342 
Horticultural Society. This cross was between S. sultiflorus 
(female) and several colour forms of the ‘‘ Cultivated Cineraria,” 
embodying certainly two distinct species. No direct evidence 
on origin has been in this particular experiment obtained, or 
expected, but the predominating influence of the ‘‘ Cultivated 
Cineraria” in this and also in the reverse cross, upon the colour 
and size of the flower-heads, appears to suggest, I think, a 
possible predominance of one species over another, in other 
cases. The crosses to which I have referred, taken together, 
sufficiently demonstrate an extreme readiness to cross, since 
every one of the thirteen attempts has resulted in a numerous 
hybrid progeny, while not one of the several hundreds of plants 
raised has failed of being a hybrid. The only care taken was to 
exclude insects, which might have brought pollen from another 
plant, by means of muslin, and no attention was paid to the 
pollen produced within the muslin bags. This pollen, on the 
evidence of nearly five hundred plants, had no effect. From the 
facility with which these plants cross under cultivation—even 
the woody S. Herztzeri with the completely herbaceous kinds— 
it is likely that they cross also in a state of nature, whenever the 
opportunity occurs. It would be interesting, therefore, to have 
information of the relative distribution of the kinds, and to know 
of all variations. There is no doubt a large field and good 
motive for exploration in the Canaries, and I should be exceed- 
ingly thankful for any seeds or plants that may be sent me. 
Botanic Gardens, Cambridge. R. Inwin Lyncu. 
Prichard and Acquired Characters, 
PROF. MELDOLA, in his suggestive address to the Entomo- 
logical Society on January 20, very rightly puts Prichard before 
Galton and Weismann in the list of those who have formulated 
the theory that acquired characters are not inherited by off- 
spring. Some years ago, when Platt Ball’s interesting little 
book was published on the question, ‘‘Are the Effects of Use 
and Disuse Inherited?” I was struck by the careful way in 
which the author pointed out how ‘‘so sound and cautious an 
observer as Francis Galton had also [¢.e. as well as Weismann], 
in 1875, concluded that ‘acquired modifications are barely, if 
at all, zzherzted in the correct sense of that word.’” At the 
same time my memory went back to some allusions I had seen 
in an old book (Coombe’s ‘‘ Constitution of Man,” Edinburgh, 
1836, a copy of which I had recently bought at a marine store 
dealer’s for one halfpenny) to the theories of Dr. Prichard. I 
subsequently looked up the references and made some notes, 
which have until now been pigeon-holed. I quote three pas- 
sages and a note as bearing on the question, Who first pointed 
out that acquired characters are not inherited? (‘* Researches 
into the Physical History of Mankind,” vol. ii. p. 536, by James 
Cowles Prichard, M.D., F.R.S.) 
“It has often been a question among physiological writers 
what peculiarities of structure are liable to be transmitted by 
parents to their offspring, and what terminate with the indi- 
vidual, without affecting the race. Perhaps the following 
remarks may afford the solution of this difficulty :— 
“Tt appears to be a general fact that all connate varieties of 
structure or peculiarities which are congenital, or which form 
a part of the natural constitution, impressed on an individual 
from his birth, or rather from the commencement of his organ- 
isation, whether they happen to descend to him from a long 
inheritance or to spring up for the first time in his own person, 
are apt to reappear in his offspring. It may be said, in other 
words, that the organisation of the offspring is always modelled 
according to the type of the original structure of the parent. 
“* On the other hand, changes produced by external causes in 
the appearance or constitution of the individual are temporary, 
and, in general, acquired characters are transient; they ter- 
minate with the individual, and have no tnfluence on the 
progeny.’ [The italics are mine. ] 
Dr. Prichard has very properly mentioned the source of his 
ideas, and it is to be hoped that we also may give credit where 
credit is due. WILFRED MARK WEBB. 
Biological Laboratory of the Essex County Council, 
Chelmsford, January 27. 
I am very glad that Mr. Webb has also directed attention to 
Dr. Prichard’s share in the establishment of the doctrine of the 
“1 This distinction, which has not been pointed out by any former writer 
on physiological subjects, was first suggested to me in conversation, many 
years ago, by Mr. Benjamin Grainger, of Derby.” 
NO. 1424, VOL. 55] 
NATURE 
[FEBRUARY I1, 1897 
non-transmissibility of acquired characters. I should like to 
add that my attention was first called to the work in question 
(2nd edition, 1826) by my father-in-law, Dr. Maurice Davis. 
Prof. Poulton has taken the subject in hand, and is preparing 
an article on the whole question, R. MELDOLA. 
Rainfall in the Lake District. 
THE recent publication, in Mr. Symons’ British Rainfall 
for 1895, of fifty years’ data of rainfall at Seathwaite (1845-94), 
affords an opportunity of studying the climate of this very wet 
district in relation to the vexed question of sunspot influence 
on weather. 
The following might, perhaps, be offered for criticism, Con- 
sider each maximum sunspot year, three years before it, and 
seven after it. (The intervals from maximum to minimum, it is 
known, are generally longer than those from minimum to 
3 2 ROR.) (2. 3), Cc Sema 
+/¢o 
LO 
—60 
—30 
maximum.) Indicate the character of each year with a + or — 
sign, according as it is above or below the average (137 in.), We 
may further give the algebraic sums of each vertical group, and 
of certain horizontal groups (a to 4) as shown; and plot in a 
Sunsp a Max. é Sums 
Max | 3 2 || 2 iomiiex 21°30 || 4°] 5 enliay | atod 
1848 | +/+ i/—-|/+)/—]+/4+]}4+|]=|4+}=l4u 
1860 — | — || aR = | SS +133 
m870 0 | — | + || eer | Mae ec lhe sh lar 20 
1883 | — + | edie | |= —|+ +27 
1893 | + |,+ || — | FY + | \| apd 
|—2z| +o 1a pac 92 +46)| —5 |—88 -6 ~ 5} 
curve the values for the vertical groups. (Should any objection 
be taken to comparing vertical groups of four members with 
those of five, I may say that exclusion of the lowest row of 
values (1893 group) does not materially alter the result.) 
These latter values we find rising (with one slight break) to a 
maximum in the second year after the sunspot maximum, then 
sinking rapidly to a minimum in the fifth year, and continuing 
under average in the two following years. 
It will be noted that in the enclosed groups @ to 6, the + 
signs largely preponderate (16 + to 7 —); that they pre- 
ponderate in each horizontal group, and in each vertical group 
but one; and that the sums of all those groups have ees 
A. B. M. 
The Epistemology of Natural Science and Mr. Karl 
Pearson. 
ONLY a few days ago I happened to see the review of my 
““ Erkenntnistheoretische Grundziige der Naturwissenschaften ” 
(Leipzig, 1896) in NaruRE of November 5, 1896. I too highly 
esteem English science and literature to follow Mr. Karl 
Pearson in the department of his ‘‘ familiar ideas”; I shall 
confine myself to showing how little my reviewer has succeeded 
in rendering my views (see p. 3)- 
