596 



NATURE 



[StPTEMUER 29, 1 9 10 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 

 [The Editor does not hold himself responsible jor opinions 

 expressed by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake 

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

 manuscripts intended for tins or any other part of Nature. 

 No notice is taken of anonymous communications.] 



British Maiine Zoology. 



Prof. MacBride's letter in Xatlri; of September 15 

 does not require a detailed answer, as some of his state- 

 ments are merely matters of opinion ; but there are a few 

 points on which I should like to comment.. 



(i) Prof. MacBride says we are unable to support 

 pioperly one biological station, and that he does not see 

 how we " could be expected to support two " — the second 

 being evidently that proposed by Mr. Pace. But why does 

 he try to ignore the three or four other existing stations? 

 They are all supported ; some of them, so far as regards 

 students and researchers, are very well supported indeed. 



(2) When he refers to some biological station as an 

 "expensive toy," which in his experience its local friends 

 " soon tire of supporting," one would like lo ask of what 

 station he is writing? The statement does not seem to 

 apply to any of those mentioned. 



(3) It is difticult for one who has followed the work of 

 the U.S. Bureau of p'isheries Laboratory at Wood's Hole 

 to understand Prof. MacBride's words in regard to it. He 

 says it is "devoted entirely to economic work." A 

 moment's thought of the scientific researches issued from 

 that laboratory by Sumner and others shows the inadequacy 

 of such a description. 



(4) .As to the Caiiadian stations, again I think Prof. 

 MacBride does but scant justice to praiseworthy efforts. 

 The western station at Nanaimo was visited last September 

 by a party of biologists from the British .Association, who 

 Kere, to say the least, more appreciative than Prof. 

 MacBride. 



But the main thing I want to say is that Prof. MacBride, 

 both in his original article and in his reply to my criticism, 

 has, it seems to me, a false ideal. Expensive equipment, 

 large funds, increased support — these are his keynote : and 

 not a word is said as to a rich and varied fauna, physical 

 features affording natural facilities for research and 

 sympathetic personal service — the factors in the case that 

 give character and tradition to a biological station. 



W. A. Herdman. 



It would be interesting to know what biological stations 

 Prof. MacBride had in mind when writing the letter which 

 appeared in Nature of September 15. 



Prof. MacBride states that it would be better to concen- 

 trate scientific support on one station than to have it spread 

 over a number of stations poorly provided with funds and 

 with staff, and, ipso facto, incapable of really first-class 

 work. Surely there is more than one station in Great 

 Britain yvhich is capable of affording opportunities of first- 

 class work, and I venture to think that the number of 

 yvorkers attending some of the smaller stations is ample 

 proof of their usefulness. 



The case cited by Prof. MacBride, of Chicago students 

 travelling 1000 miles to Wood's Hole, yvill, I am afraid, 

 not help many of our Liverpool students to attend vacation 

 courses other than those held noyv at Port Erin, and 

 Chicago students would have to travel nearly 1000 miles in 

 any case to reach the .sea. 



There is, to my mind, a great advantage in having 

 biological stations near to our universities, so that it is 

 possible to reach them quickly and frequently. Such 

 stations would serve the departments of zoology, botany, 

 physiology, and biochemistry, and the staff of these depart- 

 ments would feel more at home there than at some station 

 which yvas only visited at odd times, and in the control of 

 which they would not be so immediately concerned. .As a 

 result there yvould be more encouragement for students to 

 work at these laboratories, and little time lost in 

 preparation. 



With regard to the economic side of the controversy, one 



might quote from a paper by the director of the Fisheries 



Laboratory at Wood's Hole : — " But the life of the sea is 



an interrelated yvhole. Hence the futility of endeavouring, 



NO. 2135, VOL. 84] 



even on economic grounds, to restrict our investigations to 

 food fishes or other animals of obvious commercial 

 importance." Wm. J. Dakin. 



Port Erin Biological Station, September 19. 



There are one or two matters alluded to in Prof. 

