458 
NATEOICLE 
[ MARCH 17, 1904 
lying at the west end of the tectonic line which curves 
about the Banda Sea. Here again radiolarian flint 
occurs, as nodules or thin beds in a massive limestone, 
unconformably overlying ‘‘ grauwacke.’’ Globigerina 
beds assist in assigning to this ‘‘ Buru limestone ”’ a 
true deep-sea character. Mesozoic molluscan species are 
kknown from the later limestones. Typical karang does 
not seem to have formed freely across the old crystalline 
rocks of Buru, which remain exposed over a wide 
area. A consideration of the coast-lines, and of the 
level nature of the karang formation, leads the author 
to conclude that the Moluccan region is one of fault 
blocks and vertical movements (p. 286) rather than of 
folding. He agrees with Verbeek and with most 
observers in the Indo-Pacific area that uplift,and sub- 
sidence of adjacent land masses, and not the retreat of 
the waters, must be held accountable for the present 
relations of island-crest and ocean-floor. 
A noteworthy feature of Prof. Martin’s work is the 
frequent reference to the soils derived from various 
types of solid rock. This alone would show the careful 
spirit in which he has made his observations. As he 
freely remarks, detail after detail remains to be filled 
in; but his maps, drawn on a liberal scale, his sections, 
and the photographic landscapes, give the reader a 
clear insight into what his journeys have revealed. 
The Dutch Government, in assisting the publication of 
the results, has conferred a benefit on geographers as 
well as on geologists, 
GRENVILLE A. J. COLE. 
ANOTHER ATTACK UPON DARWINISM. 
Mimicry, Selektion, Darwinismus. By M. C. Piepers, 
Dr. jur. utr. Pp. 452. (Leyden: Brill, 1903.) 
HE theory that natural selection is an important 
if not an all sufficient explanation of the evolu- 
tion of animals and plants has had to meet the attacks 
of a few serious and of many frivolous critics. To 
the former class belongs Dr. Piepers. We may not 
approve of his methods or agree with his conclusions, 
but his wide learning, his special knowledge of a single 
group of animals—the Lepidoptera—and his laborious 
efforts to disprove the current theories of evolution are 
sufficient to justify us in classifying him with the 
serious critics. Many will, doubtless, shrink from the 
task of reading with care the four hundred pages of 
closely written text, without illustration, with which 
his attack is framed and delivered, but every naturalist 
who has the courage to do so will find in it a great 
deal of instruction and—may we add without offence ?— 
no little amusement. I would suggest to those who 
attempt the task to disregard, if possible, certain 
features of the work which disfigure the text. 
The denunciation of modern theories with such ex- 
pressions as the ‘‘ mimicry humbug,” the “ heresies 
of modern biological science ’’ and ‘‘ phantasies ’’; the 
unmannerly denunciation of such naturalists as Weis- 
mann, Wallace, Bates and Poulton; the description of 
the unwholesome character of the English race which 
produced and encouraged a Darwin (p. 397), are un- 
usual in a work of permanent scientific value. Never- 
theless, the pages are filled with many facts bearing 
NO. 1794, VOL. 69| 
upon the theories of mimicry and protective resem- 
blance which will certainly be of value to the serious 
student of natural history, whatever his preconceived 
ideas may be. 
To quote one of the many interesting facts bearing 
upon the questions in dispute, we find on p. 22 :— 
“Ich habe selbst einen meiner javanischen Raupen- 
sucher, obwohl er das Thier selbst gefangen hatte, 
plotzlich erschreckt die Hand zuriickziehen sehen, als 
eine Raupe von Hebomoia glaucippe L. die er mir 
zeigen wollte, ihre Schlangen-Mimicry annahm, und 
das wiewohl diese Raupe viel kleiner ist als die der 
Chaerocampa- und Parechidnia-Arten, die sich mehr 
der Grosse von kleinen Schlangen nahern, und deren- 
Aehnlichkeit dadurch auch noch viel starler ist.” 
It may seem incredible that a naturalist who has 
had the valuable experience of observing such interest- 
ing examples of mimicry as this can doubt the utility 
to the species of pronounced mimetic resemblance to 
poisonous or dangerous animals, but Dr. Piepers ex- 
plains the resemblance in another way, and denies its 
protective value. 
Some years ago Wasmann described a remarkable 
resemblance between an ant of the genus Eciton and 
a beetle which dwells in its nest belonging to the 
genus Mimeciton. If we deny, as Dr. Piepers does, 
that this is a true case of mimicry, it must be due 
either to an independent convergence of evolution 
(homeogenesis) or to a similarity in development 
caused by a similarity of external influences. But it 
is impossible to conceive that either of these explan- 
ations can account for such a close resemblance, even 
in the details of the antenna, as this ant and this 
beetle exhibit. Surely, as Wasmann remarks, the old 
theory of special creation is more reasonable than either 
of these. 
At the time the book was written, Dr. Piepers had 
probably not seen the very remarkable paper by Mr. 
Shelford on mimetic insects from Borneo and Singa- 
pore which was read before the Zoological Society in 
London on November 4, 1902. In this paper so many 
examples are given of insects and spiders that closely 
resemble other insects and spiders with which they 
associate that the theory of homeogenesis must be 
strained to the breaking point to account for them. 
There may be some justice in the remark that the 
experimental evidence is not sufficient to prove the 
theory of the origin of mimetic resemblance by natural 
selection; but what evidence of any kind can be 
brought to support the theory of homeogenesis, or the 
startling effects produced in mimicry by similar 
environments? Absolutely none. The impartial 
reader must be struck in reading these lengthy theses 
with the fact that singularly little experimental 
evidence is related in the text, and none that really 
supports the truth of any theory but that of natural 
selection. There is plenty of destructive criticism of 
current theories, there are many weighty objections 
and difficulties suggested, but if these succeed in de- 
stroying Darwinismus there is nothing left in the way 
of theory that has any basis of support. But there is a 
little evidence of a direct nature which our author has 
overlooked that supports the theory of natural selec- 
