SEPTEMBER 4, 1902 | 
IAT ORE, 
437 
certain subdivisions would sufficiently indicate the con- 
tents of the paper, and in the case above cited this is 
partially true ; but take the paper numbered 738 and 
compare its title with those under the various sections 
(they are too long to quote), and the value of the addi- 
tional titles will be at once appreciated. 
Of recent years our knowledge of organic chemistry 
has increased so rapidly that it might be difficult to 
know under which registration number to look for some 
of the organic compounds, and chemists will be thankful 
to the Central Bureau for giving a list of organic bodies 
and their registration numbers extending over nearly six- 
teen pages in double columns and containing some 1800 
references. 
It may be thought that the mode of using the registra- 
tion numbers would be very difficult to acquire, but it is 
surprising how rapidly one becomes accustomed to their 
employment after a little practice. It cannot be said 
that the schedules as they now stand are perfect, but 
when they are revised in 1905 many emendations will 
doubtless be made. 
We must be thankful to the Central Bureau for the 
care and accuracy with which this volume has _ been 
compiled, and we must congratulate chemists on having 
another instrument of research at their disposal. 
HERBERT MCLEOD. 
ANOTHER THEORY OF SEX. 
Owest-ce qui détermine le Sexe? Par le Docteur A. Van 
Lint, Médecin Assistant 4’ lHopital Saint-Pierre, a 
Bruxelles. Pp. 77. (Paris: Bailliére et Fils, 1902.) 
R. A. VAN LINT has convinced himself of the 
validity of a somewhat extraordinary new theory 
as to the determination of sex, which is in some measure 
a rejuvenescence of Starkweather’s. If it is true, it 
should give pause to virile fathers who wish to have sons, 
for unless they can secure still more vigorous mates they 
are sure to have daughters only. The theory is, that the 
offspring follow the sex of the weaker parent, though, as 
we read on, this turns out to mean the parent whose 
available germ-cells are relatively less vigorous at the 
time of fertilisation. But an attempt to estimate the 
relative vigour of germ-cells leads us into the region of 
the unverifiable. 
To understand the author aright we must note that he 
does not believe in the concept of the germ-plasm (‘‘ pour 
nous, les cellules génitales se développent tout entiéres 
aux depens des cellules somatiques,” p. 34), and that he 
postulates the origin of the unisexual organism from 
primitive hermaphroditism, a tendency to which always 
persists in more or less subtle guise. We cannot within 
our limits argue about these postulates, but we cannot 
agree with either. It is very interesting to compare van 
Lint’s views with those stated by Dr. John Beard in his 
paper on the determination of sex, also published this 
year. 
Van Lint’s new theory is a coordination of five 
hypotheses, which he expounds in a lucid and suggestive 
manner :—(1) The ovum and the spermatozoon are anti- 
thetic, expressing opposite extremes of cellular differen- 
tiation, and perhaps analogous to right-handed and 
NO. 1714, VOL. 66] 
left-handed crystals of the same stuff. (2) There is also 
a somatic antithesis between the masculine body and 
the feminine body, often conspicuous in the so-called 
secondary sex- characters, often inconspicuously expressed 
in minute contrasts which saturate the whole soma. 
(3) Again, there is an antithesis between the character 
of the germ-cells borne by an individual and the character 
of the body of that individual ; they are complementary 
expressions of the primitive hermaphroditic unity of the 
organism ; indeed, the characters of the sex suppressed 
in the development of the unisexual gonads are expressed, 
as it were, in pervasive influence on the soma. (4) So 
strong is this third antithesis that the male’s somatic 
cells—which the author in a question-begging term calls 
“parovules ”—may be regarded as sexually equivalent to 
ova ; while the female’s somatic cells—which the author 
in another question-begging term calls “ paraspermato- 
zoides ”—may be regarded as sexually equivalent to sper- 
matozoa. This seems an extravagant and unwarranted 
hypothesis, and we are quite unconvinced by the facts as 
to effects of castration, &c., adduced in support of it. 
But to continue. (5) The properties of the “ sexualised” 
body react on the properties of the germ-cells, in embry- 
onic as well as in adult life, and this in such a definite 
way that they determine the sexual bias, or the sex of the 
offspring into which the germ-cells will develop. In short, 
the sex of the offspring depends on the relative bodily 
vigour of the parents. 
Thus, if a relatively feeble ovum be fertilised by a 
relatively vigorous spermatozoon, the spermatozoon’s qual- 
ities will be dominant ; the embryo will therefore have 
(by hypothesis) a masculine or “ paraspermatozoid” body, 
and to balance this the gonads will be female. One 
naturally wishes to know what the relative vigour of a cell 
means, and this is discussed in chapter v.; one also wishes 
to know how the vital force of a parent is measured, and 
chapter vi. gives the six heads of a complete medical 
examination. We are relieved to find, however, that the 
certain sign that a man is more vigorous than his 
wife is his having a daughter. “Le sexe de l’enfant 
tranchera la question.” Could there be a more conclusive 
criterion ¢ 
In the seventh chapter it is shown that the authors 
theory fits in well with the phenomena of “crossed in- 
heritance.” The son is the result of a more vigorous 
ovum fertilised by a less vigorous spermatozoon ; the 
somatic cells must balance the gonads, therefore they 
must be feminine, and, of course, the boy is the image of 
his mother. Could anything be simpler ? 
In the eighth chapter the author seeks to show with 
great ingenuity that the available statistical and experi- 
mental results on this difficult subject may be harmonised 
with his views, and concludes by showing that the so- 
called auto-regulation of the proportions of the sexes is 
also explicable on his theory, according to which it is 
always the more feeble that Nature insists on replacing. 
If we had space at our disposal we should be delighted 
to disagree with the ingenuous author in regard to the 
detailed facts, but it would be of little avail since we 
cannot admit his postulates. The moral of the book 
seems good—that the strong man who wishes to have 
sons must find a still stronger mate; but it also follows, 
unfortunately, that the weak woman who does not wish 
