Feb. ic, 1881] 



NA TURE 



335 



some physical quality in their organisation makes certain 

 colours attractive wherever they appear. 



To Dr. Hermann MCiller belongs the credit of studying 

 not only the means by which cross-fertilisation is effected^ 

 but also the means for ensuring cross-fertilisation. He 

 has indeed made this subject peculiarly his own, and 

 has worked it out with valuable and striking results. He 

 has pointed out that flowers which are incapable of self- 

 fertilisation may run great risks of not being fertilised at 

 all. Whereas the flowers in which self-fertilisation is 

 possible are in no danger of becoming sterile, though they 

 may lose the advantage of cross-fertilisation. He has 

 shown that in many plants two forms of flowers exist, one 

 adapted for cross- the other for self-fertilisation. This is 

 the case with Lysi>iiachia vulgaris (" Befruchtung," p. 

 348) ; when it grows in sunny places where it is freely 

 visited by insects, it has large dark-yellow petals coloured 

 red at the base, conspicuously coloured filaments, and 

 se.xual organs arranged so that self-fertilisation can hardly 

 occur ; the other form grows in shady ditches, and has a 

 pale yellow corolla and inconspicuous filaments, and the 

 style is so short that self-fertilisation will be sure to take 

 place if no insects visit the flower. 



The present volume, though it does not, as far as we 

 are aware, add anything new in principle to the subject of 

 self-fertilisation, contains many illustrations of the correct- 

 ness of Dr. Miiller's views. 



We cannot pretend to give, in the short compass of a 

 review article, any fair idea of the richness of Dr. Miiller's 

 latest work in new facts and generalisations ; we conclude 

 by expressing a hope that it may before long find a 

 translator, or what is a much greater difficulty — a publisher 

 in England. Francis Darwin 



OUR BOOK SHELF 



Lehrbuch der orgaiiischen Qualitativoi Analyse. Von 

 Dr. Chr. Th. Barfoed. Zweite Lieferung. (Kopenha- 

 gen : Andr. Fried. Host und Sohn, 1881.) 

 The first part of this excellent book has already been 

 noticed in these columns. The book is to consist of 

 three parts : the second, which is now published, is 

 characterised by the same completeness and exactness 

 which rendered the earlier part so valuable as a reference 

 book for the laboratory. The present part treats fully of 

 the methods for detecting, in mixtures of varying degrees 

 of complexity, alcohol, ether, chloral, neutral fats, volatile 

 oils, sugar, gum, albumin, &c. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 



[T/ie Editor does not hold iiimself responsible for opinions expressed 

 by his correspondints. A'eilher can he undertake to return, or 

 to correspond with the writers of, rejected manuscripts, N' 

 noiiee is taken of anonymous communications. 

 The Editor urgently requests correspondents to keep their letters as 

 short as possible. The pressure on his space is so great that it 

 is impossible otherwise to ensure the appearance even of com- 

 munications containing interesting and noiiel facts.] 

 Mr. Butler's " Unconscious Memory " 

 Mr. Eutler appears to have somewhat misanderstood the 

 aim and scope of my review. He >ays, "It is true I have 

 attacked Mr. Darw-in, but Mr. Romanes has done nothing to 

 show that I was not warranted in doing so." Why should Mr. 

 Butler have expected any such ern^iderati. ^n of his ca-e from 

 me ? If I w ere to as-ault a man in the street I should not expect 

 the policeman to show that I was not warranted in doing so ; it 

 would he for me to show that I was so warranted. Therefore, 

 while acting the part of policeman in this matter, my only object 



was that which I stated, viz. the punishment of an offender, not 

 the refutation i'i charges which I advisedly characterised as 

 "preposterous, and indeed ridiculous." Truly it would have 

 been a senseless thing had I for a moment imagined that such 

 charges called for anything like a defence of Mr. Darwin. 

