July 7, 1881] 



NATURE 



21 1 



is undivided the grain of wheat is said to be Monocoiyle- 

 donotis" (p. 42). Not even the solemn name of the 

 Revised Code can enable us to digest this without 

 distress. 



Plant-Life. Popular Papers on tlie Phenomena of Botany. 



(London : Marshall Japp and Co., 1881.) 

 This is a most attractive-looking book by the same author 

 as the dismal little tractate just noticed. It might have 

 been hoped that it would have made clear some of its 

 dark sayings. But they all seem to be ipsissitnis verbis, 

 sugared over with copious extracts from all sorts of people, 

 from Thoreau and Kingsley to Mr. Worthington Smith, 

 Dr. Masters and Mr. Darwin. On p. 30 we have "The 

 carbon absorbed from the air is combined with the cell- 

 sap and forms a substance called starch," which is even 

 harder doctrine than anything in the " Easy Lessons." 

 Much is said about Eqiiisefaeea and the hygroscopic 

 movements of the elaters of their spores. An unfortu- 

 nate microscopist is quoted from Science Gossip of such 

 a remote date as 187S, who is of opinion that "the ulti- 

 mate cause of this movement is quite unknown .... 

 most probably it takes place by the contraction aid ex- 

 pansion of the cells of which the elaters are composed." 

 Of course it is well known that the spores are unicellular 

 and the elaters are simply strips of the spirally torn outer 

 cell-wall. The book, with all its blundering accounts of 

 Englcna (sic), Claydonia (sic), the "lovely Ctosterintn" 

 which " consists of two cells," and the like, may stimulate 

 the curiosity of those who know nothing of plants to 

 know more and better. It is at any rate interesting to 

 find that Prof. Schwendener's lichen-theory has found its 

 way to popular books, even though it is introduced with 

 the remark that "concerning" gonidia "a humorous 

 theory was promulgated a few years ago. but met with 

 the ridicule it deserved." The book has 14S illustrations 

 drawn by the author, which scarcely do justice to the 

 "specially prepared rolled paper " provided for them. 



The London Catalogue of British Mosses and Hepatics. 

 Published under the direction of the Botanical Record 

 Club. Second Edition. (London : David Bogue, 1881.) 

 This is a handy list on the well-known model of that 

 formerly issued by Mr. Hewett Cottrell Watson for 

 British flowering plants. It gives the distribution through 

 the eighteen provinces into which Mr. Watson divided 

 Great Britain for the purpose of ascertaining the range of 

 British plants. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 



[ The Editor does not hold h iniself responsible for opinions expressed 

 by his co7-respondents. Neither can he undertake to return, 

 or to correspond xvith the lariters of, rejected manuscripts. 

 No notice is taken of anonymous communicatiojts. 

 The Editor urgently requests correspondents to keep their letters 

 as short as possible. The pressure on his space is so great 

 that it is impossible othenuise to ensure the appearance even 

 of communications containing interesting and ncvcl facts.\ 



Dr. W. B. Carpenter and Mr. W. I. Bishop 



I AM sorry to find that Dr. Carpenter is " greatly surprised '' 

 at my allusion to the effect which has been produced by the 

 circulation of his letter to Mr. Bishop, for in making that allu- 

 sion I was under the impression that this letter had been put to 

 a use other than that vhich Dr. Carpenter could have either 

 intended or desired. If, as it now appears, I was wrong in 

 entertaining diis impres.sion, it is needless to say that I am willing 

 to apologise for having so far given it public expression ; and in 

 this case I can only infer that my error arose from an\infortunate 

 difference in the estimate which we have respectively formed 

 touching the scientific importance of the phenomena which Mr. 

 Bishop has displayed. Such physiological and psychological 

 interest as these phenomena present appeared to me to call for 

 investigation in the ordinary way, i.e. by one or a few competent 

 persons ; it did not occur to me that they \\ ere of so much scientific 



value as to call for such "an assembly of gentlemen" as that 

 which met at Bedford Square. '1 herefore, in writing my report, 

 I took it for granted that Dr. Carpenter would have c incurred 

 in the "regret" which I expressed that his friendly recom- 

 mendation should have been, as I thought, so far misused by Mr. 

