October 27, 1910] 



NATURE 



529 



£0 explain the variability of those corals which, as is will 

 known, possess no symbiotic alga;. 



It would seem almost unnecessary to point out to one 

 who criticises this work as being " in no way scientific " 

 that the argument that, because forest trees are largely 

 dependent on chlorophyll for their food, and corals are also 

 largely dependent on chlorophyll for their food, therefore 

 the reactions of forest trees and corals to varying environ- 

 ments will be similar, is not strictly scientific either. 

 That the final test of specific form of corals must be the 

 characters of the zooid is a fact on which I have insisted 

 throughout, and the similarity of zooids in dissimilar forms 

 is a fact that I have noted, although the reviewer appears 

 to have entirely overlooked it. 



■ That Wayland Vaughan found no difficulty in transplant- 

 ing corals does not surprise me, for many others (mjself 

 among them) have also experienced no difficulty in the 

 mere transplantation — any more than in the mere trans- 

 plantation of "forest trees"; the difficulty only comes in 

 (as is expressly pointed out, p. 123) when the coral is 

 transplanted to an environment in which its growth-type, 

 developed in a different environment, is unsuitable. In 

 the experiments described I have pointed this fact out, 

 and dwelt especially on cases of removing corals from a 

 rough-water environment to a place where still water and 

 the deposition of sediment were the prevailing conditions. 

 In doing these experiments I was unconsciously repeating 

 those previously carried out by Ehrenberg. Darwin 

 {quoting from Ehrenberg's " Uber die Natur," p. <15) 

 states that " where there is much sediment placed so as 

 10 be liable to be moved by the waves, there is little or 

 no coral : and a collection of living specimens placed by 

 him on a sandy shore died in the course of a few days " 

 (" Coral Reefs," p. 89). 



To pass to another section of the article, the reviewer 

 correctly says that I describe the encircling reef as "a 

 mosaic inlay of coral fragments cemented together into 

 a solid platform," and then adds, " hut there is ho 

 evidence that it was ever really examitied " ! Apart from 

 the ungenerous suggestion that in . a fifteen months' in- 

 vestigation of the atoll the encircling reef was never really 

 examined, and that the author drew on his imagination 

 or on previous descriptions for what lay for ever open to 

 his inspection, is the gross oversight that a chapter is 

 devoted to this feature, that its structure and formation 

 are described (pp. 163, 254, &c.), and illustrated at Plate 

 xiii., which shows a fractured surface of the " mosaic 

 inlay." Had the reviewer genuinely thought that the 

 encircling reef was never examined he was over-generous 

 in describing me as " a painstaking naturalist " ; if ho 

 did not entertain this thought, then he did ill in embody- 

 ing this remark in his article. It is obvious that in places 

 the reviewer has failed to grasp the meaning of the text 

 which he w-ould criticise, and, in speaking of the encircling 

 reef, he charges me with drawing deductions from " a 

 similar platform . . . found at 13 feet above mean tide- 

 level." I presume that this charge is based on the state- 

 ment at p. 283, that " where these steps are evident, the 

 island rise is 13 feet above mean tide-level." The " island 

 rise " is explained (and figured at Plate xiv.) as the rise 

 of debris piled on the breccia platform, and in the sentence 

 immediately preceding that quoted it is definitely said 

 that the " steps of breccia rise one above the other to a 

 total number of three or four, and to a height of almost 

 as many feet." What is actually found, and what the 

 description would appear to clearly depict, is a portion 

 of breccia platform elevated to a height of something less 

 than 4 feet, surmounted by a pile of debris reaching to a 

 total height of 13 feet. What ambiguity might be imputed 

 to the text should have been removed by one glance at 

 Plate XV., which was specially included to depict the con- 

 dition. I would point out to the reviewer that had intact 

 breccia platforms been found at 13 feet above mean tide- 

 level more dogmatic statements concerning probable eleva- 

 tion might have been made. 



