162 
NATURE 
> 
\ 
flowered form must be favoured in the struggle for existence, 
when ceasing to develop their useless anthers. Thus of the 
smallest-flowered form, varieties with atrophied anthers of neces- 
sity remained at last the only survivors. 
Lippstadt, June 17 H. MULLER 
ALL the flowers of the ground ivy (JVegefa Glechoma) that I 
haye this season examined, from this neighbourhood, have been 
of the stamenless form described by your correspondent ‘*S. S. D.” 
While spending a few days at Bath, I could find none but her- 
maphrodite flowers. At Hertford I found both forms, but a 
preponderance of hermaphrodites. These seem always more or 
less protandrous, and spontaneous self-pollenation is further 
prevented by the unequal lengths of the style and stamens. 
Kilderry, Co, Donegal W. E, Harr 
Lotus corniculatus 
Mr. W. E. Hart(Naturte, June 12) is quite right in correcting 
me on the subject of the fertilisation of Lotus corniculatus. It is the 
outer whorl of stamens, those opposfte the calyx teeth, which con- 
tinue to grow after the others, and which have their filaments 
dilated at the top so as to thru-t the pollen out of the long sharp 
tube of the keel. I should scarcely have thought it necessary to 
acknowledge his courteous correction, if it were not for the 
following question and answer : How is it, then, that the pollen 
of the inner and shorter whorl of stamens, which discharge their 
pollen at the same time as the outer whorl, gets pushed out by 
the filaments of the outer whorl, since the anthers of the inner 
whorl lie below the summits of the filaments of the outer whorl ? 
The answer is curious; In the early bud, before the anther cells 
begin to open, the inner whorl is obviously shorter than the outer 
whorl, so that the anthers of the former lie ina regular row entirely 
Lelow the anthers o/ the latter, apparently for the convenience of 
close packing in the narrowclosed flower. As the anther cells begin 
to open, which is just before the flower opens, the stamens of the 
inner whorl grow and approach very nearly in height to the 
stamens of the outer whorl ; and as they shed their pollen from 
the summit of the anthers, their pollen comes out above the 
dilated tops of the filaments of the outer whorl, so that it can 
be pushed forwards by those filaments along with the pollen 
of their own anthers. The filaments of the inner whorl then 
wither and become comparatively short, while those of the outer 
whorl continue to grow, dilate, and stiffen, so as to do the work 
for all the pollen of both whorls. In the mature opened flower 
the difference between the two whorls becomes more marked 
than ever. If I am right, Mr. Hart’s detection of my blunder 
leads to the notice of a curious instance of economy of space 
and of mechanism. T. H. FARRER 
Abinger, Surrey, June 21 
The Secchi and Respighi Methods 
In the number of Nature for June 12, p. 136, I see that 
you notice the results obtained in the Jast eclipse with 
the use of the spectroscope for determining the first entrance of 
the moon or planet. There seems, however, to be some con- 
fusion in the report. You say that I propose Respighi’s 
method for first contact, and my own for the last. This 
is not the case. I propose the common Respighi method as 
useful for obtaining a first warning of the entrance of the planet 
on the chromosphere. This is the only use I think it possible to 
make of it. But the real entrance must be obtained by my 
method, in which one sees the disc of the sun as with a common 
glass, and the line of the chromosphere tangent to it, can be 
seen broken at the instant of contact, as the ring of Venus is 
broken at its exit from the solar disc. 
You say also (page 131, col. 1) that itis difficult to obtain a per- 
fect adjustment on account of the inequality of the driving-clock. 
If you say so for the common spectroscopic method, I agree 
perfectly with you, because the edge of the disc cannot be seen ; 
but with my method this difficulty does not exist. It is not 
more difficult to keep the sun’s dise tangent to the chromo- 
spheric line, than to keep it tangent to a common wire ; the clock 
can help, but it is not necessary to have it in perfect order ; even 
with common handles one can obtain it. The reason is that the 
solar dsc being perfectly visible, one is greatly helped by the 
edge of the sun itself, while in common methods the edge of the 
sun is not seen, 
Rome, June 16 P, A. SECCHI 
P.S --More on this will be found in the MWemorie del, 
Soc, degli Spettroscopisti Ital. 
