
242 
NATURE 


very briefly to another of these factors put prominently forward 
by both Mr. Wallace and Dr. Beale, namely, Se Obscure Colour.” 
We are not arguing about exceptional and individual cases, we 
are dealing with a general law, applicable or supposed to be 
applicable to the great majority of cases. Canit be said gravely 
that obscure colour has tended to the preservation of particular 
forms of life to the exclusion of others, not in a few exceptions, 
but as a general biological law ? ' 
Daylight, it will be admitted, is more likely to disclose an 
object than darkness. If we compare diurnal forms of life with 
nocturnal ones, we ought to find, if I read the tendency of the 
Darwinian argument rightly, that in the daylight when a sombre, 
obscure, or indifferent colour, would be of great service to hide 
an object, that there are a much smaller proportion of conspicuous 
forms of life abroad than at night when there would be no such 
need for obscurity, and a bright colour might be worn with im- 
punity. Is such the fact ? een 
Again, if we compare the animals and plants that live in 
tropical climates, where the light is intense, with those found in 
temperate and severe ones where the light is not so great and 
objects are not so prominent, do we find that the former has a 
comparative monupoly of conspicuous objects, or do we find 
rather that the reverse is the case, and that all the brightest 
objects we know in nature—the parrots, macaws, humming 
birds, butterflies, orchids, &c.—are found in the greatest profusion 
inthe tropics, while we proverbially console ourselves for the 
absence of colour in our birds by boasting of their singing, and 
hang the beetles of Brazil in necklaces round our sisters’ and 
wives’ necks, while we crush our sombre representatives of the 
same class under our heels? Is it not equally true of the sea? 
In the Mediterranean, for instance, do not the brightly decked 
out gurna-ds and mullets far outnumber the dingier fish, while 
on the banks of foggy Newfoundland the sober tinted cod and 
ling are the prevailing types? In the former we have the clear 
blue water that washes round Sorrento pierced through and 
through by the blazing sun, while in the latter we have everything 
gloomy except the nsherman. 
If we separate the animal world into flesh eaters and vegetable 
eaters, we ought to find, if this theory be true, that the former 
(which as a rule are not themselves the prey of other animals) 
are more conspicuous than the latter, since they have less reason 
for adopting a secret costume. But is itso? Are the hawks 
and owls and carnivorous beetles as classes more conspicuous than 
their victims? Is it a not fact that the most beautifully coloured 
creatures are as arule the most helpless, weak, and accessible ; 
that those animals which are supplied by naure with weapons 
of defence or are strong and can defend themselves, are as classes 
more obscure in colouring than those not so protected, and that 
the same rule applies to plants which are poisonous, nauseous, 
or protected by thorns? If these facts be true in the great 
majority of cases, we have another factor in Mr. Darwin’s theory 
which is not satisfactory, and the cases quoted to support it 
become mere exceptions, which, by being exceptions, disprove 
the particular law he is maintaining. This letter has already 
exceeded reasonable limits, and I must postpone a further con- 
sideration of this and other objections to another occasion. 
Derby House, Eccles Henry H. Howorru 
Mr. Howortn’s objections to the theory of Natural Selec- 
tion have been fully answered. I therefore wish to direct 
attention to another objection which has been recently advanced, 
and which has not, so far as I know, been specially refuted. 
The objection is stated by its author in the following terms :— 
“And it has been affirmed that to ‘the primitive properties of 
molecules’ and ‘ Natural Selection’ may be referred all the vary- 
ing forms and structures known to us, as well as all the phe- 
nomena of the living world. But such terms explain nothing. 
By their use further mquiry is discouraged, and the mind bent 
upon inyestigating the secrets of Nature is misled at the very 
outset. Can any one of these very pretentious phrases be re- 
solved into anything more than the statement of a fact or facts 
in the form and language of an explanation? Natural Selection 
is the formation of species, and species are produced by Natural 
Selection. Crystallisation is the formation of crystals, and 
crystals are produced by the operation of crystallisation.” 
This passage is extracted trom p 58. of “ The Mystery of 
Life ”—a little work by Dr. Beale, which was published a few 
months ago, Dr. Beale has a keen appreciation of the ‘ ludi- 

