 

 Quincke looked upon protoplasm as a simple fluid, the latter, 

 in order to establish his position, has only to send definite 

 quotations from one of his publications prior to this date, in 

 which it is clear that the foamy nature ot protoplasm was de- 

 scribed by him. 



I scarcely think that Prof. Quincke can himself have read my 

 review, for had he done so he would hardly have accused me of 

 slighting his well-known and valued sc entific work. Prof. 

 Quincke charges me with calling " his investigations " " toys for 

 the physicist." I never referred to him ai all in this connection, 

 but spoke definitely of the preparations of foam as manulac ured 

 by Prof. Biitschli. I moreover would point out to Prof. (^)uiiicke 

 that we cannot compare an " investigation" with a "toy," for 

 one is an acti< n, the other a thing, 



I regret exceedingly that the " Q " in Prof. Quincke's name 

 appeared as "N," and take to myself the sole responsibility. I 

 write the capital " Q " not unhke an " N," and omitted to notice 

 the mistake in the proofs. John Berry Haycraft. 



Physiological Laboratory, University College, Caraiff. 



THE ROYAL SOCIETY CLUB. 



THERE are not many social institutions which can 

 point to an antiquity of a century and a half, and 

 this is what the Royal Society Club was able to celebrate 

 on Thursday, the i6th instant. 



The club is almost, if not quite, the oldest club in 

 existence. The Dilettanti Society, which was founded a 

 year earlier, in 1742, is not a club, and has, from the first, 

 imposed a line on any of its members who should apply 

 that designation to it. 



The Royal Society Club was formally inaugurated on 

 October 27, 1743, but its very act of inauguration recog- 

 nises the existence of a still earlier body. This 

 " Memorandum of Association " is headed as follows : 

 "Rules and Orders to be ( bserved by the Thursdays 

 Club, called the Royal Philosophers.' 



We hear of theVirtuosos Club, meeting on Thursdays, 

 among the clubs of London in 1709, and in the year 1742 

 the club was described by Hutton as " Dr. Halle) 's, Club." 

 It is possible that the inaugural meeting ot October 27, 

 1743, may have been the reorganisation of the club after 

 Dr. Halley's death in the previous year. 



The title of "Royal Philosophers 'lasted till 1786, when 

 the dinner bills were charged to " the Royals." The full 

 title Royal Society Club was adopted later. 



The history ot the club was drawn up in i860 by 

 Admiral W. H. Smyth, and privately printed, under the 

 title of the " Rise and Progress of the Royal Society 

 Club.' Many interesting particulars may be gathered 

 from this compilation. 



At the very first, Fellowship of the Society was not a 

 necessary condition of membership of the club, as it now 

 is. Mr. Colebrooke, who was treasurer of the club in 

 1743, was not elected into the Royal Society till i755- 



The meetings were at first held at the Mitre Tavern 

 in Fleet Street, for forty years from 1743. The club 

 then moved to the "Crown and Anchor" in the Strand, 

 where it remained until 1848, when it went to the Free- 

 masons' Tavern. On the removal of the Society to Bur- 

 lington House in 1857, the club followed it westwards to 

 the Thatched House Tavern, and subsequently to 

 Willis's Rooms. On the final closing of the last-named 



NO. T256, VOL. 4q] 



