222 

clusion. But the second part of the criticism is not quite just. 
Mr. Howorth, after stating the Darwinism theory, introduces us 
to an order of facts which is at variance with that theory as 
apprehended by him ; and not only does he do so, but he places 
an interpretation upon these facts which is utterly irreconcilable 
with the Darwinian theory as understood by its most able ex- 
positors. It is true that Mr. Howorth does not bring his inter- 
pretation of the facts he adduces and the theory of natural 
selection into such juxtaposition as to show their mutual contra- 
diction ; but a little consideration will enable Mr. Wallace to 
supply the missing links, and to see that in any generous ccn- 
struction of Mr. Howorth’s letter, the real questions at issue are 
the correctness of the facts he adduces and the validity ef the 
generalisation he makes from these facts. My object in writing 
is to direct Mr. Howorth’s attention to Mr. Herbert Spencer’s 
profound discussion of this subject, as it appears to have escaped 
his notice. This is the more surprising, since, on p. I11, vol ii. 
of ‘The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication,” 
and to which Mr. Darwin refers him, there is the following mar- 
ginal note :—‘‘ Since this MS. has been sent to press, a full dis- 
Cussion on the present subject has appeared in Mr. Herbert 
Spencer's ‘ Principles of Biology’ vol it., 1867, p. 457, e¢ seq.” 
He is a bold man who undertakes to enlighten the public on a 
subject which Mr, Spencer has fully discussed, without first as- 
certaining what view that profound and original thinker adopts ; 
and most certainly a fresh writer coming into the field ought to 
take up the discussion where an author of such eminence has left 
it. If Mr. Howorth will look at Mr. Herbert Spencer’s 
‘Principles of Biology,” he will find in sections 78 and 
79, an explanation of the process adopted by gardeners 
of cutting the roots, and ‘‘ringing” the bark of fruit trees. 
Section 355 explains the fact that fatness is often accompanied by 
barrenness. In a footnote at p. 483, vol. ii, he will find Mr. 
Doubleday’s doctrine specially noticed, and the fallacies upon 
which it is based exposed ; while in the chapters ‘‘ On the Laws 
of Multiplication,” vol. ii., p. 391, e¢ seg., he will find the whole 
subject treated with a fulness and exhaustiveness which leaves 
little to be desired. Mr. Howorth will notice that Mr. Spencer 
does not deny Mr. Doubleday’s facts, but that he places upon 
them an interpretation which brings them into harmony with the 
general theory of evolution, and with the special part of organic 
evolution which constitutes the Darwinian theory. 
Newchurch, July 17 JaMEs Ross 

I HOPE you will allow me a few lines to reply to Mr. Howorth. 
I had thought Mr. Doubleday’s essay was among the things 
of the past. There can be no question that his conclusions are 
not the conclusions of accomplished natuialists like Mr, Wallace, 
whose assertions are certainly as good, if not far better, than 
those of Mr. Doubleday. ; 
Quoting Mr. Chadwick, Mr. Howorth again puts cause for 
effect. There can be no doubt that the death rate increases ina 
crowded country fari fassw with the crowding, and that the 
crowding is the result of fertility. It by no means follows that 
the crowding produces fertility. 
There is one way in which poverty and overcrowding tend to 
ncrease the birth rate. Many of the children of the poor die 
during the first few months of life, and hence the mother, being 
lieved of her offspring, ceases to secrete milk, and soon again 
falls pregnant. It is the death of very young children in crowded 
districts which so largely increases the mortality, and this, as we 
have seen, may tend to increase the birth rate. 
The large percentage of deaths in early life amongst the ill- 
nourished and weakly renders these less likely to bear children 
than the strong. With regard to the large families of the poor 
so often quoted, I have grave doubts of the fact. 1 have for 
many years seen hundreds of poor families every year in the 
exercise of my profession of surgeon, and although I know many 
instances of ten or fifteen children having been born of one 
mother, in the majority not more than two or three reached 
adult age, and hence these produced no offspring in the second 
generation. 
The most remarkably prolific woman who has come under my 
notice has had twenty-two children in twenty years, and she is 
still continuing to present her husband with blessings. She is 
one of the fattest women I know. 
Amongst the rich and the well-to-do it is no uncommon thing for 
eight or ten children to grow to man’s and woman’s estate and 
to rear families, I know as many well-to-do persons with large 
NATURE 



