534 
NATORE 
[APRIL 7, 1904 
more definite results; as it is, I regret to have been obliged 
to tell an imperfect story. | 
I should like to conclude by acknowledging the great | 
assistance given me in this work by Mr. Tyrer and by my 
students, Messrs. Gimingham and Le Rossignol. 
University College, April 4. WILLIAM Ramsay. 
The Blondlot or »-Rays. 
In this laboratory we have obtained uniformly negative 
results in experiments on the Blondlot rays. Our experi- 
ments were made with the help of seven observers, including 
five doctors, one student, and one laboratory attendant. 
Calcium sulphide screens rendered fluorescent in a separate 
recm by burning magnesium were employed. ‘They were 
brought into an absolutely dark room in which the observers 
had been kept for some time. Two forms of screens were 
used :— 
(1) Flat screens on which a circular area on a slip of glass 
is covered by calcium sulphide. 
(2) The later form in which a circular area at the back 
of a hemispherical lens is covered by calcium sulphide. 
The screens were made by Mr. Leslie Miller. 
The screens were either held by the hands of the observers 
or were clipped on stands. 
The observers were told first to look steadily at the screens 
and report any variation in brightness, calling out “* bright,” 
““dimmer,’’ ‘‘ dim,’’ ‘* brighter,’’ &c., as the appearances 
seemed to change. Even with the screens on the slips of 
glass the observers after a few moments were able to call 
out the charges, although there was no attempt at muscular 
contraction. With the lens form of screen the changes in 
brightness were very marked. 
We next attempted to find whether muscular con- 
traction behind the screen caused an increase of bright- 
ness. Of course, where the observer sees a change in 
brightness without muscular contraction it is easy to be 
misled on this point. We made the observer continue to 
call out the degree of brightness, and we contracted the 
muscles of the arm behind the screens sometimes after he 
had called out “‘ bright ’’ and sometimes after he had called 
out ‘‘dim.’’ In the great majority of cases the effect we 
looked for did not follow. In the few cases in which it 
occurred we naturally attributed the results to the changes 
in brightness which can be observed without any muscular 
contraction. : 
We next told our observers to look, as it were, into the 
distance beyond the bright spot, and to report on the bright- 
ness of the screens. When the accommodation of the eyes 
for near vision was relaxed they reported without exception 
that the brightness of the screens was constant, and that 
muscular contraction made no difference. 
When observers were then asked to touch the backs of the 
screens, thus warming them, they reported an increase of 
brightness. 
It is not easy to explain the phenomena we have described. 
We believe that there is difficulty in accommodating for the 
fluorescent circle, and that there is a wavering movement of 
the ciliary muscles, and probably also a wavering in the 
size of the pupils. Yet it is asserted that we can focus a 
point of light in a dark room, and it is difficult to see why 
the fluorescent screen cannot also be kept steadily in focus 
when it consists of a flat glass slip with fluorescent circle. 
In the case of the later, and presumably more successful | 
form of apparatus, the difficulty is easily understood. In 
that form the fluorescent rays proceed from the back of a 
hemispherical lens, that is, from a point within the posterior 
principal focus, and they are widely divergent and thus 
strain the accommodation of all but near-sighted people. 
The fact that in every instance we found that the light 
becomes steady after relaxation of the accommodation is 
very striking. 
But the phenomena observed by us do not go any distance 
towards explaining the results described in M. Blondlot’s 
papers. How is it that he and many of his compatriots see 
increase of brightness under conditions in which we see 
none? Is the explanation to be found in the paper by 
Heinrich, ‘“‘Die Aufmerksamkeit und die Funktion der 
Sinnesorgane ’’ (Zeitschr. fiir Psychologie u. Physiol. d. 
Sinnesorg., vols. ix and xi.), in conjunction with our 
observations? Heinrich found after many careful experi- | 
NO. 1797, VOL. 69] 
ments that the pupil dilates when attention is directed to 
an object situated in the field of indirect vision, and that 
it dilates still more during a short mental effort, 
such as a calculation. He found also that on directing 
attention to an object in the field of indirect vision the 
| ciliary muscle relaxes, thus diminishing the curvature of the 
crystalline lens, and that during mental calculation this 
change is very marked, causing a curvature even less than 
that required for vision of a remote object. He found also 
that under the same conditions the axes of vision tend to 
become parallel or even divergent. 
Can it be that the mental condition of some observers 
in a state of expectancy reacts on the intrinsic muscles of 
their eyes, and thus they see what they think they should 
see? 
We have also experimented with the rays from a Nernst 
lamp, but without result. Joun G. McKEnprick. 
WALTER COLQUHOUN. 
Physiological Laboratory, The University, Glasgow, 
March 29. 
Learned Societies. 
Ix Nature of March to, Mr. Basset directs attention to 
the fact that referees frequently know less about the subject- 
matter of the papers than the author, and that their reports 
frequently contain errors from their not understanding the 
papers. 
Had Mr. Basset held a brief for the opposite camp to 
that which he claims to represent, he could hardly have 
adduced more powerful arguments in favour of the referee 
system. 
If a paper is of any value, the author must ipso facto 
know more about the subject-matter than anyone else. If 
he does not he is not the proper man to write the paper. 
But it is just because authors so frequently send up papers 
in a form in which other people cannot understand them 
that referees are necessary. 
At present few people have time to wade through pages 
and pages of discursive and ill explained writings on the 
off chance that they may ultimately light on an interesting 
result. On the other hand, it is desirable that workers in 
one branch of science should have some insight into the 
general character of the investigations which are being 
pursued by specialists in other directions. Now I have 
before me a number of mathematical papers which contain 
no indication whatever of what the authors are driving at. 
They begin by putting down certain formula which the 
reader is assumed to know, and when they have twisted 
these formule about a bit they stop short abruptly without 
any obvious rhyme or reason. There are, of course, 
specialists who understand and appreciate these papers, but 
to the man who has specialised in applied mathematics or 
in a different branch of pure mathematics, the whole thing 
as presented appears meaningless. On the other hand, I 
have read with interest many well expounded papers dealing 
with such subjects as physiology, palapbotany, or psycho- 
logy of the general character of which it is easy for any- 
one to form an estimate, even without previous university 
training. ‘The functions of a referee should be to see that 
the arguments in a paper are clearly put forward, and that 
the main conclusions are prominently stated at the beginning 
or end in such a way that a general survey of the ground 
covered can be formed by the reader before the methods are 
examined in detail. 
I believe that a useful purpose would be served if one of 
the referees of a paper were in each case selected on account 
of his 1gnorance of the subject-matter with which the paper 
dealt. Transactions would then be more readable and more 
widely read than they are at present. 
It frequently happens, moreover, that results are buried 
in out-of-the-way corners of lengthy papers where they get 
overlooked, and that when someone has published similar 
results in a more accessible journal an undignified priority 
controversy is the result, whereas the original discoverer 
has only himself to blame for failing to present his subject 
in a readable form. 
Learned societies are frequently penny wise and pound 
foolish in issuing their transactions uncut, consequently 
those who wish to study the contents have to waste much 
of their time in jagging and often tearing the pages with a 