 Herdman 's and Mr. Dakin 's letters on yvhich I should like 

 to say a yvord or two. 



(i) I had no desire lo ignore existing biological stations 

 other than Plymouth, but, until Mr. Pace's circular 

 appeared, I think 1 am correct in saying that the Marine 

 Biological .Association yvas alone in making its appeal for 

 support to all the zoologists in the United Kingdom. The 

 other stations depend on local support. 



(2) The curiosity of Mr. Dakin and Prof. Herdman as 

 to the particular station yvhich " local friends tired of sup- 

 porting " is, 1 think, uncalled for. Prof. Herdman 's 

 unrivalled acquaintance with biological institutions in this 

 country surely includes acquaintance yvith a station yvhich 

 has been closed. 



(3) I held up the station at Wood's Hole as an example 

 of a laboratory devoted to purely scientific ends, and sup- 

 poi ted solely by professional biologists. That valuable- 

 scientific yvork of general interest occasionally issues from 

 the laboratory of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, yvhich yvas 

 founded and is maintained for research on econoinic lines, 

 is totally irrelevant. 



(4) .As to my yvant of appreciation of " praiseyvorthy 

 efforts " in Canada, is Prof. Herdman ayvare that every 

 cent of expense in connection yvith all three stations in 

 Canada is borne by the Federal Government, yvhich also 

 pays the travelling expenses of yvorkers? 



Finally, in regard to " ideals," I yvould in all modesty 

 oppose my experience to that of Prof. Herdman. For the 

 last twenty years I have been engaged in zoological 

 research. On a good many occasions I have visited small 

 biological stations, but the only stations yvhere I have been 

 able to bring research to a successful issue are those of 

 Naples and Plymouth, yvhich in the matter of boats and 

 apparatus are thoroughly equipped, and yvhich in the 

 matter of " sympathetic personal service " are very near 

 perfection. -A biological station yvhere senior students can 

 handle living animals is one thing, and one where advanced 

 research can be done is another. In Plymouth yve possess 

 a station of the second kind, certainly, to say the least, 

 better equipped than any other in the kingdom. It yvill be 

 a thousand pities if it has to curtail its usefulness for Lack 

 of support. It was this strong feeling of the absolute 

 necessity of a yvell-equipped laboratory yvhich led me in 

 igo6, after several summers of futile attempts to utilise 

 the small movable laboratory, to make the motion at 

 the meeting of the Biological Board in Ottawa yvhich 

 resulted in the building of the permanent station at St. 

 Andrews, Neyv Brunsyvick. E. W. MacBride. 



The Spotted Kudu. 



I\ the Times of September 23 and the Field of Sep- 

 tember 24 (vol. cxvi,, p. 007) 1 have given prelimin.ary 

 notices of the skull and skin of a hitherto unknoyvn kudu 

 shot by Mr. Ivor Buxton to the yvest of the Arusi plateau 

 of Gallaland, in the Sahatu Mountains, and south-east of 

 Lake Zyvei, at an estimated height of 9000 feet above sea- 

 level. .As the owner has promised to present the specimen 

 to the British Museum, I take this opportunity of making 

 it the type of a neyv species. 



The specimen is an adult bull, its full age being indi- 

 cated by the yvorn condition of the cheek-teeth. The 

 head, neck, and body are covered yvith coarse dark-brown 

 hair, much more like that of a Kashmir stag or a mule- 

 deer than that of either of the striped kudus, and the 

 fronts of the legs are dark greyish-brown, and the re- 

 mainder grey. The throat and chest lack the abundant 

 fringe of long hair characteristic of the typical kudu, but 

 are marked by two broad patches of yvhite, one above 

 the other, yvhile the body-skin shows large yvhite spois 

 on the flanks and hindquarters, but no kudu-like stripes. 

 The face has the usual tragelaphine .yvhite markings. 

 The horns are of the kudu-type, but with a much 'more 

 outyvard direction, and are greatly inferior in length to 

 those of the typical species, their tips being yvorn to a 



