AucustT 28, 1902] 
Arums in which he failed to find imprisoned flies. He is 
clearly ignorant of Knuth’s and Miiller’s positive state- 
ments as to the presence of imprisoned insects, and of 
Miiller’s description of the flies flying vainly against the 
imprisoning hairs. He describes the stigmas as covered 
with pollen after the anthers of the same spadix have 
burst—which is by no means surprising since the stigmas 
secrete nectar after they have ceased to function. 
He throws in the gratuitous guess that the dead flies 
sometimes found at the bottom of the prison are killed by 
feeding “‘on the intensely acrid juice which, as is well 
known, is secreted by the tissues of the flower.” As a 
matter of fact, precisely the opposite is known, namely, 
that “juice” of the plant is not acrid, the irritating effect 
of the tissues as a whole being due to minute pointed 
crystals. He concludes that Arum is “a purely self- 
fertilised flower.” To one with any knowledge of the 
subject this statement, appended as a justifiable con- 
clusion from such an array of arguments, is enough by 
itself to condemn the author. 
Chapter xxiil., p. 190, is headed “ Trimorphic Flowers. 
The cleistogamic flowers directly disprove the theory.” ! 
The hasty reader might suppose that the theory in 
question is the Field Naturalist’s own hypothesis that nets 
are a cause of sterility. For if sterility can be produced 
by keeping the pollen from sun, rain, wind, &c., as the 
Field Naturalist states to be the case, then surely a 
cleistogamic flower, in which ‘the andrcecium is shut up 
within the corolla (a covering much more impervious than 
a net), must be completely sterile, more especially as the 
reproductive parts are more or less in the dark, a con- 
dition known to produce sterility in chasmogamic 
flowers. This does not occur to our author, who calls the 
cleistogamic flower Nature’s “ own natural net.” 
The Field Naturalist completely misunderstands 
Darwin’s point of view about cleistogamy, which, by 
the way, is also the view of biologists generally. 
Cleistogamy is an economical arrangement for securing 
fertilisation at any price; it is important that cross- 
fertilisation shall take place, but it is still more important 
that seedlings of any parentage should be produced. 
Floral structures are compromises between the two 
extreme forms, cleistogamy and diceciousness, in one of 
which offspring is assured, in the other the offspring, 7f 
any, is cross-fertilised. The existence of cleistogamy, 
instead of being fatal to “the theory,” is a most instructive 
part of the body of facts on which the modern view is 
founded. Why the Field Naturalist supposes that 
*‘cleistogamic flowers directly disprove the theory,” 
especially in the case of trimorphic plants, is not obvious, 
for the meaning of cleistogamy is the same in any class 
of flowers. We fail to see that his discussion throws any 
light on the subject. The only point which is worthy of 
notice is a quotation (p. 191) from Darwin’s “ Forms of 
Flowers,” which has several copyist’s mistakes, and, 
moreover, contains interpolated words which do not 
occur in the original, the whole being within inverted 
commas. Itis this sort of treatment of Darwin’s text 
that makes it almost impossible to read the Field 
Naturalist. We can never know whether the quotations 
are correctly given, and life is not long enough for the 
1 We have omitted the letter ‘‘D” which forms part of the title, and 
shows that the chapter continues the previous section C. 
NO. 1713, VOL. 66] 
NATURE 
| of the tests. 
4II 
verification of his innumerable citations. There is, how- 
ever, little in the book but quotations and criticism, and 
when the reader distrusts the quotations and can see no 
value in the criticisms, the task of getting through the 
book becomes unbearable. 
We would urge the author to give up his barren attempt 
to discredit work of such perennial value as Darwin’s 
by niggling bookish methods. Let him rather imitate 
Darwin’s life-long habit of absolutely honest experiment, 
coupled with broad-minded discussions in which all facts 
and considerations which oppose his views are brought 
into full prominence. Then, and not until then, can we 
take his writings seriously. 
CHRONOMETRY. 
Exposition universelle de 1900. Congrés international 
de Chronométrie. Comptes rendus des Travaux, 
Procés-verbaux, Rapports et Mémoires. 
(Paris : Gauthier-Villars, 1902.) 
MONGST the numerous congresses at Paris in 1900 
was one on chronometry, of which the work under 
review is the official publication. In addition to the 
“minutes” of the meetings, which include abstracts of the 
communications, it gives the full text of more than thirty 
papers and reports. These deal with such subjects as 
the testing of watches and chronometers, the decimalisa- 
tion of time, questions of units and standards, topics of 
historical or current interest in horology, the description 
of novel instruments or materials, and mathematical and 
physical investigations bearing on chronometry. 
M. de Vanssay, one of the secretaries to the Congress, 
gives an account, pp. 5-12, of the tests applied to watches 
and chronometers at the chief testing observatories. On 
pp. 153-156 is the report of a commission appointed to 
consider the question of watch tests, with a view to 
securing uniformity at different places. The commission 
confined its attention to the regulations in vogue at 
Geneva, Kew and Besancon, which are similar in general 
character, and to new regulations proposed for Neu- 
chatel. While generally favourable to the G eneva-Kew- 
Besancon rules, the majority of the commission preferred 
the Neuchatel method of dealing with the results ob- 
tained at different temperatures. The commission 
recommends the addition of a:two days’ test with the 
watch vertical pendant dowm, excessive difference between 
the rate in this position and in the other vertical position 
pendant up to be a cause for rejection. It makes 
other recommendations tending to increase the severity 
It recommends that the marks obtained 
by a watch be given only in the official list of the testing 
institution, and expresses a wish that all observatories 
should assign marks according to some common scheme. 
A second subject considerably discussed was the 
decimalisation of time, papers on this topic occupying 
pp. 116-145. M. Guyou would accept the existing hour 
and subdivide it decimally ; but he would do so only in 
the case of clocks or chronometers, “ tropométres,” used 
for astronomical or nautical work, ‘whilst the general 
public would be left to the existing clock or “ garde- 
temps.” M. de Rey-Pailhade is more advanced, though 
his argument that the metre is “admirablement pro- 
portionée a la taille de homme” rather savours of 
Pp. xl + 254. 
