October 3, 1901] 



NATURE 



551 



LETTER TO THE EDITOR. 



The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions ex- 

 pressed by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake 

 to return, or to correspond with the writers of, rejected 

 manuscripts intended for this or any other part of NATURE. 

 No notice is taken of anonymous communications.'^ 



Long-tailed Japanese Fowls. 



With reference to my previous letter on this subject, I 

 should like to draw the attention of the readers of Nature to a 

 very interesting paper in the Transactions of the Asiatic Society 

 of Japan (vol. xxvii. 1900). The writer, Mr. Basil Hall 

 Chamberlain, who has obtained his information from a Japanese 

 fancier, Mr. Kitagawa Ushimatsu, and has also examined the 

 birds himself, states that " there is absolutely no artificial method 

 of making the feathers grow. All is done by selection. Any 

 failure to obtain good results must proceed from having a bad 

 hen, that is, one not of the true breed, and it is in this point 

 that buyers are liable to be deceived. Also one must know how 

 to treat the birds." 



The long tail-feathers, Mr. Chamberlain states, grow during 

 the whole life of the bird, which may extend to eight or nine 

 years. If accidentally pulled out they are reproduced. The 

 rate of growth is about four inches a month in young birds, 

 but as much as seven inches in older specimens. The custom 

 of tying up the tail is stated to be a mistaken one, and not 

 to be followed where the birds are bred. The very best speci- 

 mens are, not unnaturally, kept at home by the breeders in the 

 Tosa province. 



The breed is believed to be about a century old, but its 

 origin is unknown. But it seems obvious from the evidence 

 given that it was bred from birds which "sported" in the 

 direction of contmuously-growing feathers, as I suggested. Mr. 

 Chamberlain's paper is illustrated by two excellent photographs 

 of cocks of this breed, one of which at least is evidently far 

 superior to the specimens e.xhibited at South Kensington, re- 

 markable as these are. Frank Finn. 



c/o Zoological Society, 3, Hanover-square. 



PROF. A. F. W. SC HIM PER. 

 \A/ILHELM ANDR£ SCHI.MPER, who passed 

 ^ ^ away on September 9 in his forty-si.xth year, was 

 the great son of an eminent father. Inheriting from his 

 father, the professor of botany, and from the Abyssinian 

 traveller Schimper, a famous name, he made that name 

 yet more famous. 



Schimper studied at the University initially, I believe, 

 with the intention of becoming a mineralogist ; and his 

 first paper, on proteid crystals (1879), bears the impress of 

 his special training. But this paper, as well as an early 

 one (issued 18S0) on a parasitic flowering plant, Proso- 

 ■baiiche, has been overshadowed by his later achieve- 

 ments. 



It was not until the appearance of his paper on the 

 origin of starch (1880) that the botanical world became 

 aware that a young botanist of power and originality had 

 joined it. Before the appearance of this paper the view 

 prevailed that starch-grains were manufactured either by 

 chlorophyll grains or by the general protoplasm. 

 Schimper showed that starch-grains are invariably pro- 

 duced in specialised masses of protoplasm, in chloro- 

 phyll grains, or in colourless " starch-builders." Con- 

 tinuing his researches (1880-1S85), he, together with 

 Schmitz, proved that chloroplasts, e.xclusively by division, 

 arise from preexisting ones (ortheirhomologues),but never 

 by a formation dc no-jo from the general protoplasm. 

 Schimper further demonstrated the homology of the three 

 classes of chromatophores — leucoplasts (without colour- 

 ing matter), chloroplasts (with chlorophyll), and chromo- 

 plasts (with red or yellow colouring matter). In fact, 

 while other histologists were showing that the plant-cell 

 and animal-cell had two distinct and individualised kinds 

 of protoplasm — cytoplasm and nucleus — Schimper was 

 demonstrating that a third existed, which, like the other 



NO. 1666, VOL, 64] 



two, could produce, and only be produced by, its like. 

 In other words all (or at least nearly all) indubitable 

 animals possess in their cells only two completely distinct 

 kinds of protoplasm, whereas all indubitable plants, with 

 the exception of fungi, and possibly some of the lowest 

 vegetable organisms, have three kinds ; and it is to the 

 possession of this third kind of protoplasm — chroma- 

 tophore-proloplasm — that the plant world largely owes 

 its evolution. 



But Schimper's investigations on starch-grains in- 

 cidentally aided in the inception of another, though 

 minor, revolution in botanical thought. When Schimper 

 commenced his work on the origin of starch, Naegeli's 

 theory of growth of the cell-wall by intussusception was 

 firmly held. Schimper's observations and considerations 

 on the growth of starch grains, and some of .Schmitz's 

 observations, were the first blows struck at Xaegeli's 

 theory, in favour of growth by apposition, and doubtless 

 they stimulated Strasburger to furnish his masterly case 

 in support of the latter view. 



Not to adopt strict chronological order, but to follow 

 Schimper's researches so far as they dealt with pure 

 physiology or histology, the next paper, on the conduction 

 of carbohydrates (1885), was of value, as an exhibition of 

 a strict physiological method, and as an appeal against 

 the alluring and facile method of endeavouring to solve 

 physiological problems solely by histological observations, 

 rather than as a paper containing essentially new physio- 

 logical views. Schimper's two succeeding physiological 

 papers, on the formation of calcium oxalate in leaves 

 (1887), and the assimilation of mineral salts (1890), were 

 of greater importance. They introduced the method of 

 following by microchemical tests the various inorganic 

 elements in their course from the root to the leaves. 

 Apart from serving as admirable and novel models of 

 physiological research, these papers proved that the 

 leaves are no mere workshops for the manufacture of 

 carbohydrates, but that they are in reality perfectly 

 equipped factories in which the rawest food materials 

 can be, and are, worked up into elaborate proteid com- 

 pounds, and even into protoplasm. Schimper further 

 showed that chlorophyll, in addition to affecting the de- 

 composition of carbon dioxide and the production of 

 carbohydrates, also in some way influences the reduction 

 of inorganic salts and the production of proteids, ap- 

 parently in a direct manner. 



Despite the \'alue of his contributions to our know- 

 ledge of the histology and physiology particularly of 

 green cells, Schimper's fame is possibly wider as the 

 founder of a true method of investigating the " politics," 

 "biology," '"bionomics," or cecology of plants. 



Though Sprengel, Darwin, H. INItiUer and others had 

 set so excellent an example in their treatment of questions 

 relating to the pollination of flowers, in other departments 

 of the subject the cecology of plants was mainly a motley 

 array of ill-considered hypotheses, vain phantasies and 

 unfounded conclusions, and by serious botanists the sub- 

 ject was derided as the " romance of botany." Schimper 

 inaugurated a new era. In dealing with problems on 

 the relation between plants and their environments, he 

 insisted that the same thoroughness and precision should 

 be exercised as in investigating morphological and 

 physiological questions. 



Schimper's iirst cecological paper, on epiphytes (1884), 

 was a veritable revelation, magic as a fairy-story in in- 

 terest, but severely reasoned in substance. In this, and 

 in its final version (1891), it was shown that epiphytes 

 were children of the moist forests, and had arisen as 

 beings that had won a victory in the struggle for light by 

 seizing positions of vantage with very little expenditure 

 of material. Commencing as humble occupants of the 

 soil within the shady forest, epiphytes had in the course 

 of ages laboriously clambered up the trees, striving after 

 the light, and ever struggling against the precarious and 