The reviewer has not only laid himself open to the 

 charge of having failed to survey with accuracy the 

 material he criticises, but he has also slipped into mis- 

 quotations. Concerning the base on which coral structures 

 are built, he cites me as saying that " it matters not what 

 the base may be so long as its platform comes within the 



NO. 2139, VOL. 84] 



ivind-stirred area." This area (above the limiting line of 

 sedimentation) is, in the passage misquoted (p. 246), and 

 consistently throughout, called the wave-stirred area. The 

 two things may appear identical to the reviewer, but I 

 think that his failure to grasp the difference diminishes 

 the value of his criticisms upon the point. 



F. Wood-Jones. 

 St. Thomas's Hospital Medical School. 



I ii.WE not a copy of Mr. Wood-Jones's work before 

 me, but I regret misquoting him with regard to the wave- 

 stirred (not wind-stirred) area ; 1 still desire more in- 

 formation on the limiting line of sedimentation. 



Readers of N.wure must decide how much scientific 

 evidence is given that the lagoon of an atoll is a slightly 

 submerged reef. Perhaps I misunderstand the term 

 " slightly submerged reef." I do not regard the lagoon 

 in an atoll, which was formed, as Darwin suggested, by 

 subsidence, as covering a reef at all. I do not think the 

 borings in the lagoon at Funafuti suggest a reef such 

 as surrounds a lagoon, and I do not consider that the 

 nature of the rock under atoll lagoons is or can be settled 

 without borings. Some evidence was doubtless obtained 

 by Mr. Wood-Jones by dredgings, &c., as his book shows 

 he has as thoroughly examined his atoll as he was able, but 

 I do not regard the existence of atolls and atoll-shaped 

 reefs elsewhere as more than indirect evidence of that 

 which exists at Cocos-Keeling. 



In Fiji there are many elevated islands. Some of these 

 have fringing, and others barrier reefs, which superficially 

 appear to be of the ordinary coral-reef type. Such reefs 

 cannot have existed when the islands were first elevated, 

 and i't seems to me that Agassiz's photographs show that 

 high islands do crumble to pieces within the calm of 

 encircling barrier reefs. This process would certainly be 

 convenient for the formation of fringing and barrier reefs 

 round these islands if organisms exist there which prevent 

 the processes of disintegration from extending below the 

 water-line over certain areas around them. In any case, 

 it seems to me certain that islands within barrier reefs 

 are being removed by some agency or other, and that the 

 resulting reefs would simulate atojls. 



.So far as I can find out in the Madreporaria, the extra- 

 ordinary variability in growth form has only been described 

 in reef-builders which possess, in some form or other, 

 chlorophyll in their tissues. I do not think my paragraph 

 on the subject will be misunderstood by your readers. I 

 adhere to my statement that " our author does not appear 

 to have examined the zooids to see whether he is really 

 dealing in any genus with one or more species," and leave 

 this question to be settled by 3'our readers. 



Of course, the encircling reef was really (or genuinely') 

 examined, and with considerable care, but I certainly did 

 not consider, from Mr. Wood-Jones's work, that there 

 was internal evidence that he had sufficiently closely 

 examined it. I cannot follow all Mr. Wood-Jones's para- 

 graph, but I quite fail to see where I have charged him 

 with drawing deductions as to the encircling reef from 

 " a similar platform found at 13 feet above mean tide- 

 level." It would perhaps have been better if I had not 

 used the word similar. The Reviewer. 



Early Burial Customs in Egypt. 



In his letter to Nature of October 20 (p. 4Q4) Prof. 

 Flinders Petrie says : — " The whole question lies in a 

 nutshell. Many thousand graves have been examined by 

 one party of observers, and certain results repeatedly 

 found. Many thousand graves have been examined by 

 another party of observers, in other localities, and such 

 customs have not been found." 



I would analyse the contents of the nutshell in a slightly 

 different manner. Both parties, working in every region 

 in Egypt, have found precisely the same state of affairs. 

 One party, under the influence of the glamour of Egypt 

 and what is said to happen in early Italy and Europe and 

 modern .Africa, interprets it as evidence of cannibalism 

 and " Jack-the-Ripper " practices. The other has put 

 forward a simple record of all the facts observed and the 



