Sept. 1, 1870] 
NATURE 
355 
information to be obtained of one science is generally so closely 
connected with another, or others, that no difficulty would be 
found in getting the greater part of the local members together 
for the purpose of hearing an address upon any scientific subject. 
The large libraries of the. various central societies could be 
utilised by sending a parcel of books to the local library, such 
books to be exchanged monthly. It may be asked, would the 
parent bodies, and science generally, gain by such an arrange- 
ment? Are the British Islands too well explored? Is there no 
more celestial or terrestrial object remaining unknown? Have 
mathematicians, mechanicians, &c., reached the bounds of their 
studies? I say tothese, anda score of other similar questions, 
No! Then the watchword should be Onward. By the above 
means the face of the whole country would be covered by earnest 
and interested searchers. Botanists might discover new species ; 
astronomers would be joined into an immense circle, closely 
watching every phenomenon which occurred in the heavens ; one 
statement would be verified by others ; geologists would be at 
the side of every quarry or well, seeking specimens ; antiquaries 
would be at hand to receive ‘‘ finds,” whenever historical 
ground or old buildings were being moved. Monthly statements 
of work performed would be forwarded to the general Secretary, 
to be printed in the Transactions. Lectures would be multiplied 
a hundredfold. Book-worms would find treasures hitting about 
in family mansions, and even in village cottages, which would 
satisfy even their craving appetite. But Iam not writing for 
readers unable to understand. All will admit the feasibility of 
the plan, if only it were tried. Probably other correspondents 
may wish to be heard upon the subject, therefore I leave the 
suggestion in their hands. 
Reading C. H. W. Biees 
Kant’s Transcendental Distinction between Sensibility 
and Understanding 
As Dr. Ingleby’s letter cannot well be answered, except by 
me, will you kindly insert the following observations? I am 
very sorry the form of the controversy compels me to refer to 
myself ; you will see that the point at issue concerns an important 
question in Kant’s philosophy. He said a certain question of 
mine was badly worded. As a question set out of a preseribed 
book, he concedes it to have been accurate enough, but he still 
denies the precision of the statement in that book. I think he 
is right, and that I was guilty of an error, though by no means 
so grave an error as he imputes to me. But his imputation is 
again partly my fault, for I did not write clearly enough. Here 
are the words which misled him ; ‘‘ we must not confuse the em- 
pirical distinction between real object and merely subjective ap- 
pearance with the transcendental distinction on which Kant’s 
doctrine of Space and Time is based.” 
In the first place I do not think there is any ambiguity in the 
term real object, when I am speaking of an empirical distinction, 
for then it cannot possibly be a noumenon ; and the meaning of 
subjective appearance follows upon its correlative. Dr, Ingleby 
should, therefore, have found no difficulty in interpreting me 
rightly so far, and, indeed, he has done so, But he understands 
the rest of the sentence as if I had written ‘‘ we must not confuse 
the empirical distinction between real object and merely subjective 
appearance with the transcendental distinction detween the 
same too things on which Kant’s doctrine of Space and Time is 
based,” This I did not say, though I am afraid my words are 
open to such aconstruction. He justly adds that Kant’s Aésthetic 
is founded on no such distinction, and he points out the fact that 
Kant has in the previous page (p. 78 of Hartenstein’s Ed.) 
spoken of his broad distinction in kind between Sensibility and 
Understanding, as a transcendental distinction, _ 
I perfectly agree with him that this was the point referred to 
by Kant, and perhaps he is right that the philosopher meant 
nothing more. But what I had in my head when I wrote the 
passage, was a special phase or aspect of this same distinction, 
the aspect which insists, that z¢ zs s0¢ merely the ordinary empirical 
sensibility (such as tastes and odours), 62? the a priori and necessary 
sensibility which his doctrine contrasts with the understanding. Of 
course he has not yet considered, and therefore leaves undeter- 
mined, whether the understanding can cognize things, fer se : 
butas to sensibility, the most obvious illustration which a superficial 
teacher would select, in expounding the so-called subjectivity of 
space and time, would be contingent, as opposed to necessary, 
data of sense. He would show how colour and taste and warmth 
were apparently perceived in the object ; but were really modi- 
fications of the subject, while other qualities (extension, figure, 
&c.), were really necessary to the object. Kant protests re- 
peatedly against this empirical distinction being used to illustrate 
his doctrine, which depends on a transcendental distinction—a 
distinction (I thought) not of mere contingent, but of pure @ 
Priori, and therefore necessary, sensibility from understanding. 