 Bishop as to constitute a general advertisement to ^cientific men ; 

 and my expression of regret x\as thus intended to show that I 

 did not suppose Dr. Carpenter was to be considered inteiUionally 

 responsilile for the excitement which Mr. I'.ishop has .succeeded 

 in creating. It would no doubt have been wiser had I ascer- 

 tained Dr. Carpenter's views upon this subject before asuming 

 that they were the same as my own, and I do not yet quite 

 understand whether he considers Mr. Bish ip's manifestations 

 worthy of all the a.tention which they have received. But in 

 any case I hope that Dr. Carpenter will accept as more satis- 

 factory an expression of further "regret," when I ^ay I am very 

 grieved to find that my allusion to his relations w ith Mr. Bishop, 

 although intended as a friendly allusion, does not appear to have 

 met with his approval. George J. Romanes 



Re W. I. Bishop 



Let any one read carefully Dr. Carpenter's account of the card 

 trick exhibited to him by Mr. Bishop ; let him suppose that Mr. 

 Bishop had two packs of cards, the one an ordinary pack for 

 exhibition to the company, and the other a pack emtaining fifty- 

 two cards, all alike (the backs of both ]j,acks being of the same 

 pattern). Let Mr. Bishop now perform the trick with cards 

 from the latter pack, and his >ucce>s can be readily explained. 

 But grant that Mr. Bishop h.ad only one jiack of ordinary 

 cards : even then it is possible that the explanation of the trick is 

 not hard to find. 



Dr. Carjienter allows that Mr. Bishop may have known where 

 the selected card was placed. Take Dr. Carpenter's diagram on 

 p. iSS, and let No. 1 1 be the card known to Mr. Bishop, and 

 which is to be finally discovered by Dr. Carpenter. "' Drop 

 your left hand on any row you wish taken away," says Mr. 

 Bishop to Dr. Carpenter. Suppose, by chance, B, D, and A 

 successively dropped on and removed, as in the instance given 

 by Dr. Carpenter, then the upper pair of row C, then 15, we 

 have 1 1 left and the trick done. 



Suppos that C is selected first. Mr. Bishop n.ay now 

 assure Dr. Carpenter that the card wanted is in that row, and 

 that he has forced Dr. Carpenter to select it. The chances are 

 equal that Dr. Carpenter will in his next selection dro]) on that 

 pair in row C, which includes 11. Should Dr. Carpenter in his 

 third choice drop on II, a most convincing proof of Mr, 

 Bishop's will compelling power will have been exhibited. 



Should Dr. Carpenter however drop on 15, Mr. Bishop has 

 merely to a k him to put it aside, and turning up the remaining 

 card to e.\hiliit it as the chosen and identified card. By a com- 

 bination of the two methods of removing and leaving, Mr. 

 Bishop can provide for all cases, and can perform a trick well 

 known to schoolboys. 



Dr. Carpenter, as 1 read his letter, tells us how Mr. Bishop 

 acted when he himself was the subject of the experiment. If 

 Dr. Carpenter can declare that the rows of cards, pairs of cards, 

 and single cards dropped in were in all three experiments re- 

 moved, I must confess that the laws of probabilities are against 

 me, and that there seems to be strong proof of Mr. Bishop's 

 power of will-compelling, a power which, as far as I have heard, 

 Mr. Bishop has not yet publicly claimed to possess. 



If Mr. Bishop did not know where the selected card was 

 placed, Dr. Carpenter must invent a name for Mr. Bi^hop's new- 

 power of discovering a card, the position of which neither Mr. 

 Bishop nor "the subjectof the experiment" knew. 



We can all regret with Dr. Carpenter " that Mr. Bishop did 

 not offer for like careful testing experiments," &c. 



I had lire pleasure of attending a public performance given by 

 Mr. Bishop in Edinburgh, on which occasion Mr. Bishop, much 

 to the entertainment of a crowded hall, exhibited the legerdemain 

 by which he had duped the subjects of, I believe, the before- 

 mentioned experiments. 



At this entertainment Mr. Bishop also show-ed how- spiritualists 

 performed such feats as knocking nails into boards, putting 

 rings on scarves, ic, while their hands were tied together 

 behind their backs and secured to a post. Prof. Turner, of the 

 University of Edinburi;h, explained to the spectators (no doubt at 

 Mr. Bishop's request) that Mr. Bishop seenud to be enabled to 

 perform tliose feats by the peculiar conformation of the bones 

 and muscles — perhaps both — of his shoulder and arm. 



