February 2, 1905J 



NA TURE 



119 



pecked very slowly, and frequently raised her head 

 and stretched her wings as if partially narcotised. 

 This experiment was repeated on the cock, but I 

 could not detect any indications of narcosis. The saucer 

 was filled with hot dilute sulphuric acid, into which 

 an ounce of powdered cyanide of potassium was thrown. 

 The evolution of prussic acid was so violent that I con- 

 sidered the neighbourhood unsafe. My gardener, who 

 was working thirty yards away, spoke to me of the " smell 

 of almonds." For some minutes the cock turkey fed with 

 his usual eagerness; then, suddenly, he began to stagger 

 round the enclosure, crossing his legs and holding nis beak 

 straight up in the air. He made his way back into the 

 pen, where he stood with head down and wings out- 

 stretched. After ten minutes he returned to the enclosure, 

 but did not eat any more grain. His comb and wattles 

 were deeply suffused with blood. 



In all observations on the sense of smell of animals we 

 have an obvious difficulty to face. There is no reason for 

 supposing that an animal enjoys an odour which pleases 

 us or dislikes one which we find disagreeable. My dog 

 appeared to be almost indifferent to bisulphide of carbon. 

 He showed, however, great repugnance to chloroform and 

 prussic acid. It is difficult to think that an animal which 

 is unable to protect itself from the injurious effects of such 

 drugs as these can possess the sense of smell. 



I shall be very grateful to any of your readers who will 

 give me information on this subject. Especially should I be 

 glad to learn something about the habits of wingless birds, 

 the mode of life of which, more or less, resembles that of a 

 terrestrial mammal. In them, if in any birds, it would 

 seem likely that the sense of smell would be efficient. In 

 his memoir on the Apteryx, Owen stated that " the relative 

 extent and complexity of the turbinated bones and the 

 capacity of the posterior part of the nasal cavity exceed 

 those of any other bird ; and the sense of smell must be 

 proportionately acute and important in its economy." 



Downing College Lodge, January 26. Alex. Hill. 



The Origin of Radium. 



In the issue of N.^ture for January 26, Mr. Soddy 

 describes the present position of his e.xperiments on the 

 production of radium from compounds of uranium, and 

 announces a positive result. 



Since I wrote on May 5, 1904, pointing out that, on the 

 theory of Rutherford and Soddy, the quantity of radium 

 developed by a few hundred grams of uranium should 

 be measurable in a few months, a quantity of about 

 400 grams of uranium nitrate has been preserved in my 

 laboratory. 



I am not yet prepared to give definite quantitative 

 results, but Mr. Soddy 's announcement may perhaps excuse 

 a preliminary statement that the quantity of radium 

 emanation now evolved by my uranium salt is distinctly 

 and appreciably greater than at first. 



.\ rough calculation of the rate of growth of radium 

 indicates a rate of change far slower than that suggested 

 by the simplest theory of the process, but somewhat 

 quicker than that given by Mr. Soddy, who finds that 

 about 2X10-'' of the uranium is transformed per annum. 

 As Mr. Soddy says, it is possible that the total amount of 

 emanation is not secured, and the fraction obtained may 

 depend to some extent on the particular method used by 

 each experimenter. But another possibility should be borne 

 in mind. If a non-radio-active product, intermediate be- 

 tween uranium and radium, exists, the rate of appearance 

 of radium would be slower at first, and quicker as the 

 experiment proceeds. My uranium salt was not purified so 

 successfully as that used by Mr. Soddy, and, when the 

 first measurement was made a month or so after prepara- 

 tion, the yield of radium emanation was appreciable. It 

 may be that Mr. Soddy is tracing the process from its 

 inception, and that I have started at a later stage, where 

 the rate of formation is somewhat greater. Further 

 observation may be expected to elucidate these and other 

 questions. W. C. D. Whetham. 



Cambridge, January 30. 



Fact in Sociology. 