families as poor people, and the living percentage is far greater 
in the former. 
Iam not aware that consumptive patients are so extremely 
prone to breed as Mr. Howorth thinks, certainly their children 
do not live to produce a second generation as a rule. 
Examples of fecundity and barrenness amongst wild tribes are 
not much to the purpose, because there are so many disturbing 
influences. To take, however, Mr. Howorth’s case, the Red 
Indian feeds ill enough and ‘is thin enough, yet he is not fertile. 
The backwoolsman, with his vegetable diet, would be far more 
likely to grow fat, and is certainly far better fed and far stronger 
than the Indian, yet he is more fertile than the Indian, although 
by no means fertile. He has many hardships to undergo. 
With regard to the Patagonian women and their belief that 
bleeding produces fertility, evidence is wanting as to the truth 
of their belief. We know many wide-spread beliefs are erroneous, 
for instance, most savages believe in rain-makers. 
In conclusion, Mr. Howorth thinks that wild animals in cap- 
tivity are sterile from over-feeding. If he will try and make them 
fertile by starving them, I think I may assert positively he will 
fail. Hence, I suspect, we must look for a deeper cause of 
barrenness in them. B. T. LOWNE 
99, Guilford Street 
Recent Neologisms 
IN using the word Mr. Ingleby objects to as hideous, I was 
not aware that I was coining a new one. If so, it was quite un- 
consciously on my part ; but a word was wanted to express the 
proper'y of being prolific, and if the choice les between 
* prolificness” and ‘ prolificacity,” as I think it does, I am 
inclined to believe that the former will survive, as being the 
shorter, the easier to pronounce, and perhaps the less hideous, 
even though it may not be constructed on the best etymological 
principles. ‘‘Fertility” and ‘‘fecundity,” which are often used, do 
not quite answer the purpose, although the latter has very nearly 
the same meaning. Our language must and will grow; ant its 
growth will be determined by convenience rather than by gram- 
matical rules. ALFRED R. WALLACE 

Dr. INGLEBY is in error as to the recent introduction of 
‘* survival,” ‘‘impolicy,” and ‘‘ prolificness.”” All these words 
will be found in Chalmers’s abridgment of ‘‘ To ld’s Johnson” 
(1820) ; the first with a reference to Sir George Buck, the 
second with one to Bishop Horsley, and the third with one to 
Scott (not Sir Walter). ‘‘ Indiscipline” does not «occur, but 
“indisciplinable” does, Hales being cited as the authority. 
hk. G. 
In his excellent custom of ‘‘ registering the first appearance of 
new words and new phrases,” Dr. C, M. Ingleby is surely very 
careless or superficial. He quotes ‘‘ survival”’ as a new word in- 
troduced, he thinks, by Darwin. Ihave been familiar with it 
as long as I remember, and my life of careful observation has 
exceeded a quarter of a century. ‘‘Impolicy” is equally 
familiar, having had currency at least twenty years before the 
Franco-Prussian war, to which Dr. Ingleby accredits it He 
will find both words, as well as “ indiscipline,” in ‘* Webster’s 
Dictionary,” edition 1852, and probably much earlier on careful 
search. ‘To telegram” is clearly a yulgarism, rarely heard I 
imagine, and never seen in print. Gas Weass 
Fertilisation of the Bee Orchis 
Mr. Darwin, in his ‘Fertilisation of Orchids,” states his 
belief that the Bee Orchis presents a physiological difference 
from all other British orchids, and is habitually self-fertilised. I 
had, yesterday, an opportunity of observing a number of these 
plants in one of its abundant localities in Surrey, and at a time 
when fertilisation must have been completed. In every plant 
almost all the capsules were considerably swollen, and were 
loaded with apparently fertilised ovules. In most of the withered 
flowers, the remains of the pollinia were still visible in the posi- 
tion described by Mr. Darwin, hanging down before the entrance 
to the nectary, in immediate proximity to the stigma, and rer.der- 
ing it almost impossible to believe that the flower had eyer been 
[Kuly 20, 1871 


: 
; 
i 