crous.” He thinks Mr. Howorth’s misrepresentation of the 
Darwinian theory ‘‘ very curious and even ludicrous,” and in the 
closing sentence of his letter in NaTURE, he appears to havea 
bit of fun to himself which ordinary mortals cannot understand ; 
and if he can prove that Natural Selection is a mere abstract 
statement of the fact that species are in some way or other 
formed, the Darwinian theory is the most “ludicrous ” ever pre- 
sented to mankind. Probably Mr. Wallace may take a different 
view of the subject, and he may even think that the objection is 
more ludicrous than the theory ; at any rate, no harm can result 
from bringing Dr. Beale and the champions of Natural Selection 
face to face, so that stricter tests than the ‘‘ ludicrous ” may be 
applied to ascertain whether the truth lies in the theory or in the 
objection. JAMEs Ross 
Newchurch, July 24 
THE last paragraph of Mr. Howorth’s letter in NATURE of 
July 13 reminds me of a fact which I have often noticed, and 
which is, I suppose, well-known to botanists, viz. that certain 
creeping plants which root at the joints, flower sparingly unless 
the sprays are so disposed that they cannot take root. I refer 
especially to the Lysimachia nummularia (larger moneywort or 
‘Creeping Jenny”). This plant blossoms comparatively little 
when allowed to trail in the moist soil which is its natural Aadita?, 
and in which alone the leaves look healthy and thriving. A 
spray trained off the flower bed on to a flag-stone, or a plant 
grown in a pot so as to hang over the edge and not be able to 
take root, will look sickly, but will be covered with flowers. I 
think I have noticed the same thing in connection with the 
periwinkle. 
Gardeners cut off the runners of strawberries and the suckers of 
fruit trees to increase the crop, because, as they say, runners ex- 
haust the plant. 
But is not the case, rather, that the possibility of continuing 
its own life by taking root at the runners makes the plant’s con- 
stitution, as it were, lazy about propagating its kind ? 
It is, perhaps, worth noticing that the cutting off the runners 
or suckers does not in any way weaken the plant, or cause ic to 
become sickly, but it dues prevent the indefinite prolongation of 
the individual life. 
THE OWNER OF A ‘‘ WEED GARDEN” 
Recent Neologisms 
WriTING, as I did, froma little Midland village, where access 
to an English dictionary was impossible, I am not surprised to 
find that three words, which I treated as recent coinages, were 
only re-introductions. Szrzvival, zmpolicy, and indiscipline, ave 
all so naturally formed, that, whether old or new, they are 
‘welcome to stay.” My end was answered by putting a brand 
on Mr. Wallace's pro/ificness, by way of contrast. If he isbent 
on using that monster, he will help to naturalise it by spelling it 
with cé (instead of c) like ¢#ickness. But surely he is not driven 
between the Scyllaand Charybdis of prolzfickness and prolijicacity, 
when frolicity is starmg him in the face. For my part, I pray 
that the whole family will (to quote Sylvester again) “shake 
swift wing,” and be no moreseen, By-the-bye, I find the verb 
to handwrite in the Quarterly Review, April 1871, p. 332. That 
is a good, if not a new word, and well deserves re-introduction, 
C, M. INGLEBY 
The British Association and Local Scientific Societies 
Ir is to be regretted that the British Association does not exert 
its influence in stimulating local scientific s cieties towards greater 
efforts for the formation in their museums of collections repre- 
senting the Geology and Natural History of their respective 
neighbourhoods, so that they might constitute local monographs, 
Such a system, combined with a central museum in London, 
representing an epitome of the collections throughout the 
country, would tend to the advancement of science with greater 
rapidity and accuracy than at present, when the provincial 
museums are little better than overstocked curiosity-shops, and 
with no recognised plan of arrangement which is greatly wanted. 
In general there is little space tor additions of importance, from 
the fact that the museums already contain large miscellaneous 
collections, unconnected with the neighbourhood, and of little 
use to anybody. Many valu:ble private collections exist through- 
out the country, representing the geology, &c., of various 
localities, which are eventually too often dispersed and lost to 
[Fuly ou, 1871 



ee Seen ere ee 