I ADDRESSED a letter to the editor of Nature replying 

 to what I allege to be misrepresentations and misstate- 

 ments in a review of three of my books by " F. W. H." 

 (December 29, 1904, p. 193). After a delay of some weeks 

 due to the absence of " F. W. H." abroad, the editor 

 of Nature has written to ask me to modify and shorten 

 my protest. 



" F. W. H." told the readers of Nature that my 

 " Food of the Gods " " claimed to forecast the future." 

 This was untrue, and I said so. 



" F. W. H." mi.xed up my discussion of probabilities 

 in " Anticipations " with my general review of educational 

 influences in " Mankind in the Making," and presented 

 this as my ideals. I pointed out that this was an un- 

 sound method of criticism. 



" F. W. H." presented the following as my opinions: — 

 " Germany will be cowed by the combined English and 

 American Navies, and Anglo-Saxonism will eventually 

 triumph. There remain the Yellow Races. Their star, 

 too, will pale before that of the Anglo-Saxons." I re- 

 pudiated this balderdash with some asperity. It is violently 

 unlike my views. 



He wrote of me, " he seems unaware of the part 

 in the national life that is played by the lower stratum 

 of society, the ' stagnant ' masses as he would call them." 

 I denied that I should, and pointed out that no one does 

 know what part is played by any stratum of society in 

 national reproduction. It is a field of unrecorded facts. 

 I commented on " F. W. H.'s " assumption that he was 

 in possession of special knowledge. 



He wrote of " the fact that this stratum is an absolute 

 necessity." This is not a fact. It may or may not be 

 true. I commented on this use of the word " fact " in 

 view of " F. W. H.'s " professorial sneer at my 

 " imagination unclogged by knowledge." 



He declared that I want to " get rid of the reckless 

 classes, and depend solely on the careful classes," a state- 

 ment which has not an atom of justification. He not only 

 " guys " my suggestions, but foists an absolutely uncon- 

 genial phraseology upon me. 



Finally, he wrote, " we are to introduce careful parent- 

 age, thai is, put a stop to natural selection." I quoted 

 this in view of his statement that I had " no very thorough 

 grasp of the principles of evolution." I discussed what 

 appeared to be his ideas about evolution. They appeared 

 to me to be crude and dull, and I regret I cannot condense 

 .my criticisms to my present limits. 



I expressed some irritation at his method of mis- 

 statement followed by reply, and hinted a doubt whether 

 my own style of inquiry — in spite of the fact that romances 

 blacken my reputation — was not really more scientific 

 than his. H. G. Wells. 



The Fertilisation of Jasminum nudiflorum 

 This well known plant, in accordance with its usual, 

 habit, has ueen flowering in my garden at Stonehaven, 

 Kincardineshire, since the third week in December, 1904, 

 and amidst frost and snow and cold winds. There are no 

 leaves, but there are thousands of bright yellow flowers. 

 It is a puzzle to me how fertilisation is effected. The two 

 stamens are situated about half-way down the tube of 

 the corolla, and about four or five millimetres below the 

 style, which is, in many cases, two millimetres longer than 

 the tube of the corolla. It seems to me to be a plant 

 requiring the aid of insects in its fertilisation, but there 

 are no insects to be seen at this time of the year. On 

 January 22, as there was some sunshine, I watched the 

 plant for about four hours, but no insect paid it a visit. 

 At the same time I found the oblong anthers had split 

 and pollen grains were sticking to the stigma in many 

 flowers. The brilliantly coloured flowers, although desti- 

 tute of scent, are fitted to attract insects, and the form 

 of the flower seems adapted for their visits. But there 

 are no insects ! Can anyone offer an explanation ? The 

 plant is beautifully figured in the Botanical Magazine, 

 Ixxviii., tab. 4649. John G. McKendrick. 



University of Glasgow, January 24. 



NO. 1840, VOL. 71] 



