November to, 189SJ 



NA TURE 



29 



LETTERS ^ TO THE EDITOR 



[The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions ex- 

 pressed by his correspotidents. Neither (an he undertake 

 to return, or to correspond with the writers of, rejected 

 viannscripts intended for this or any other part of NATURE. 

 No notice is taken of anonymous communications. \ 



The Origin of the Aurora Spectrum. 



In your issue of June l6, Prof. Schuster calls attention to the 

 fact that the wave-length of the aurora line nearly coincides 

 with the wave-length of the bright green line in the spectrum 

 of krypton. Prof. Ramsay and Dr. Traversgive the wave-length 

 of this line as 5566-3. I find it to be 5570-43 (Rowland's 

 scale), which brings the line close to the mean of the best 

 <3eterniinations of the aurora line. According to Scheiner 

 (" Die Spectralanalyse der Gestirne ") the best measures, when 

 reduced to Rowland's scale, are : — 



Angstrom 

 Vogel . . . 

 Vijkander 

 Lcmstrom 



5568 

 5572 

 5573 

 5570 

 Mean 5571 'o. 



Huggins . . 5572 

 Copeland ... 5573 

 Gyllenskiold 5569 



To this must be added Campbell's determination at Mount 

 Hamilton: 5571-6 (see translation of Scheiner's " Sp. d. 

 Gest." by 'E. Frost, p. 326). 



Considering the difficulty of measuring the aurora line, I 

 think the difference is not too large to be compatible with the 

 identity of the lines. Satisfactory evidence might be gained, 

 if the other krypton lines could be observed in the spectrum of 

 the aurora. I subjoin the mean of four different determinations 

 of the yellow and green krypton lines. They were photo- 

 graphed on orthochromatic plates, together with lines of 

 mercur)', sodium and argon, which served as standards. 



The Boring at Funafuti. 



FURFHER information has been received this week from 

 Prof. David, of Sydney, as to the progress of the boring at 

 Funafuti. On September 6 it had reached a depth of 9S7 feet, 

 passing through a hard dolomite-like coral rock, apparently 

 similar to that mentioned previously as occurring below about 

 700 feet. Boring in the bed of the lagoon from the deck 

 of H.M.S. Porpoise had been continued; the one mentioned 

 in your last number w-as carried through sand, composed of 

 fragments of calcareous organisms in which broken pieces of 

 coral became commoner in descending, to a depth of 144 feet 

 in the bed-rock of the lagoon, or in all 245 feet below sea-level. 

 There progress was stopped by hard coral rock, which could 

 not be pierced, because the great length of unsupported pipe 

 (about 120 feet) made driving impossible, and the loose stuff 

 above prevented them from applying another device. Captain 

 Sturdee, though unable to stay much longer at the island, 

 contrived to move the Porpoise about go feet nearer to the centre 

 of the lagoon, where another boring was made at about the same 

 depth. This was carried through 80 feet of sand, as before, 

 which was then succeeded by a rather hard coral gravel; the lumps 

 varying up to the size of a man's fist. It was pierced to a 

 depth of 33 feet, when the time limit was reached, and the work 

 was necessarily abandoned. The results, however, are most 

 interesting, and our friends in Sydney may be congratulated on 

 the success of boring so far in a depth of a hundred feet of water. 

 When letters left the island the main bore was still progressing, 

 though the supply of diamonds was nearly exhausted, so that 

 there seems every hope that it will be carried below a thousand 

 feet. But what has been already accomplished will be an im- 

 mense addition to our knowledge of atolls. 



T. G. BONNEY, 

 Vice-Chairman of the Coral Reef 

 Committee of the Royal Society. 



NO 15 I 5, VOL. 59] 



Asymmetry and -Vitalism. 



