July i6, 1896J 



NA TURE 



247 



noit for the origin of new species, but the origin of which 

 character is as mysterious as the origin of a species itself ! 



Ur. Wallace affirmed that " no other agency " than "natural 

 selection " has been shown as a jirobable cause of specific 

 characters — and therefore of species. Possibly not. But if an 

 asserted cause (X) has been shown to be incapable of producing 

 a certain effect, it is no use to say : " It must be (X) because 

 you cannot bring forward any definite (not X) as efficient to 

 produce that effect." Surely it is enough to reply : " The cause 

 you assert is insuflicient, and we must therefore still reinain in 

 an attitude of doubt and expectancy." 



Dr. Wallace, however, in his recent paper did admit that the 

 distinctive characters of some exceptional species might not 

 have been due to "utility" or " natural selection"; but such 

 an admission seems to me a fatal one, for if an unknown cause 

 may have given origin to some species, why may not such cause 

 have been the really efficient agent in the production of all 

 species ? 



But Dr. Wallace years ago made (and he has never since 

 repudiated his act) a truly important exception to the action 

 of "natural selection." 



A survey of the organic world cannot certainly be a scientific 

 one if the highest of animals (man) be left out of the account, 

 nor can man be said to be scientifically treated if his highest 

 characteristics be altogether neglected. 



Dr. Wallace cannot be accused of such neglect, and therefore 

 with a survey of the organic world thus scientifically defective. 

 Taking account of man's highest intellectual powers, he has 

 declared that "natural selection" must have been incompetent 

 to produce them, and agreed with nle in the conviction that 

 they require some further and higher explanation. 



A recent number of N.vtuke has contained a review of 

 Prof. Weismann's paper read at Leyden. Therein, that ardent 

 Darwinian appears to have made several notable concessions 

 which bear upon the question treated by Dr. Wallace. One of 

 these is that " mimicry " cannot be accounted for by accidental, 

 individual variation ; he appears to say the same concerning 

 certain co-adjustments of instinct and structure, and he fully 

 concedes the truth asserted by Mr. Herbert Spencer and by 

 niyself — the truth, namely, that paiiniixia cannot explain the 

 annihilation of rudimentary organs. 



He, however, reaffirms his dictum that the idea of " teleo- 

 logical contrivances is inadmissible in science." But why ? 

 Who can deny to rea.son its right to investigate truth on all 

 sides, and aflirm that which appears to be evidently true with 

 respect to any, including vital, processes ? I adhere to the 

 pronouncement of the world-renowned John Miiller : " Physiology 

 is no true science if not in intimate union with philosophy." 

 Once more I must urge that man and his highest intellectual 

 p(jwers cannot be excluded from a scheme of nature which is 

 truly scientific. Man has intelligence, and acts more or less 

 frequently with intelligent purpose — " teleological contrivance" 

 — and he exists in a universe which, as a whole, can never have 

 been submitted to the action of "natural selection." The 

 universe, therefore, even if eternal, cannot have unreason for its 

 cause, or any power devoid of intelligence and purpose. 



I believe the indisposition to accept such truths as a part of 

 .science is largely due to our common tendency to permit the 

 intellect to be fettered by the imagination, thus giving rise to 

 anthropomorphic mental images, the absurdity of which is 

 assumed also to belong to those intellectual conceptions with 

 which they have infinitely less to do than have the signs of the 

 zodiac with the coherence of the solar system. 



Saltburn-by-the-Sea, June 29. St. George Mivart. 



" The Reminiscences of a Yorkshire Naturalist." 

 When reading this very interesting record of my old friend 

 and colleague (of which you gave such an excellent review in 

 your issue of June 25), I found that, in his recollections of the 

 days when we were both professors at the Owens College, Man- 

 chester, Dr. Williamson has been mistaken as to the details of 

 Principal Scott's retirement. Mr. J. Holme Nicholson (late 

 Registrar of this College) confirms my memory as to dates, 

 and, at Mrs. Williamson's request, I ask you to kindly insert, in 

 your forthcoming number, the following correction in her late 

 husband's graphic account of the early struggles through which 

 Owens College had to pass on the way to its present high posi- 

 tion as an institution for sound instruction in natural science and 

 original research. 