Gassendi and the Doctrine of Natural Selection 
No one having yet replied to the question in Mr. Monro’s 
letter (see NATURE, vol, vii. p. 402), I venture to hope that you 
will give me space for a few remarks on Gassendi’s physical 
philosophy, and more especially on that part of it germane to 
the subject discussed by Mr. Monro, 
The apparent implication of the question referred to is, that an- 
ticipations of natural selection are¥to be found in Gassendi’s 
writings. Allowing to the term its utmost la\itude of meaning, this 
‘c wep > ee ee ee, 
a nhs ER We ee eae 
(HXune 26, 1873 
does not appear to meto be the case. In his historical sketch of the 
various views which poets and philosophers have held as to the 
origin of things, Gassendi gives the theory of Empedokles at 
some length, including the passage on the Bouyev) avipbmpwpa 
which Mr. Monro quotes in his letter. But Gassendi has 
no word of approval for the theory; he classes it with other 
Greek cosmogonies, such as those of Anaximander, Pythagoras, 
&c., and with the Chinese and Hindu cosmogonies as ‘* fabulares 
sententias philosophorum,” not less fabulous indeed than the 
poetic fictions of Prometheus, Deukalion, and Kadmus. Here, 
too, as well as in other parts of his works, Gassendi blames philo- 
sophers for ascribing to the action of natural laws effects which he 
regards as direct results of the Divine power, 
Before giving a brief summary of Gassendi’s own views, I will 
premise that it is not easy to discover them with exactitude, 
His works are very voluminous, both the Lyons edition of 1658, 
and the Florence edition of 1728, occupying six bulky and closely 
printed folio volumes. Even the abridgment made by his dis- 
ciple Bernier fills seven vols. 12mo. Ordinary histories of 
philosophy give for the most part a very meagre account of the 
French forerunner of Locke ; and more comprehensive works, 
like those of Tennemann, Buhle, and De Gerando, deal with 
Gassendi as a psychologist and a moralist rather than as a 
physicist. Even Dr. Whewell, from whom, as the historian of 
the inductive sciences, more might have been expected, makes 
but a few cursory references to the philosopher who was one of 
the earliest and most pronounced followers of the Baconian 
method, and who, as De Gerando says, ‘‘enseignant les mémes 
principes (as Bacon) les a surtout enseignés par son exemple.” 
The work which, as far as I have seen, gives the most complete 
account of Gassendi as a physical philosopher is Schaller’s 
“*Geschichte der Naturphilosophie von Baco bis auf unsere 
Zeit.’ This writer takes Bacon, Hobbes, and Gassendi as the 
typical philosophers of the empirical or a fosterior? school of 
natural philosophy. He devotes about one hundred pages to 
the exposition of Gassendi’s physical doctrines, and concludes 
with an elaborate criticism of his atomic theory. The intrinsic 
obstacles to a precise appreciation of Gassendi’s views are more 
serious. Not far removed from the age of scholasticism he 
exhibits, in a modified degree, two of the distinctive features of 
the schoolmen, their pedantic erudition, and their commenta- 
torial spirit. The wealth of quotation with which his pages are 
burdened rather than adorned has laid him open to the charge 
‘*de laisser étouffer ses propres idées sous le poids des citations 
empruntées aux anciens.” He better deserves the second than’ 
the first clause of Gibbon’s epigrammatic eulogy : “Le meilleur 
philosophe des littérateurs, et le meilleur littérateur des philo- 
sophes.’ A work largely imbued with the commentatorial 
spirit, as the Syx/agma Philosophicum is, is always more valuable 
as a history of philosophic opinion than as a source of new 
philosophic thought. Again Gassendi’s bent of mind, coupled 
with the exigencies of his position as a Church dignitary, seem 
to me to have precluded his holding opinions of a very decide 
and novel character. ‘True or not, the reason he is said to have 
given for adopting the atomism of Epicurus rather than the Car- 
tesian theory of vortices is somewhat characteristic; ‘* Chimzra 
for chimera I cannot help feeling some partiality for that which 
is two thousand years older than the other.’’ 
In his views as to the origin of things, Gassendi is at once an 
atomist and a special creationist. One experiences a certain 
sense of incongruity in noticing the way in which, while follow. 
ing the Biblical narrative for the main outlines of his doctrine, 
he fills in the details from Atomism. In the beginning there 
was a chaos in which the Deity had intermingled in manifold 
confusion atoms, molecules, corfuscule insectilie, ox minima 
naturalia (a phrase borrowed from Lucretius) of every kind, 
celestial and terrestrial, organic and inorganic, animal and vege- 
tal. Upon these atoms had been impressed peculiar motions 
and affinities. At the creation of the world, as the creative fiats 
in their turn went forth, the potential motions and affinities of 
each species of atom became kinetic, and by the concourse of 