 If ever in the woild's history there was a book which 

 apfealed to all classes of intelligent readers, that book is the 

 "Origin of Species"; and never in the world's history has a 

 bock been more studiously criticised or produced a more tremen- 

 dous change of thought. Can Mr. llutler therefore seriously 

 believe, that after ihis book has thundered through the world 

 for more than tw enty years, it required him to show in what 

 degree it had been anticipated by some of the most celebiated 

 writers within the la^t tno or three generations? -Surely com- 

 mon modesty and cunimon sense, were either prei-ent, might 

 alike have dictated caution in attributing to .ill the world an 

 ignorance such as his own, which could be "thrown off the 

 scent of the earlier evolutionists" by anything that Mr. Darwin 

 could say. The publication of the "Origin of Species" could 

 only have h.Td the effect, whether or not its author desired it, of 

 directing renewed atttntion to the works of "the earlier evolu- 

 tionists" ; and therefore, to put it on no other grounds, it is 

 difficult to imagine a case in which any intentional concealment 

 of the claims of predecessors cotdd well be more impolitic. But 

 the simple fact is that these predecessors had no claims to be con- 

 cealed, further than those mentioned in my previous communica- 

 tion ; that is to sny, while they unquestionably and notoriously 

 believed in the f.ict of evolution, they had nothing which 

 deserve^ to be called a theory of evolution. Therefore, when 

 Mr. Butler .isks of the opening passage in the " Origin of Spe- 

 cies," " What could more distinctly imply that the 



whole theory of evolution that follows was a grow-th in Mr. 

 Darwin's own mind ? " the answer .'imply is that this whole 

 theory -.^'as a growth in Mr. Darwin's own mind. And if Mr. 

 Butler has not judgment enough to distinguish between the scien- 

 tific value of Mr. Daruin's work and that of " the earlier evolu- 

 tionists," at least he might pay sufficient deference to the judg- 

 ment "of all Europe and those most capable of judging" to 

 explain why it is that the work of all the earlier evolutionists 

 proved larren, while the work of Mr. Darwin has produced 

 results unpar.d eled in the histoiy of thought. 



But I aiji being drawn into a mere waste of time in thus dis- 

 cussing V. hat every one must feel does not admit of discussion. 

 My object in now writing is not to justify Mr. Butler's view that 

 Mr. Darwin requires to be defended from any such nonsens'cal 

 "attack " ; I write in order to withdraw two passages from my 

 review. Mr. Butler says I was wrong in implying that he sup- 

 posed Mr. Darwin to have entered into a conspiracy with Dr. 

 Krause ; he merely supposes Dr. Krause to have acted the part 

 of a " cat's-paw." In this therefore I stand corrected ; for while 

 reading " Uuconscious Memory " it never occurred to me that 

 Mr. Butler's view was other than I stated. The second pa=sage 

 which I desire to cancel is that which attributes a motive to Mr. 

 Butler in publishing " Evolution, Old and New." He scornfully 

 repudiates the motive v\hich I attributed, and I therefore willingly 

 withdraw the attribution — observing merely that I was induced 

 to advance it becau e it seemed to present the only rational 

 motive that could have led to the publication of such a book. 



Two c-ther allusions to myself may be noticed before I end. 

 Mr. Butler says, " I suppose Mr. Romanes will maintain me 

 to be so unimportant a person that Mr. Darwin has no call to 

 bear in mind the first principles of fair play where I am con- 

 cerned," To this I .answer emphatically. No; but I do maintain 

 that had Mr. Butler been a more important person than he is, he 

 would not have regarded the mere omission of a foot-note of 

 reference to his book, either as an intentional wrong to himself, 

 or as a matter of such grave concern to the public. 



Lastly, Mr. Butler says, "I maintain that Mr. Darwin's receu 

 action and that of those who, like Mr. Romanes, defend it, has, 

 a lowering effect upon this standard \i.e. of good faith and 

 gentlemanly conduct]." I am sure the world of science 

 ought to feel very grateful to Mr. Butler for his kind solicitude 

 on the subject of its morals and gentlemanly feeling. But 

 he has already said in "Unconscious Memory "that he does 

 not look to "ladies and gentlemen of science" for much 

 sympathy, seeii g that his case rests on "facts," and that 

 among the e "ladies and gentlemen" "familiarity breeds con- 

 tempt of facts " ; and I fear that in this his conclusion wUl prove 

 better than his argument. For unless some facts and feelings 

 are displayed other than those already exhibited, I cannot think 



