Darwinism 100 Years Ago. 
Wuo was the first to propound clearly the idea of 
sexual selection as an important factor in evolution? 
“Darwin, of course,” is the usual answer, even of 
those who, sneering at this great man, delight in 
pointing out that it was not he who first promulgated 
the improving effects of selection, and that all he 
himself did introduce was the subsection of sexual 
selection; according to them a baseless idea. 
Recently I happened to come across the following 
statement by Friedrich Tiedemann, in his ‘ Anatomie 
und Naturgeschichte der Vogel” (Zweiter Band, p. 13, 
Heidelberg, 1814) :—‘‘ Very often there arise fights 
between the males for the possession of the females. 
.. . These fights, which take place also between very 
many mammals, seem to be very important for the 
conservation of a healthy progeny, since only the 
strongest and most vigorous males propagate the race, 
whilst the young and too old individuals, being weak, 
are conquered, and removed from the act of propaga- 
tion. 
Tiedemann, who flourished just one hundred years 
ago, was a zoologist with great and clearly expressed 
ideas, and the following quotations may be of interest 
to some readers of NATURE :— 
‘““€ Metamorphosis of the Birds.’ There is a meta- 
morphosis concerning the whole life of the indivdual 
bird, from the moment of hatching to its death. 
There is further a yearly metamorphosis, culminating 
with the period of propagation; and a less significant 
diurnal change. Lastly, there is a metamorphosis 
due to successive geological epochs" (pp. 288-325). 
“. . With every larger geological epoch (Erd- 
Revolution) some animals have perished. . . . But it 
seems also that after each of such revolutions new 
animals have been formed, mainly—I suppose— 
through gradual metamorphosis and alteration of the 
previous remaining animals into new kinds (Thier- 
formen), caused by new climatic and physical influ- 
ences"’ (p. 322). 
“.. . These fossil rests of birds testify to the age 
of the class of birds. But since all these remnants 
seem to belong to extinct kinds of birds, they can 
be taken as proofs that in the course of time the 
species is just as much subject to metamorphosis as 
the individual” (p. 325). H. Gapow. 
Cambridge, October 23. 
The Stone Implements of the Tasmanians. 
THE stone implements of the Tasmanian aborigines 
are frequently cited as an instance of the survival 
of an Eolithic assemblage into modern times. Having 
collected eoliths on the Kent plateau and_ similar 
chipped pieces of stone in South Africa, and having 
recently had the opportunity of collecting worked 
stones on an old camping ground of the Tasmanian 
aborigines, I feel impelled to make a few comments 
on this assertion. 
The site that I visited, under the guidance of its 
discoverer, Mr. W. S. Smith, of Launceston, is about 
two miles east of that town. It is about ten acres 
in extent, and occupies rising ground at the side of . 
a stream—a characteristic position, I am told. It is 
now sparsely strewn with flakes, among which 
trimmed examples are rare; formerly the reverse was 
the case, Mr. Smith having removed about 400 
trimmed flakes. The ground was ploughed several 
years ago, so that a large number must be buried. 
Several such sites are known around Launceston, 
and Mr. Smith has a large collection from them. I 
have also examined the collection of the Rev. C. S. 
NO. 2298, VOL. 92} 
NATURE 
Scott, of the museum. Both of these are from ~ 
various parts of Tasmania,#but present the same 
general facies as those from the neighbourhood of 
Launceston. Bi 
If we accept the eoliths of the Kent plateau as 
typical, then these Tasmanian implements are cer- 
tainly not true eoliths, for instead of being made from 
naturally broken pieces of stone, they are made from 
artificially produced flakes. “They are not even com- 
parable to the flake-eoliths of South Africa, for they 
include examples that exhibit a meatness of edge 
trimming and resultant regularity of outline that | 
never met with among them. At the same time the 
bulk of the Tasmanian implements are characterised 
by an unskilful trimming and irregular outline that 
remind one forcibly of the eoliths, while they. fre- 
quently exhibit characteristic eolithic shapes. The 
minority remind me strongly of a prominent element 
in some of those South African assemblages that 
approach nearest to the Aurignacian. 
If we eliminate the more advanced implements 
from these pseudo-Aurignacian assemblages, then they 
resemble the Tasmanian assemblage, with this differ- 
ence, that in the one the Eolithic resemblances are 
subordinate, and in the other they are predominant. — 
In attempting to convey an idea of the lowly statu 
of the Tasmanian implements by the use of Europea 
terminology, one is therefore not justified in speaking 
of them as Eolithic. Pre-Aurignacian would more 
correctly indicate their position. f 
J. P. JoHNSON. — 
Launceston, Tas., September 25. 
A Further Parasite of the Large Larch Saw-fly. 
May I be permitted to add a brief note to the letter 
written by Mr. Mangan, which appeared in Nature of - 
July 24 (vol. xci., p. 530)? In the account of the 
examination of the parasites that have emerged this 
year from cocoons collected in the Thirlmere district 
it was stated that 25 per cent. of the cocoons yielded 
specimens of an undetermined species of Mesoleius. 
Since the letter was written, this new parasite has 
been identified by Prof. Otto Schmiedeknecht as 
Hyperablys albopictus gray. (syn. 
fuga, Holmgr.). It is described by Mr. 
“‘Ichneumonologia Britannica,’’ vol iv., 
name Euryproctus albopictus grav. It has apparent 
never been hitherto recorded from Nematus erichsonit; 
it has been bred, however, by Brischke (Schr. Nat. 
Ges., Danz., 1871) from larve of N. hypogastricus 
and of N. testaceus in Prussia, and has also been bred, 
probably at Worcester, from Camponiscus lurid 
ventris. , 
This species is readily distinguished from Meso. 
leius tenthredinis by the white colour of the first and 
the second coxz and the dark tint of the third. he 
face in the female is marked with white, and in thi 
male the white marking present in both species is 
broader than in M. tenthredinis. ie aq 
R. A. WaARDLE, © 
Department of Economic Zoology, 
Victoria University of Manchester. — 
November 3. 
LICENCES FOR WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY. 
QUESTION of considerable importance i 
raised in certain correspondence which h 
passed between Mr. F. Hope-Jones and the 
Secretary to the Post Office in relation to the con: 
ditions under which the postal authorities are pre 
