NALURE | 
[JANUARY 31, 1907 
The Mathematical Tripos. 
In Nature of January 17 (p. 273) there is a long article 
by Prof. Perry which contains. a one-sided account of the 
new regulations for the mathematical tripos. So far as 
I can see, no new arguments are suggested, for every 
statement has been already fully discussed and as, I 
believe, thoroughly answered. To repeat all these at length 
would take too much space and time; but perhaps the 
Editor of Nature will allow me to remark on two or three 
assertions which can be answered in a few words. 
Prof. Perry speaks of those who vote ‘‘ non-placet ’’ as 
the opponents of reform, yet these ‘* non-placets ’’ have con- 
tinually urged the necessity of reform. It is only this 
particular reform that they object to. It was proposed in 
the Senate House (Reporter, p. 325) to have joint meetings 
of the two parties and to agree on some common action. 
It has also been suggested that we might use the Smith’s 
prizes to separate the different kinds of students. It is, 
therefore, the ‘‘ placets’’ whom we ought to designate 
as the opponents of reform when they refuse even to 
consider such proposals. So also in the circular (December, 
1906) issued by our committee, we say that in the event 
of the regulations being rejected, we are ready to cooperate 
in promoting such measures as would, while preserving 
the best features of the present system, at the same time 
remedy its admitted defects. 
In another place Prof. Perry tells us that one of the 
most important regulations is that a student may take 
part i. in his second term. He gives no explanation why 
this regulation has been objected to, yet this makes all 
the difference. If students can pass part i. in first-class 
honours in their second term, the subjects cannot be much 
more than. schoolboy knowledge, and do not deserve Cam- 
bridge first-class mathematical honours. These subjects 
are fewer in number than those of the existing part i. 
Others have been curtailed, for example, the uses of the 
binomial, exponential, and logarithmic theorems, and also 
those of Taylor and Maclaurin are required, but without 
their proofs. Is a tripos which does not include these 
proofs worthy. of first-class university honours in mathe- 
matics? It is a new thing that a mathematician should 
learn theorems by rote without understanding the reasons. 
In regard to the higher studies, there is only space to 
notice that the existing part ii. has been generally regarded 
as a complete failure, yet its theory and practice are to 
be retained in the new programme. 
The proposed scheme was signed by fifteen only out 
of the twenty-five members of the Mathematical Board, the 
remainder not voting. Among college lecturers in mathe- 
matics, our count makes the majority opposed to the 
scheme, and the same is true of resident graduates in 
mathematical honours. Almost all the training for part i. 
is now done by the lecturers and teachers in the various 
colleges. . It is only. with. these that the mathematical 
undergraduate is brought into close contact, and it is to 
them rather than to the professors (who necessarily confine 
their lectures. to the highest subjects), that we should look 
for guidance on the needs of their pupils (see the ‘‘ non- 
placet ”’ circular). 
The name of a distinguished mathematician is claimed 
as a supporter by Prof. Perry. The name of Lord 
Kelvin here comes naturally to our remembrance, as he 
is our greatest natural philosopher. If the mention of 
the first name is an argument, how much more that of 
Kelvin? Yet Lord Kelvin is opposed to the new ‘“ so- 
called” reformation. His opinion of the university train- 
ing has been given to us in his fly-sheet. Other old 
members have also explained the good they derived from 
their “‘ old-fashioned ’’ Cambridge course. 
Prof. Perry states that if the ‘‘ non-placets’’ should 
succeed in reversing the decision of the Senate, they are 
establishing a precedent which cannot conduce to the 
smooth working of the University. @1e must have for- 
gotten the precedent set in 1872-3, when a proposal making 
Greek non-compulsory in the previous was carried in 1872, 
only to be rejected when-it came up again a few months 
later in 1873. No constitutional difficulties. appear to have 
followed. It was proposed in the Senate House by one at 
least of the supporters of the scheme that if the October 
decision is reversed they should repeat the voting term 
after term until the opposite side was wearied out. Is it 
NO. 1944, VOL. 75] 
considered that such a course will conduce to the smooth 
work’ng of the University? So strange a plan appears to 
be void of all argument, and if even partially adopted will 
throw the whole Senate into confusion. 
There are many points in Prof. Perry’s summary of the 
regulations which would require an answer if they had 
not already been so fully replied to. I hope I have shown 
that some of his statements, at least, require verification. 
Epwarp J. Routu. 
Fertilisation of Flowers by Insects. 
Dr. ALFRED Russet Wattace, in an article entitled 
“Creation by Law,’’ contributed to the Quarterly Journal 
of Science in October, 1867, alluded to a Madagascar 
orchis (Angraecum sesquipedale) with a nectary varying in 
length from 10 inches to 14 inches, and prophesied that a 
hawk-moth will be discovered with a tongue of equal 
length to fertilise it. ‘‘ That such a moth exists in 
Madagascar may be safely predicted, and naturalists who 
visit that island should search for it with as much con- 
fidence as astronomers searched for the planet Neptune— 
and they will be equally successful! ’’ Will someone kindly 
tell me if this prophecy was fulfilled; if so, when, and the 
name of the moth? E. W. Swanton. 
Dr. Jonathan Hutchinson’s Educational Museum, 
Haslemere, Surrey, January 17. 
In reply to Mr. Swanton’s letter, I have not heard of 
any moth from Madagascar with an exceptionally long 
proboscis. I think, however, I did hear of one from East 
Africa with a proboscis nearly the length required; but as 
entomologists do not usually open out and measure the 
length of proboscis of all the large Sphingidz they receive, 
some of the required length may exist unnoticed in our 
public or private collections. An inquiry at the insect 
departments of the Natural History Museum, and also of 
that of the Jardin des Plantes, would perhaps afford Mr. 
Swanton the required information. 
ALFRED R. WaALLAce. 
The Immortality of the Protozoa. 
to p. 42 of Coleridge’s ‘* Biographia 
(Bohn’s Library) occurs the following  state- 
Ix a footnote 
Literaria ”’ 
ment :— 
“There is a sort of minim immortal among the 
animalcula infusoria which has not naturally either birth 
or death, absolute beginning or absolute end: for at a 
certain period a small point appears on its back, which 
deepens or lengthens until the creature divides in two, and 
the same process is repeated in each of the halves now 
become integral.” 
As I understand (for I am no biologist myself), the 
theory of the immortality of the protozoa was, according 
to the generally accepted view, first definitely formulated 
by Weismann in his lecture ‘‘ Ueber die Dauer des 
Lebens "’ in 1881. It had been indicated before, but never 
definitely stated. But an examination of the passage 
quoted above, with the context in which it occurs (which 
is too long to be inserted here), shows that already in 
1815 Coleridge could allude to this conception as one the 
truth of which was already accepted among biologists. 
For Coleridge is not stating the fact for its own sake: he 
introduces it merely as an illustration .of a fact of 
etymology. Moreover, it is not merely to the phenomenon 
of multiplication by fission that he alludes, but to the con- 
ception to which (at some period subsequent to its dis- 
covery) it gave birth. 
Coleridge took a keen interest in biology, and was, no 
doubt, widely read in biological literature. It is possible, 
indeed, that his statement is based, not on anything that 
he had read, but on what he had heard in conversation 
with men of science of his day. It would be interesting, 
however, to know if the conception had been definitely put 
forward in writing at this time, and I should be much 
obliged if you would give me, through the medium of your 
columns, an opportunity of clearing the question up. 
J. SHAwcRoss. 
28 Oberstein Road, New Wandsworth, S.W., 
January 109. 
