670 

twelve and fourteen hours a day, much as we worked 
ours here at the same stage of the industrial system. 
But on the question whether we, the British, are 
perishing or not, the statistics obtained during the 
medical examinations for compulsory military service 
were, to say the least, disquieting. 
In reply to your correspondent, Mr. W. W. Leisen- 
ring (April 28, p. 571), the object of the examination 
I advocated is to find out what the physical basis of 
economics is, because I think it is entirely the opposite 
of what the economists seem to believe. There is 
no question of altering it. The natural laws in 
connexion with energy and matter were not known 
or understood when the present system was formulated. 
The system is a reflection of certain passing conditions, 
—an ad hoc system, good enough perhaps fifty years 
back, but perilous to-day. It should now be possible 
to found broadly the physical basis, embodying 
modern knowledge of the laws of energy and matter 
and the two undeniable principles of the Physiocrats 
and Karl Marx to which I made allusion. That 
human nature is admittedly imperfect is no reason 
why physical nature should be distorted to suit it, 
even if that were possible. Because drivers are im- 
perfect and of uncertain individuality we do not 
insist on imitating their idiosyncrasies in the cars 
they drive. Rather we try to make them “ fool- 
proof.”’ : 
Mr. Leisenring deduces from my letter that “ the 
natural obvious truths of the nineteenth century as 
interpreted economically are, in this century, both 
unscientific and senseless.’’ I accept the deduction, 
much as I would if the words “ spring ’’ and ‘“‘autumn”’ 
were substituted for the contrasted centuries; but 
I am not clear why Mr. Leisenring should disagree 
with my statement that no one pretends to under- 
stand the present system. His eulogy of it, whether 
historically justifiable or not, was couched in the 
past tense, whereas my criticism of it was couched 
in the present tense. With regard to the present 
financial system, however, if there is one defect it 
does not suffer from, it surely is age. Such a system 
as the present has never even been attempted before. 
It is an absolute innovation; and to suggest that it 
has evolved through several centuries pari passu with 
science, and that its ultimate basis is character and 
ability, merely shows that it is not understood. Its 
ultimate basis is credulity, and, by the standards of 
the Codes of Laws and social formule of all great 
civilisations, it is counterfeit. 
FREDERICK SODDY. 

Mr. W. Wiison LEISENRING’s interesting criticism 
of Prof. Soddy’s economic views in his letter printed 
in Nature of April 28, p. 571, appears to have over- 
looked some of the most important causes of the 
present confusion in the world of economics. Among 
these I would put first the well-known psychological 
process of inversion, whereby the means is mistaken 
for the end, as exemplified by the old mercantile 
system or fallacy of representing the accumulation 
of gold and silver as the ultimate goal of commerce, 
and as being the true basis of national prosperity. 
Thus “ protection,’’ “tariff reform’’ (and, indeed, 
most of the “labour’”’ or trades union ideals) are 
no more than survivals of a belief that money, instead 
of being the mere instrument of exchange and a 
measure of market values, is of itself the end and 
purpose of all trade and labour activity. 
A fruitful source of confusion is also ambiguous 
terminology. Attempts are often made to divorce 
the economic concept of wealth from private property. 
In their strictly economical signification ‘“ wealth ”’ 
and “labour ”’ are unmeaning apart from property 
NO. 2794, VOL. 111 | 
NATURE 

[May 19, 1923 

and market values. The same ambiguity applies to 
“ capital,’ hence all the absurdities associated with 
the phrase “ capital levy.”’ 
I venture also to differ from Mr. Leisenring’s 
statement that “ the ultimate basis of credit in any 
age is character and ability.’’ We have here another 
illustration of inversion. The true basis of credit is 
surely veputation, authority, and familiarity. These 
again depend upon systematic advertisement, or, to 
put it less invidiously, upon “ practical instruction.” 
St. GEORGE LANE Fox Pirv. 
Travellers’ Club, Pall Mall, S.W.1, 
April 30. 

Spermatogenesis of the Lepidoptera. 
In a letter to Nature of April 28, p. 568, Prof. J. 
Bronté Gatenby states his position as to the criticism, 
made independently by Dr. R. Bowen of Columbia 
University and myself, of his account of the formation 
of the macromitosome in the spermatogenesis of 
Lepidoptera. In doing so he makes a statement that, 
if I understand it correctly, is inaccurate and is 
certainly misleading. 
The macromitosome is formed by the coalescence 
of the mitochondrial vesicles. On this point we are 
all agreed. The mitochondrial vesicles consist of an 
inner chromophobic or lightly staining material 
surrounded by an outer layer of chromophilic or 
deeply staining material. Now, Dr. Bowen and I 
consider that the coalescence of the mitochondrial 
vesicles results in ‘‘ merely larger aggregates of 
chromophobic material, the chromophilic material 
running together to form more or less complete 
partitions between the chromophobic droplets ”’ 
(Bowen, Q./.M.S., 66, p. 601), On the other hand, 
Prof. Gatenby considers that the coalescence consists 
of the flowing together of the vesicles forming first 
of all elongated structures and then loops of chromo- 
philic substance which ultimately join up to form a 
“ perfectly coiled spireme "’ in a mass of the chromo- 
phobic substance. 
In his letter Prof. Gatenby uses the expression 
‘ whether the ‘spireme’ was formed of a flat ribbon, 
or a round string.’’ This, presumably, indicates 
his conception of the difference between our views. 
If it does not, I have failed to grasp the necessity 
of this phrase. So far as I am aware, Dr. Bowen has 
never suggested that the mitosome is formed by the 
twisting of a ribbon, and I, certainly, have never used 
the word “ribbon ”’ in this connexion. A mass of 
soap bubbles cannot be described as made up of a 
twisted ribbon of soap solution, whereas it can be 
described as a plate work, and that is the description 
continually given by Dr. Bowen. 
I do not think that the difference between Prof. 
Gatenby’s view and that of Dr. Bowen and myself is 
of as little consequence as Prof. Gatenby implies in 
the third paragraph of his letter. If his views as to the 
formation of the Lepidopteran mitosome are adopted, 
then the Lepidoptera are unique among all the 
insects in which spermatogenesis has been described. 
This is a view that one would hesitate to adopt, 
especially in view of the fact that practically all other 
recent workers on the spermatogeneses of all other 
insects agree more or less closely with the account 
of the plate-work mitosome of Dr. Bowen. For this 
reason it became important to confirm, if possible, 
Prof. Gatenby’s description. Dr. Bowen carried out 
his work on the Lepidoptera especially for this 
purpose, and came to the conclusion that Prof. 
Gatenby’s interpretation of the process was inaccurate. 
If, then, Dr. Bowen’s account is accepted, the Lepi- 
doptera are brought into line with other insects, and ~ 
« 
