466 



NA TURE 



[September 6, 1906 



give iiij an illustration, so tliat the reasonableness of his 

 criticism can be tried on perfectly definite and narrow 

 grounds. 



He tells me that he cannot cite a better example than a 

 paper by Dr. Raymond Pearl which appeared recently in 

 the Proceedings of the Royal Society dealing with a species 

 of Paramoecium, and of which a fuller statement was 

 offered for publication in the Transactions. The author's 

 position in this paper, according to Mr. Lister, is traversed 

 by the objection that the conjugant individuals are possibly, 

 and indeed probably, differentiated gametes. Until this 

 objection be met, Mr. Lister holds that the elaborate series 

 of measurements has no cogency whatever in establishing 

 the results which the author thinks he has obtained. Mr. 

 Lister further believes that if Dr. Pearl were more con- 

 versant with the biological aspects of the life-history of 

 Paramtvcium, or less keen on the biometric aspects of the 

 matter, he would hardly have overlooked this view. 



We have here a perfectly definite charge, not a vague 

 insinuation, which can be discussed, and I heartily thank 

 .Mr. Lister for stating it so clearly. Now as to the actual 

 facts ;— 



(i) Dr. Raymond Pearl is a brilliant young American 

 biologist who has spent much time in studying Paranicecia 

 in the biological laboratories of America and Germanv. He 

 has just been called to a chair of biology at an .American 

 university. 



(2) Dr. Pearl demonstrates for the first time in the 

 memoir to which Mr. Lister refers that conjugant 

 Paramcecia are differentiated from the non-conjugant 

 population, a fact which his critic only considers as possible 

 or probable. 



(3) Further, Dr. Pearl demonstrates that among these 

 differentiated conjugants there is an assortative mating ; in 

 other words, he shows that conjugants with certain charac- 

 teristics tend to conjugate with conjugants of like 

 characteristics. 



(4) Dr. Pearl assigns with a high degree of probability 

 the definite physiological basis for this assortative mating. 

 He thus shows for the first time that the " physiological 

 selection " of Romanes plays an important part in the 

 lower living forms, and suggests the physiological origin 

 of differentiation of species, i.e. all sections of a conjugant 

 population cannot equally readily conjugate together. 



Surely such problems have a very sufficient biological 

 reality. 



Dr. Pearl's paper seemed to me, as a mere biometrician, 

 a most brilliant piece of work. That view was shared by 

 the then Chairman of the Zoological Committee of the 

 Royal Society, who at once passed the abstract for publi- 

 cation — all that lay in his power to do. The referees of the 

 full memoir failed, so I am told, to see " the biological 

 significance of the constants calculated " by Dr. Pearl. 

 This appears to be Mr. Lister's condition also. The full 

 memoir will shortly be published in Biometrika, so that a 

 judgment may be formed of the value of Mr. leister's 

 criticism. It would have been published there originally 

 but for two reasons. Firstly, I held the paper to be an 

 exceptionally brilliant one, which the Royal Society ought 

 to be proud to publish, and, secondly, that in every other 

 branch of science papers which are very extensive, and so 

 costly to print, naturally go to societies largely endowed 

 for the publication of such memoirs, and not to private 

 journals. I see no reason why biometry should be cut off 

 from such assistance, because biology has not yet become 

 bionomy, a transition which it must make sooner or later, 

 as astrology passed to astronomy. 



Meanwhile Mr. Lister has chosen his own ground. He 

 cites a paper by a biologist — who happens to have studied 

 biometric methods — as one where the hare has been cooked 

 before it was caught, as one which deals with problems 

 unsound from the biological standpoint. I challenge Mr. 

 Lister to substantiate his statements : — ■ 



(i) That Dr. Pearl has neglected the differentiation 

 between conjugants and non-conjugants. 



(2) That such differentiation, whether it exists or not, 

 makes the least difference to Dr. Pearl's investigation of 

 whether among conjugants like conjugates with like. 



(3) That Dr. Pearl has dealt with a problem unsound 

 from the standpoint of biology. Karl Pearson. 



NO 1923, VOL. 74] 



ROY.iL SOCIETY ADDRESSES.' 

 T^HE Royal Society of London is an exclusive and 

 •*■ retired body, known of few, understanded of 

 still fev\-er. To most of those who are not men of 

 science, the words " The Royal " mean the Royal 

 Agricultural Society; many know the Royal Institu- 

 tion and perhaps still more the British Association ; 

 but the ancient learned body the home of which is now 

 at Burlington House is something beyond the know- 

 ledge of most people. Nor is this to be wondered at ; 

 the Royal Society makes few efforts to make itself 

 known, and, indeed, seems to some to do much to 

 keep itself unknown. It gives, it is true, two public 

 soirees, and it has its anniversary dinner; but it has 

 managed to malce the former chiefly reunions of its 

 own fellows, and the latter, held in the darkening 

 days of early winter "when nobody is in town," 

 contrasts, by the paucity, nay, almost the absence, 

 of public and distinguished guests, and the promin- 

 ence of the fellows and their private friends, with the 

 annual dinner of its neighbour the Royal Acadeinv. 



The late president of the society seems to have 

 thought it would be well to try to make the general 

 public better acquainted with some of the features 

 and aims of the society, and has accordingly published, 

 in an attractive and yet exceedingly cheap volume, 

 richly illustrated with photographic reproductions and 

 pleasing sketches, portions of his anniversary ad- 

 dresses, with the addition of a brief narrative of the 

 early days of the society. 



The topic on which he dwelt in his address of 1903, 

 namely, the relation of the Royal Society to other 

 scientific societies, illustrates indirectly the exclusive- 

 ness of the former, not only towards the general 

 public, but even towards workers in science. This 

 exclusiveness seeins to have been at least encouraged 

 by the change in management brought about in 

 1847. It was then decided, whether because the 

 number chosen seemed sutTicicnt for that day or 

 through some prescience that it would result in the 

 society attaining and Iceeping its present size, that 

 not more than fifteen new fellows should be elected 

 each year. Since that day the worlvers in science 

 have largely increased and are continuing to increase 

 rapidly, but the number elected annually remains the 

 same. Hence tlie number who yearly join the society 

 is a continuallv diminishing fraction of those who in 

 1847 would all have been looked upon as fit and 

 desirable persons to become fellows. Hence also the 

 admission to the fellowship, the gaining of the right 

 to use the letters F. R.S., has become an honour of 

 continually increasing value, and the allotment of 

 the honour an increasingly iinportant function of the 

 society, possibly encroaching on some of its other 

 duties. This relative narrowing of the society's body 

 tends to accentuate its exclusiveness and emphasises 

 its isolation from the v'ounger workers in science. 

 Nor is this tendency to exclusiveness counteracted by 

 any very direct efforts to establish relations between 

 those within and those without the narrow circle. 

 Indeed, even within the circle itself the relations of 

 the fellows to each other are not very close. The 

 temple of science at Burlington House is, at each 

 weekly Thursday service, brightened by the presence 

 of many eager worshippers ; and the fact that these 

 are increasing in number shows that the society is 

 putting forth the vigour of youth in one of its several 

 great means of advancing natural knowledge. But 

 between times the temple is well-nigh empty. What 

 in other places would be called " weekday attend- 



1 "The Royal Society, or Science in the .Stale and in the Schools." By 

 .Sir William Muggins, K.C.B., O.M., &c. Pp. xv+131. (London: 

 Methuen and Co., n.d.) Price 4s. 6d. net. 