It seems to me that Prof. Japp has not understood the pur- 

 pose of my reference to " the formation of hematite nodules and 

 flints in chalk." I instanced this simply as showing that segre- 

 gation slowly takes place notwithstanding great restraints, such 

 as that which a chalk-stratum oft'ers ; and my argument was 

 that if segregations of hematite and flint take place in long 

 periods notwithstanding such great restraints, it may reasonably 

 be inferred that segregations of such slightly-different molecules 

 as those of dextro- and laevo-protein would gradually take place 

 under the slight restraints off-ered by a colloidal substance like 

 protein. Unless due time is given, nothing can be expected. 



Prof. Japp thinks I do not "quite realise to what extent 

 enantiomorphous molecules are alike. " He says that the two 

 classes of molecules differ only as right and left hands differ. 

 That seems to me a sufficient difl'erence to determine segregation. 

 There must be different attitudes in relation to incident 

 forces. Can it be held that differences of attitude have no 

 effects? The inembers of a mixed mass of molecules dift'ering 

 in their attitudes could not react in absolutely the same 

 manner upon incident forces : and it may be inferred that their 

 diflerential reactions will produce differential motions. 



But Prof. Japp's fundamental fact seems to me to furnish an 

 answer to his criticism. The basis of his argument is that these 

 groups of right-handed and left-handed molecules severally 

 produce rotation of a polarised ray in difterent directions. If 

 they thus act differently upon the ray when they form an aggre- 

 gate, they must act differently upon it when existing in- 

 dividually. Though in a mixed aggregate their respective 

 actions on the ray cancel one another, yet each molecule of 

 either kind will be acted upon and will react differently from 

 each molecule of the other kind, and their reactions will not 

 cancel one another. Hence there will be initiated those dif- 

 ferences in their behaviour which cause segregation. If in a 

 stale of nature they are under some conditions subject to 

 polarised rays, the implication seems to be that this result will 

 take place. Herbert Spencer. 



Brighton, October 29. 



I DO not understand how Mr. Herbert Spencer can imagine 

 that the action of plane. polarised light (a form of energy which 

 is merely polar — not asymmetric) can possibly effect the separa- 

 tion of enantimorphs. As I pointed out in my former letter, 

 nothing short of an asymmetric influence could do this. 



Speaking of enantiomorphous molecules, Mr. Spencer says : 

 " There must be different attitudes in relation to incident forces. 

 Can it be held that differences of attitude have no effects? " 



There will undoubtedly be differences in the effects ; but, 

 owing to a peculiarity in the behaviour of enantiomorphs under 

 the influence of symmetric forces, these differences will not be 

 apparent in the final result. Thus, if we subject dextro-tartaric 

 acid and laevo-tartaric acid separately to the action of heat, both 

 will decompose at the same temperature and at the same rate, 

 and will yield the same products in the same relative amounts. 

 There is a " difference of attitude," and there will be a difference 

 in the "effects," so far as in the one case some of the right- 

 handed acid becomes left-handed, whilst in the other, some of 

 the left-handed acid becomes right-handed ; and in both cases, 

 by similar inverse changes, stopping short, however, half-way, 

 some mesotartaric acid is formed. But in both cases the final 

 result is the same-; namely, the establishing of an equilibrium 

 represented by an optically inactive mixture of racemic acid with 

 a little mesotartaric acid. There is a difference in the two 

 changes— SL difference which our knowledge of the opposite 

 asymmetry of the two initial compounds enables us to read into 

 the processes, thus saving Mr. Spencer's general proposition ; but 

 there is no difference in the results. But it is quite evident, 

 from what Mr. Spencer has written about the separation of 

 enantiomorphs, that it is in the results that he expects to find a 

 difference ; and here he will be disappointed, so long as sym- 

 metric influences only are brought to bear on enantiomorphs. 

 Under such influences, just as in the foregoing case, there occur 

 two changes of inverse character, conditioned by, and exactly 

 balancing, the inverse character of the two enantiomorphs, so 

 that the final result is the same for both enantiomorphs. This is 

 what Mr. Spencer overlooks. He does not perceive that a uni- 

 form force acting upon two enantiomorphs may be modified by 

 them so as to act in two opposite asymmetric modes. He must 

 interpret his third "abstract proposition" and its corollary 



