May 1 6, 1907] 



NA TURE 



55 



really absurd when " J. A. T." was told that the organisms 

 removed from the tube were received on a sterilised slip, 

 covered with a sterilised cover-glass, and were there photo- 

 graphed almost as soon as they were found. 



That he should not be convinced, however, by my 

 " final decisive experiments " is only what might be ex- 

 pected when he says, in excuse for not himselt repeating 

 my simple experiments, " we regard archebiosis as so 

 great a miracle that we do not expect to see it repeated," 

 thus implying a disbelief even in its occurrence in the 

 past. I certainly could not hope to convince anyone, by 

 my experiments, who disbelieves in the natural origin of 

 living matter on this earth when its crust became 

 sufficiently cool to permit of such an occurrence. 



Then, "harking back to heterogenesis," "J. A. T." 

 refers to my belief in the origin of Otostoma from the 

 Hydatina egg, and it is what he says on this subject that 

 tempts me, in the main, to write this letter. 



He says I was good enough to show him " the mummy 

 of an Otostoma reposing within the egg-case of Hvdatina. 

 There can be no doubt about it." These latter words, 

 which 1 have italicised, are of some significance in refer- 

 ence to previous doubts expressed by many persons ; but 

 in the former statement Prof. J. Arthur Thomson (for 

 your reviewer evidently affects no concealment of his 

 identity) has certainly said too little. I showed him, not 

 one specimen of Otostoma only, but about fifty specimens 

 of this rare ciliatc, either within egg-cases of Hydatina or 

 lying among them. As he says, he thought it a result of 

 parasitism, notwithstanding all the evidence against this 

 view ; and he left me with the expressed intention of 

 investigating the subject himself. He now says that he, 

 and also Dr. John Rennie, " watched many ova of 

 Hydatina. But neither the expected nor the unexpected 

 happened." From which I deem it quite possible, judg- 

 ing from the great rarity of Otostoma, that neither of 

 them may even have seen one of these ciliates among the 

 Hydatina eggs which they were watching. Yet I have 

 taken some hundreds of Otostomata from my experi- 

 mental pots. One may be permitted to sniilo at the puerile 

 suggestion that, because Dr. John Rennie saw two in- 

 fusorians moving within a split Hydatina egg-case, that 

 kind of thing, which may be commonly enough seen, can 

 at all explain my repeated observations with details and 

 phctcgraphs concerning the origin of Otostoma from the 

 egg of the rotifer. Y'et it is with such a suggestion that 

 "J. A. T." dismisses the subject. 



Still, his attitude in regard to this question is much 

 the same as it is concerning archebiosis, seeing that he 

 has previously said concerning it (Nature, February 25, 

 1904) : — " There are some things that one must see for 

 oneself, and even then one would not believe them." I, 

 however, have seen this transformation, marvellous as it 

 is, on so many occasions that I find no possible room for 

 doubt as to the reality of its occurrence. Parasitism, I 

 maintain, is out of the question, because no minute germs 

 of ciliates are known : because of the extreme rarity of this 

 particular great ciliate ; and, above all, because it is the 

 whole substance of the egg which becomes transformed 

 within the unruptured egg-case, and because no movement 

 can be seen until the whole mass begins slowly to revolve 

 and speedily issues as a great embryo ciliate — which in its 

 free state attains a bulk two or three times as great. 

 Full evidence in support of this is to be found in my work 

 "The Nature and Origin of Living Matter," chapter xiii., 

 and in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, vol. Ixxvi., B, 

 pp. 385-392. H. Charltos Bastian. 



Radium and Geology. 



In his letter in Nature of May 9 (p. ^i) the Rev. O. 

 Fisher raises a point of wide interest, but one which 

 admits at the present moment of little more than the 

 suggestion of fresh hypotheses and the destructive criticism 

 of old ones. 



Sediments rich in radium involve prima facie parent 

 rocks capable of supplying the necessary uranium. Fail- 

 ing this explanation, we must, I think, assume that the 

 uranium is derived from an extra-terrestrial source. 

 Neither hypothesis is at the present moment capable of 



NO. 1950, VOL. 76] 



proof. Much will turn upon (among other things) our 

 final estimates of the quantities to be accounted for. 



