i So 



NA TURE 



[August 5, 1922 



4 I 7"53 I . JQ 10 ) from his grafting experiments with 

 the tomato. Here the tetraploid form apparently 

 arises through the fusion of pairs of somatic nuclei 

 where the cut surfaces of the cells are in contact. 

 The forms obtained in this way appear to be merely 

 tetraploid, stouter but without any alteration in 

 the shape of leaves or other organs such as occurs in 

 CE. gigas. Winkler shows that these tetraploids 

 have larger cells, nuclei and chloroplasts, but there 

 are apparently no changes in cell shape except in 

 the pollen grains, which have four pores instead of 

 three just as in CE. gigas. There seems no reason 

 to alter my original interpretation of this change 

 in the pollen grain as a direct result of the altered 

 space relationships between the larger cell and its 

 nucleus in the tetraploid forms. 



It therefore appears probable that in some experi- 

 mental tetraploid forms, such as Winkler's Solanums 

 and probably the Marchals' tetraploid mosses, all 

 the changes are such as follow directly from the original 

 doubling of the chromosomes, while in others such 

 as CE. gigas and certain wild tetraploid species, an 

 additional change has taken place in the germplasm. 

 One cannot yet, however, regard this as fully proven. 



It might also be pointed out here that the wide 

 occurrence and evolutionary significance of tetraploid 

 species in nature has not yet been generally realised 

 by biologists. In Potentilla, for. example, a whole 

 group of wild species is tetraploid as compared with 

 others. Species with 4 X chromosomes are also 

 known to occur in many other genera, such as 

 Lactuca, Crepis, Muscari, Acer, etc. Such a doubling 

 of the chromosome number must have occurred in 

 connexion with the origin of many wild species and 

 genera. 



Tetraploidy undoubtedly forms a barrier to free 

 crossing with diploid forms in any line of descent. 

 I therefore see no reason why such forms as CE. gigas 

 arising in cultures should not be regarded as muta- 

 tions significantly accompanied by partial inter- 

 specific sterility. For both in cultures and in Nature 

 the cross-breds with unbalanced chromosome groups 

 tend to be eliminated, leaving the pure forms each to 

 perpetuate itself. R. Ruggles Gates. 



King's College, Strand, London. 



The Influence of Science. 



In his letter to Nature (July 15, p. 78) Sir George 

 Greenhill does well in directing attention to the fact 

 that the quarrel between Galileo and the Holy Office 

 was largely a domestic quarrel between two opposing 

 schools of thought. It is historically a fallacy, 

 though a very common one, to suppose that the 

 freedom of experimental inquiry was secured in 

 consequence of the action of the Roman Curia in 

 the case of Galileo. So long as scientific investigators 

 confined themselves to their own legitimate subjects 

 of study, and left doctrinal and Scriptural matters 

 alone, freedom of experimental inquiry was never 

 interfered with by ecclesiastical authority. Nicholas 

 Copernicus was a devout Catholic priest, and his 

 heliocentric doctrine was freely taught, even in 

 ecclesiastical colleges, until Galileo interested himself 

 as a champion of the system. 



For Galileo, as all historians testify, was a truculent 

 and hot-headed controversialist, who, in spite of the 

 advice of his friends not to raise the question (I 

 quote from his contemporary Guicciardini, the 

 Tuscan ambassador), " demanded that the Pope and 

 the Holy Office should declare the Copernican svstem 

 to be founded on the Bible ; he wrote memorial 

 after memorial. Paul V., wearied with his im- 

 portunities, decreed that the controversy should be 



NO. 2753, VOL. no] 



determined in a Congregation, and having sent for 

 Cardinal Bellarmine, ordered him to bring it immedi- 

 ately before the Holy Office." Let me make use of an 

 analogy from the practice of our own English Courts 

 to elucidate the matter. The Court of King's Bench 

 was originally constituted to judge cases pertaining 

 to the King's peace. To widen its jurisdiction, all 

 classes of injuries, even actions for breach of contract, 

 had to be interpreted as acts of violence, even though 

 perpetrated by otherwise peaceful citizens. 



Similarly, the Holy Office had, by its procedure, to 

 consider every case submitted to it, with reference 

 to heresy and orthodoxy. Let us also bear in mind 

 that Holy Scripture must ordinarily be interpreted 

 literally, unless a rigid proof can be adduced to the 

 contrary. What rigid proofs, in the then state of 

 scientific knowledge, could Galileo allege in support 

 of his contention that the Copernican system was 

 founded on the Bible ? Let us recall in passing that 

 such eminent men of science as Tycho-Brahe and 

 Bacon rejected the system, while Descartes would 

 not admit the hypothesis as proved, and that the 

 Cardinals of the Congregation, so far as proofs of 

 Copernicanism were concerned, had perforce to rely 

 upon the opinion of their scientific advisers. The 

 only proofs that were brought forward were the 

 analogy of Jupiter's satellites, the moon-like phases 

 of Venus, and the simplicity with which the theory 

 accounted for the observed motions of the planets. 

 The other alleged proofs from the tides and the 

 earth's magnetism were worthless. 



On the other side was the apparent authority of 

 the words of Scripture, the universal experience of 

 mankind, which seemed to attest that the earth 

 was immovable, while the sun, moon, and stars 

 moved round it, and the Ptolemaic system which 

 for centuries had explained in a satisfactory manner 

 the apparent movements of the planets. In such 

 circumstances what could the Congregation do but 

 declare, according to the forms of the court, that the 

 Copernican system was heretical, in the sense that 

 it contravened the literal and obvious meaning of 

 Scripture ? According to the knowledge of that 

 time, the Copernican system was " false and absurd 

 philosophically, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts 

 the doctrine of Holy Scripture." The proviso and 

 restriction is noticeable. 



What did Galileo do ? Instead of teaching the 

 Copernican theory as a scientific hypothesis, after 

 a most generous reception in Rome in 1624 by his 

 friend Pope Urban VIIL, he returned to Florence, 

 and in his famous Dialogue not only lampooned his 

 benefactor, but was guilty of gross contempt of 

 court. For such egregious contempt of court an 

 English judge would rightly commit a man to prison. 

 Galileo had as a penance to recite certain prayers, 

 and was sent to a beautiful villa at Arcetri, where, 

 free from the disturbing influences of controversy, 

 he was at liberty to pursue his favourite studies. 



As Whewell says in his " History of the In- 

 ductive Sciences," pp. 425-6, " The persecutors of 

 Galileo are still held up to the scorn and aversion of 

 mankind ; although, as we have seen, they did not 

 act until it seemed that their position compelled 

 them to do so, and then proceeded with all the 

 gentleness and moderation which were compatible 

 with judicial forms." Or, to quote another non- 

 Catholic, Prof. A. De Morgan (English Cyclopaedia, 

 " Motion of the Earth "), " We heartily wish all 

 persecutions, Catholic and Protestant, had been as 

 honest and as mild." Nor did the Roman Curia 

 possess a monopoly in opposition to Copernicanism. 

 Martin Luther went further, for he considered 

 Copernicus to be an arrogant fool, who wrote in 

 defiance of Scripture, while Melancthon declared 



