i8o 



NATURE 



{July 4, 1872 



growth in Tillctia, Ustilago, and Urocystis. The synopsis 

 of the Ustilagincic in relation to their supporting plants 

 and the place of their spire formation will be very useful 

 to students, as will also the counter-synopsis of the sup- 

 porting plants, and the Ustilaginea: occurring on them. 

 The details of the germination of spores, direction and 

 character of the proniycclia, the effects ot moisture, light, 

 (S:c., measurements of threads and spores, all combine to 

 render this a useful contribution to the literature of the 

 Smuts, although not containing any startling discoveries. 

 It is just what it professes to be, thc|record of observa- 

 tions on the germination of the spores of several of the 

 Ustilagines under artificial cultivation, as a supplement to 

 Tulasne's memoir in which this history of development 

 was deficient. It would have been an advantage had this 

 " Contribution " made its appearance in the trade as a 

 separate publication with a London publisher, at a fixed 

 price, so that all persons interested in the subject in this 

 country might have obtained copies, and recommended the 

 work to their mycological, horticultural, and agricultural 

 friends. M. C. C. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 



[ The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions expressed 

 by his correspondents. No notice is taken of anonymous 

 communications, ] 



The Philippine Islands 

 Enclosed you will find ; — i. A list of Earthquakes on the 

 Philippine Islands from January to March 1S72. As communi- 

 cation is very bad here, and meteorological observations are sel- 

 dom made and noted down, I may say that most of the earth- 

 quakes do not come to our knowledge at all. I believe I do not 

 say too much in expiessing my opinion that there may be, at least, 

 one earthquake every day at some one spot in this Archipelago. 

 2. Description of a Typhoon, which I witnessed at Cebu. 

 Earthquakes on the raiLirpiNE Islands 

 Since my last communication to the list of earthquakes to your 

 journal (Feb. 5, 1872) I have noted the following : — 



1S72 

 Jan. 27, Zambales in Luzon, E. -W. , many and strong shocks. 

 Feb. 7, Camarines on Luzon, twice. 

 Mar. ■;, Manila, weak, 9 A.M. ) „, , 



■y T, ■ T ■ T „ . , . ihese two were 



6, Provmce Laguna m Luzon, 9 a.i\l ) 



perhaps on the same day, and a mistake has been 

 made in the letter which announced the second. 

 22, Manila, several very strong shocks. 

 ,, Province Batangas in Luzon. 



Typhoon at Cebu 

 April 4, I witne;sed a Typhoon in the harbour of Cebu, Philip- 

 pine Islands, on board iLM.S. Nassau^ Captain Chimmo. 

 The following gives a short description of it, hoping that the 

 officers of that ship will publish a detailed account of this in- 

 teresting storm : — 

 Baromel cr 

 Sh A.M. 2996 ) 



2'' P.M. 29 '82 > Strong N.W. winds, heavy rains. 



3i'30>" „ 2974 \ 



6i» ,, 29-54 Wind, N.W. (4 to 8) rain. 



7'' ,, 29-40 Wind and rain ceasing, till 



8'' >) 29'30 some heavy squalls from N.W., followed 



by perfect calm. 



8''I5"' ,, 29-28 Lowest marking of the b.arometer, till most 

 furious squall from S.E. (11) with heavy 

 rains and lightning. This furious storm 

 lasted about ten mmutes, and then, vary- 

 ing from S.E. to S.W. (hardest from S.) 

 diminished slightly ; barometer rising 

 rapidly. 



lo^" ,, 29-76 Wind steadier, squalls less frequent, and 

 heavy rain ceased. 



12'' ,, 29 So Wind steady from S.S.E. (5) dying away 

 till daylight. 

 About eighteen vessels were thrown on shore, more or less 



damaged, many houses ururoofed, and native huts blown away 



throughout the island Cebu, and several lives lost. At Horlo in 

 Panay the storm did a great deal of damage too ; at Manila it 

 was not ob.served at all. It is said that there must have been at 

 the same time a storm at Sargoon. Typhoons are very rare as 

 far soutli as Cebu, and are said not to have been observed for 

 twenty years. This storm proves to be a real typhoon, according 

 to the variation of the wind and the calm betwen it, showing 

 that the centre passed Cuba. 



