NovEMBER 12, 1896] 
NATURE 
29 
LETTERS 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 zs taken of anonymous communications. | 
The Austro-Hungarian Map of Franz Josef Land. 
IN common with all who take an interest in Arctic research, 
I was very much surprised to learn, on the return of the W2nad- 
ward, last year, that the Jackson-Harmsworth polar expedition 
had detected, what seemed to them, extraordinary inaccuracies in 
Payer’s map of Franz Josef Land. Finding, however, that 
Mr. Jackson’s sledge journeys had only been directed along the 
very outskirts of the region laid down by Lieut. Payer, I 
came to the conclusion that the discrepancies pointed out were 
no greater than might he expected in a part of the map, where 
the Austrian explorer had obviously meant rather to indicate the 
presence of some geographical feature, than to give its exact 
position. I also hoped that Mr. Jackson’s persevering endeavours 
would eventually lead him to some point where he could effect 
a satisfactory juncture of his own survey with that of his pre- 
decessor: 
When, however, on August 13 last, I had the great 
‘pleasure of meeting Dr. Nansen at Vard6, a few hours after he 
had landed from the Wzuzdward, 1 was absolutely astounded 
when he informed me, with evident distress, that the northern 
part of the well-known map of Austria Sound was utterly wrong. 
Indeed the circumstantial and graphic telegrams, which at that 
moment were being flashed round the whole globe, told how 
Dr. Nansen and Lieut. Johansen, on their unparalleled return 
journey, had failed to identify a single geographical feature dis- 
covered by the intrepid Austrian explorer; how, on the con- 
trary, they had, on August 6, 1895, found three snow-covered 
islands in 81° 38’ N. lat. and about 63° E. long., and how they 
afterwards slowly worked their way to their winter quarters in 
81° 12’N. lat. and 56° E. long. ; thus, to all appearance, actually 
crossing Payer’s sledge tracks without finding any agreement 
with his map. The three islands just mentioned would, ac- 
cording to Dr. Nansen’s determination, come in the very middle 
of Lieut. Payer’s Dove Glacier. The publication of Dr. 
Nansen’s book can alone enable geographers to decide as to the 
relative positions that Austria Sound and the three islands of the 
Norwegian explorers have to occupy on the map. 
Respecting the accuracy of the southern part of Lieut. Payer’s 
map, there can be no doubt whatever ; for if we turn to the third 
section of the ‘‘ Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der | 
Wissenschaften,” Band xxxv., Vienna, 1878,! we shall find 
from Weyprecht’s paper on the astronomical and geodetic 
results of the Austro-Hungarian Arctic expedition, that the 
latitudes and longitudes of the Zegetthoff in the land ice, and 
of certain points on the neighbouring coast, notably Cape 
Tegetthoff and the western extremity of Wilczek Island, 
have all the precision that could be obtained from a long series 
of meridian altitudes, and no less than 218 lunar distances,” 
combined with a systematic triangulation. This triangulation 
was connected with all the néighbouring islands within a dis- 
tance of some 30 or 40 miles. The satisfactory character of 
this part of the map was proved by Mr. Leigh Smith, who, 
during his first voyage to Franz Josef Land, passed close under 
Cape Tegetthoff and the south-western shore of Wilczek Island, 
where he saw, but did not visit, the large cairn in which the 
Austrian explorers placed a number of documents and a mini- 
mum thermometer. (See ‘‘ Denkschriften,” /.c., p. 67, where 
the late Lieut. Weyprecht placed on record directions for opening 
the cairn without moving the thermometer from its horizontal 
position, and thus sacrificing the valuable indication it may yet 
afford. ) 
Naturally the survey grew less accurate when it came to be 
extended up Austiia Sound ; but even there the latitudes, at least, 
must be very near the truth, as they are founded on numerous 
meridian altitudes of the sun. Fortunately an observation was 
secured in 81° 57’ N. lat. within a few miles of the most 
northern point reached. Hence there is no reason whatever to 
1 This volume is devoted exclusively to the scientific results of the ex- 
pedition under Payer and Weyprecht. 
® Near the poles lunar distances define the observer's position much more 
accurately than in lower latitudes, not only because the degrees of longitude 
are less, but also on account of the smaller parallax in right ascension. It 
is therefore earnestly to be desired that explorers on boat or sledge journeys 
should avail themselves of this invaluable method. 