NO. 1394, VOL. 54] 



At page 140 of the "Reminiscences," there occurs the follow- 

 in g passage: "Dr. Scott's resignation (May 28, 1857) robbed 

 Manchester of a man of rare culture, and his death a few 

 months later is said to have taken from the world more Dantesque 

 learning than was left behind." There are two errors in this 

 passage : in the first place. Dr. Scott did not sever his con- 

 nection with Owens College in 1S57 ; he resigned his principal- 

 ship, but not his chairs of Logic, Moral and Menial Philosophy, 

 and of Comparative Grammar and English Language and Litera- 

 ture, which he continued to hold until his death. Secondly, he 

 died on January 12, 1866, and therefore not a few months, but 

 nearly nine years after his resignation of the principalship. 

 Consequently, it is a mistake to infer that Manchester was 

 robbed of his presence and the advantages of his learning in 

 i«57. ^ 



This correction is the more important because Dr. William- 

 son's words, above quoted, and their context, seem to convey, 

 I am sure quite unintentionally, the impression that Dr. Scott's 

 death was hastened by his resignation of the principalship ; 

 whilst, on the contrary, his relief i^rom one of his many arduous- 

 duties probably prolonged his interesting and valuable life. 



E. Frankland. 



The Tsetse Fly. 



In the excellent review of the Tsetse fly-disease, which 

 appeared in Nature of April 16, Mr. Walter F. H. Blandford 

 accepts with some reserve the observation made by Dr. David 

 Bruce, that the fly is viviparous " as the fly has not yet been bred 

 from the puparium." 



I pointed out to Dr. Bruce, while he was investigating the- 

 disease, that, with the systematic arrangement of Diptera now 

 followed, I could hardly conceive the Glossina being viviparous ; 

 and I suggested the possibility of another fly being taken for 

 the Tsetse. Dr. Bruce has not only been most emphatic in his 

 reassertion, but I have myself since bred from three puparia, 

 sent by him for that purpose, what is most certainly Glossina 

 //lorsilans, Vfestv/ood. L. Peringuey. 



South African Museum, Cape Town, June 15. 



My hesitation in accepting unreservedly Dr. Brace's account 

 of the reproduction of Glossina was due to a suspicion, not that 

 he had mistaken some other fly for it, but that the extruded 

 larva: might turn out to be those of a parasitic form, probably 

 Tachinid. Mr. Peringuey's letter is most welcome as supplying 

 the final proof of an extremely important fact, both economically 

 and zoologically, in the insect's life-history. 



There is much variety in the larval life of Aftiscids ; and ii> 

 Sloinoxys, the genus most nearly allied to Glossina, the larv;e 

 are normally scatophagous, but that of S. calcitrans has been 

 occasionally found mining the leaves of burdock, coltsfoot and 

 deadly nightshade. 



Unfortunately, till proof is complete that Nagana is contracted 

 under natural conditions from Tsetse-infection only, which is as- 

 yet far from being the case, we cannot console ourselves with the 

 idea that the progressive extinction of African wild game must 

 soon render the disease a thing of the past. 



July 6. Walter F. H. Blandford. 



The Salaries of Science Denionstrators. 



I SHOULD be glad if you would allow me the opportunity of 

 endorsing Dr. Baker's protest contained in his letter in your 

 issue of July 2, against the totally inadequate salaries offered by 

 University Colleges to demonstrators and assistant lecturers in 

 science. 



Taking the subject of chemistry only : on looking over the 

 official returns for the year 1893-4, made by eight of the Univer- 

 sity Colleges participating in the Treasury grant of / 15,000, it 

 will be seen that whereas the average salary paid to the 

 professor is over .^700, that of the assistant lecturers and 

 demonstrators is under ^150, and in several cases below ;^IOO' 

 per annum. 



No one acquainted with what is required of them will main- 

 tain that the professors are overpaid, but all must admit that 

 the remuneration of the lecturers and demonstrators is absurdly 

 out of proportion. 



Compare for a moment the work done by the two classes of 

 teachers. The occupant of a chair of Chemistry in a University 