\^'ith the concluding portion of Mr. Fisher's letter I 

 regret I am not able to concur. Many predictions, based 

 on the best knowledge available, were made of the tempera- 

 tures which would probably be encountered in boring the 

 Simplon Tunnel. Geologists and engineers both arrived 

 at results much below those which were afterwards 

 observed. That of Heim was 3S''-3q°. That of Stockalpen 

 (formerly head engineer of the north boring, St. Gothard) 

 was 38°, &c. The highest predicted temperature — then 

 criticised as quite excessive — was that of the " Ingenieur- 

 Geolog " StapfT, which was 47° C, but the actual tempera- 

 ture reached was 35° C. (see papers by Ed. Sulzer-Zeigler 

 and by Prof. H. Schardt in the Verhancllungcn der 

 sch-weizerischen naturforschciidcu GescUschaft, Julv-.\ugust, 

 1004). This will give a considerably higher gradient than 

 that reckoned by Mr. Fisher, more especially as the highest 

 temperatures were by no ineans coincident with the greatest 

 overlying mass. 



Nor do 1 think the facts will admit of explanation by 

 hot springs coming from below. Prof. H. Schardt, 

 perhaps the highest authority on the subject, in a contribu- 

 tion to the journ.-d cited above, states that the region of 

 highest temperature was characterised by abnormal dryness 

 of the rocks, and to this fact (the absence of circulating 

 water) and the horizontality of the strata he ascribes the 

 specially elevated temperature. 



Mr. Fox, in the article in Nature of October 27, IQ04 

 (vol. Ixx., p. 62S), to which Mr. Fisher refers, states that 

 the ordinary gradient of 1° F. in 70 feet is insufiicient to- 

 account for the great heat, and suggests a volcanic source. 



Trinity College. Dublin, May 13. J. JOLY. 



The Relationship of Lemurs and Apes. 



In Nature of May 2 Dr. Elliot Smith has referred to a 

 memoir presented bv me .to the Zoological Society on 

 " Recently Discovered Sub-fossil Primates " from Mada- 

 gascar. On the evidence supplied by the brain-casts of 

 three of these fossils, Dr. Elliot .Smith takes exception to 

 my conclusion that certain of these extinct Prosimia? are 

 in many respects intermediate between the extant 

 Malagasy lemurs and the true monkeys. 



I have nowhere in my memoir maintained, as Dr. Elliot 

 Smith seems to imply, that, .10 far as their brain-conform- 

 ation is concerned, these recently discovered sub-fossil 

 lemurs form a distinct link between the existing genera 

 and monkeys. On the contrary, I have emphasised the 

 fact, insisted on by Dr. Elliot Smith himself, that many 

 of them show evidence of marked retrogressive changes 

 in their brain-structure ; and I have pointed out that, just 

 because of this retrogressive specialisation, it is the con- 

 dition of the brain which, of all characters, is least likely 

 to afford satisfactory evidence of close affinity between the 

 Malagasy lemurs and the Old and New World monkeys. 

 I will not anticipate the suggestions which I make in my 

 memoir as to the possible causes which have brought about 

 this curiously degenerate condition of the brain of these 

 Malagasy lemurs, nor is it possible here to give in detail 

 the facts and arguments on which I base my conclusion 

 that, in spite of this brain degeneracy, these recently dis- 

 covered fossils do, in fact, afford strong evidence that 

 they, in common with their extant allies, are descended 

 from ape-like ancestors. A detailed study of these fossils 

 and a comparison with their nearest living relatives, on 

 the one hand, and with various genera of Old and New 

 World monkeys on the other, has convinced me that most 

 of the so-called Icmuroid characters of the extant Malagasy 

 lemurs have been secondarily acquired, and that, taken as 

 a group, the characters which differentiate the Malagasy 

 lemurs, recent and extinct, from the monkeys are so few 

 and (with the possible exception of brain-structure) so 

 unimportant as not to justify their retention in a separate 

 suborder. 



.\ satisfactory discussion of the subject seems, however, 

 hardly possible until the publication of the two memoirs 

 by Dr. Elliot Smith and myself describing in detail the 

 fossils themselves. ' H. F. Standi.ng. 



South Kensington, May g. 