NO. I41I, VOL. 55] 
doubt that Lieut. Payer and his two companions, Midshipman 
| Orel and the seaman Zaninovich, attained the latitude of 82° 5’, 
as detailed in the document now lying in a bottle on the summit 
of Cape Fligely. Unfortunately there is not the same certainty 
with regard to the longitudes, at least in the northern part of the 
map, as they rest solely on compass azimuths or bearings taken 
with the theodolite, often observed under very unfavourable con- 
ditions. (See Payer’s ‘‘ New Lands within the Arctic Circle,” 
vol. ii. p. 77.) Had circumstances permitted the astronomical 
determination of a single longitude near the northern limit of 
the survey, no uncertainty as to the position of even the remoter 
parts of Austria Sound could have arisen. In conclusion, it may 
be mentioned that Lieut. Payer has deposited with the Royal 
Geographical Society all the materials used in the construction 
of his map ; it is quite possible that a careful revision of these 
papers may remove the remaining uncertainty which, at present, 
hangs over the position of the northern part of the land which 
my old comrade explored in the face of so many difficulties. 
RALPH COPELAND. 
Royal Observatory, Edinburgh, November 6. 
The Inheritance of Specific Characters. 
Pror. MELDOLA (NATURE, October 22, p. 594), referring to 
the increasing breadth of carapace in growing crabs, suggests as 
an alternative to selection acting during the present life of the 
individuals, that ‘* breadth of carapace . . . had a selection 
value in the phylogeny ; now this character appears at a late 
stage in the ontogeny.” Before accepting this interesting sug- 
gestion as plausible, one would like to hear, from Prof. Meldola 
or any one else, of other instances in which a character that has 
been of selection value ‘‘in the past history of the species ” does 
not appear until a late stage in the present individual history. 
My own knowledge does not extend further than the fact that 
such characters tend to be inherited at an earlier stage; of their 
inheritance at a later stage, I know no instances. Were this a 
universal principle, the selection of broader carapaced individuals 
must have taken place not very long ago, the conditions can 
hardly have been very different to now, and, as now, the 
character must have appeared at a late state in the ontogeny ; in 
short, Prof. Meldola’s alternative would only shift the need for 
an explanation a little distance back. The principle, however, 
may not be so general in its application as many of us have been 
led to believe. But, since in zoological speculation an hypothesis 
should be proved consonant wlth some known fact, Prof 
Meldola may fairly be asked to adduce facts in harmony with the 
idea which he states he has always entertained. 
Since your report of the discussion on Neo-Lamarckism in 
Section D at the British Association meeting will doubtless be 
regarded as authoritative, may I take this opportunity of cor- 
recting the sentence, ‘‘ Mr. F. A. Bather thought the Ammonites 
afforded at least some proof of the Neo-Lamarckian doctrine.” 
| He may have ‘‘ thought” so, though I greatly doubt it, but he 
certainly did not say so, He was using the Ammonites as an 
example, to ask Prof. Lloyd Morgan how a modification of the 
senile parent could affect the limits of variation in its offspring, 
most of which had already been produced ; or how modification 
even of the adult could affect the limits of variation in its off- 
spring, which do not present the character of the assumed modi- 
fication until they themselves become adult. The point of these 
questions would be more obvious to your readers, had your 
report alluded to the thesis that I imagined to constitute Prof. 
Lloyd Morgan’s main contribution to the discussion. 
F. A, BATHER, 
IN the first place, I will take the opportunity afforded me by 
Mr. Bather, of correcting a slip in my letter ; it is narrowness of 
carapace that is being, or has been, selected, and not breadth, as 
I stated. This, however, in no way affects the suggestion. In 
the next place, I must part company from Mr. Bather ona point 
of fundamental principle. I decline to accept, as a canon of 
scientific method, that a zoological (why particularly ‘‘ zoo- 
logical?) hypothesis put forward in explanation of a body of 
facts still under investigation, and, possibly, leading us on to 
new principles, should, in order to become plausible, “* be proved 
consonant with some known fact.” I take it that, in making 
tentative suggestions for the interpretation of results obtained by 
observation, as in the case under consideration, it is sufficient, if 
the hypothesis is not opposed by any known fact. I did not lay 
it down as a dogma that selection must have acted in the way 