Manila, April 15 Adolf Bernhard Meyer 



The Conservation of Energy not a Fact, but a Heresy 

 of Science 



Permit me a few words in reply to Mr. Brooke's strictures in 

 your journal (No. 137) upon my article on "The Heresies of 

 Science " in the London Quarterly Rez'ie70 of July last. 



Mr. Brooke asserts tliat in the article " two widely different 

 principles are oddly linked together as heretical dogmas, the 

 doctrine of Evolution and the Conservation of Energy." Now, 

 so far from these doctrines being oddly linked together as heresies, 

 they are not linked at aU. It is not the doctrine of Evolution, 

 but the hypothesis of Natural Selection that I affirm to be one 

 of tlie great heresies of modern science. Evolution is dealt with 

 only so far as is found necessary to prove that the theory of 

 Natural Selection is false. The tv\'o heresies named are con- 

 nected in the article because I found so many physicists 

 employing them to overthrow some of the best established 

 truths in philosophy. Of this Mr. Brooke is perfectly aware, 

 since he expresses regret that " the principle of the Conservation 

 of Energy has by some been misapplied in a fruitless endeavour 

 to supersede the necessity of a creative intelligence." 



" The Conservation of Energy a Fact, not a Heresy of Science," 

 is the title of Mr. Brooke's paper. To this assertion I need only 

 oppose some of his own admissions. He complains that the 

 proposition — viz., ' 'that the amount of energy in the world is un- 

 changeable, the sum of the actual or kinetic and potential 

 energies being a constant quantity — has been by some writers 

 rather overstrained." " It may," he adds, " be taken as a 

 postulate, and is probably true, but it is a proposition that is 

 equally incapable of proof or of disproof, because the amount 

 of potential energy in a body can be detemiined only by its 

 development into actual energy, and cannot therefore be pre- 

 dicated." 



Are then our judgments respecting that which Mr. Brooke 

 asserts to be a fact of science only probably true? Surely there 

 is contradiction here. I take it that science is knowledge, and 

 that consequently judgments not accompanied by a conviction of 

 certainty, but merely possessing a higher or lower degree of 

 probability, are altogether outside the sphere of science. As 

 Mr. Brooke accepts the|doctrine of the Conservation of Energy 

 as a truth of science, it is not competent for him to maintain 

 that the proposition — viz., "that the amount of energy in the 

 world is unchangeable, the sum of the actual or kinetic and 

 potential energies being a'constant quantity" — is equally incapable 

 of proof or disproof, unless he can show that it expresses one of 

 tliose primary convictions of the mind which constitute the very 

 starting points of human thought. Let Rlr. Brooke do this, and 

 there is an end to all discussion on the subject. By one of the 

 laws of thought a proposition which can neither be proved nor 

 disproved, but by other propositions not more 'evident or more 

 certain, must, by all rational minds, be accepted as true. In 

 this region doubt becomes suicidal by self-contradiction. It is 

 easy to show that the proposition which constitutes the scientific 

 expression of the doctrine of the Conservation of Energy is not 

 the symbol of a primary synthetical judgment. It is really 

 nothing but a truism rendering to the scientific inquirer no 

 higher service than the statement that " every effect must have a 

 cause." In all such cases vie grant the truth of tlie proposition 

 when we grant the definition of either of its related terms. 

 *' That everything which begins to be has been produced, imme- 

 diately or mediately by the power of an intelligent being," is the 

 only philosophic expression of the great law of causation. 

 Stated thus it becomes the appropriate symbol of a primary and 

 necessary synthetical judgment of which every sane mind is 

 conscious. No less a thinker than the late Sir John Ilerschel 

 held that the doctrine of the Conservation of Energy is a mere 

 truism. It is so as the result of the introduction of what he 

 tcims the unfortunate phrase " potential energy." 



Mr. Brooke says that "energy is the power of doing work." 

 He does not tell us what he means by work. If he means 

 motion in any of its modes, then he confounds what he holds to 