The passages which I indicated and translated in the sequel-of 
the note, preach this peculiar aspect of his doctrine, and were 
cited for this reason alone. 
I confess I was led to search them out by overlooking, stupidly 
enough, his employment of the phrase “transcendental distinc- 
tion” in the previous page; and the fact, that Professor -K, 
Fischer had omitted to mention so important a point, made me 
all the more anxious to notice it. But when my language was 
so ambiguous as to mislead a really competent critic, like Dr. 
Ingleby, I must only acknowledge my fault, and promise to 
make amends in my next edition. TI trust, however, that in 
this instance, your readers will absolve me from having blundered 
in the principles of the Critical Philosophy, even if I gave too 
much meaning to the framscendental distinction, 1 cannot con- 
clude without thanking your able correspondent for his valuable 
criticism. : 
Trinity College, Dublin, Aug. 15 J. P. MAHAFFY 
Colour Blindness 
To the remarks in Mr. Hayward’s letter in NATURE of 
August 18, may I add my own observations? I have often 
noticed that my right eye has much greater defining power than 
my left ; as, for instance, in reading print ; but when I look at a 
check pattern of white and black, the white looks much whiter 
and the black much blacker to my left than to my right eye. Is 
not this somewhat analogous to Mr. Hayward’s case ? 
St. Peter's, York, Aug. 20 LEONARD MARSHALL 
Cross Fertilisation 
THERE could perhaps be found no more striking illustration of 
the law which seems to demand, from all species of living thin, 
frequent crossing as a condition of their continued existence, than 
is afforded in the structure and development of the flowers of 
Lobelia. Ahasty examination of a few specimens of this plant 
might seem to refute this idea ; and I can imagine an anti-Dar- 
winian, unacquainted with the life-history of the flower, pointin 
triumphantly to it, not only as an instance of pepetual self-fer- 
tilisation, but also as an incontrovertible example of an organ- 
ism specially adapted to the use and convenience of a different 
species, without itself deriving any advantage from the circum- 
stance. For while the flowers of this genus are furnished with a 
broad and briiliantly-coloured lip, forming an attractive lure on 
which insects may alight to feed on the nectar provided for 
them, the introrse anthers are connected together, so as to form 
a rigid case completely enclosing the style and imbedding its 
summit in pollen. In this case, then, insect agency appears to 
be worse than useless; for though a few grains of pollen may be, 
and are, shaken out, through a small orifice between the extre- 
mities of the anthers, upon the back of every moderate-sized 
insect which enters the flower ; such grains can apparently never 
be brought into contact with the stigma, and consequently must 
perish and be wasted. How completely, however, would sucha 
reasoner find the tables turned by more continued observation, 
Lobelia is one of those genera which might be more correctly 
described as veysisexual than, as strictly speaking, hermaphro- 
dite. Its flowers are at first entirely male, the female organs not 
being fully developed till after all the pollen has been removed, 
Then the style forces its way between the extremities of the 
anthers, and expands into a broad stigma, so situated as to rub 
the backs of the bees and other insects that enter the flower, and 
brush off any pollen that they may bring. Thus, self-fertilisation, 
instead of being, asit at first seemed, inevitable, is in fact im- 
possible ; and insect agency, which appeared at best useless, is 
absolutely necessary to the survival of the species. 
** Versisexuality” seems also to be the rule among the species 
of Ranunculacee, Geraniacee, Saxifragacee, and probably many 
other families. It is evident that in such species the pollen of the 
earliest and the ovules of the latest flowers will be wasted ; and 
since natural selection tends always to prevent any waste, it is 
conceivable that such species might in the course of many genera- 
tions give rise to moncecious or dicecious descendants, 
Kilderry, Co. Donegal W. E, Harr 
