July 30, 1896] 



NA TURE 



295 



model which imitates with remarkable exactness the plienomena 

 ■of amreboid movement ; while the suggestion that such move- 

 ment falls into the same category as the change in surface- 

 tension at the boundary between two not-living liquids with 

 change in the constitution of either, is a most important step in 

 the " explanation " of contractility in general. 



Here then is a phenomenon which had for years been rendered 

 more obscure by the attempt to fix upon one of its two universal 

 antecedents as its effective "cause" ; while some kind of ex- 

 planation was at once forthcoming when both antecedents were 

 taken into account. It would be easy to multiply examples 

 of this kind ; but perhaps the foregoing may suffice. 



I would only now reiterate my hope that in trying to make 

 plain my own position I have not in any way misrepresented 

 that adopted by Prof. Lankester. W. F. R. Weldo.n'. 



Marine Biological Laboratory, Plymouth, July 1 8. 



It appears to me that Prof. Weldon's argument, referred 

 to in Nature of July l6 (p. 245), is accurately repre.sented 

 in the following illustration. It might be an established 

 fact, although it is not in reality, that there was a con- 

 stant correlation between baldness and short-sightedness. 

 ■Suppose that it were so, and that in a country where con- 

 scription was enforced, short-sighted men were exempt from 

 military service ; that is to say, let us suppose that a test was 

 applied to the eyes of all men at a certain age, and that those 

 whose vision was not normal were rejected and allowed to return 

 *o the peaceful pursuits of civilian life. These rejected men would, 

 on the hypothesis, be all more or less bald, and according to Prof 

 Weldon's position, it would be quite as correct to say that they 

 were not in the army because they were bald, as to say they 

 were rejected on account of myopia. Now it is quite true that 

 the officers of the army medical staff might save themselves 

 trouble by rejecting all bald-headed men, because, on the hypo- 

 thesis, all such men would be short-sighted ; but it would be 

 obviously wrong to conclude that a good development of hair 

 was essential to military efficiency. 



Prof Weldon argues that it is enough to prove that individuals 

 of a species are selected according to a certain character, and 

 that it is unnecessary to discover whether survival depends 

 directly on this character, or on some other with which it is cor- 

 related. He .seems to have concentrated his attention on the 

 attempt to demonstrate directly the occurrence in nature of 

 individual selection, in this peculiar sense, and to be tein- 

 iporarily indiflerent to all other questions. 



Prof. Lankester suggests that specific characters would be 

 •explained if it were proved that they were correlated with 

 adaptive characters. It is of course perfectly true that if there 

 were such constant correlations, then the survival of adaptive 

 variations would involve also the survival of the indifferent 

 ■characters connected with them. But the difticulty is to prove 

 that in many cases there are any important ditferences of adap- 

 tation between allied species. It is easy enough to define the 

 specific differences and specific characters ; but to find any dif- 

 ferences which correspond to differences in the mode of life, is 

 often exceedingly difficult. It is true we find in most cases 

 some differences in the conditions of life of closely allied species, 

 fcut we do not usually find peculiarities of structure which can 

 be said to be adapted to those differences. Who, for instance, can 

 say what adaptation is present in the pilchard or sprat difieren- 

 tiating either from the other or from the herring ? The ques- 

 tion, therefore, is not whether indifferent specific characters are 

 correlated with useful characters, but whether species of a single 

 genus are distinguished from one another by any characters 

 which can be proved to be useful or adaptive. The tongue and 

 hyoid of the woodpeckers are beautiful adaptations ; but are 

 there any differences of selection value between one species of 

 woodpecker and another ? The denial of the utility of specific 

 characters means, not merely that some specific characters are 

 indifferent while others are adaptive, but that adaptations are 

 not in the great majority of cases distinctive of species at all. 

 Therefore, as the late Mr. Romanes often ably demonstrated, 

 natural selection is not a theory of the origin of species, but 

 only a theory of the origin of adaptations. The further objec- 

 tion, that a theory of selection is only of secondary importance 

 in comparison with a theory of the origin of variations, I will 

 inot enter upon on this occasion. J. T. Ci'NNINT.ham. 



College of Surgeons, July 17. 



The Position of Science at Oxford. 



Will you allow me a few lines in which to express iny entire 

 agreement with your recent article on this subject, if only to em- 

 phasise the fact that I am not the author of the article, and that 

 the opinions there expressed are not those of an isolated indi- 

 vidual. The reason for the comparative neglect of natural 

 science at Oxford is that, however well-disposed some individuals 

 may be, the college tutors and lecturers as a rule dislike it. 

 They dislike it for two reasons. First, because it cannot be 

 taught in the college parlours called lecture-rooms ; and second, 

 because they are, as a rule, ignorant — owing to theirown defective 

 education — of the nature and scope of the immense field of study 

 comprised under the head " natural science." They do not 

 know either the enormous educational value of natural .science, 

 or its vital importance to our national life and development. 



And lastly, if they did know, there is no conceivable motive 

 which could operate so as to induce them to .sacrifice some of the 

 rewards and educational domination, which are at present 

 enjoyed by the long-established classical and historical studies, 

 to newer lines of work in which the present beneficiaries and 

 their academic offspring can have no share. 



The situation is a "dead-lock," and only an intelligent 

 Parliamentary Commission (if such is possible) can put matters 

 on to a fair and healthy basis Probably the scandal of the 

 present paralysis of our beloved Oxford will have to become 

 even greater and more outrageous than it is at this moment, 

 before the necessary remedy is applied. 



But happily the vitality of Oxford is indestructible. The 

 misused and monopolised resources of Oxford will assuredly 

 some day be devoted to the true purposes of a great University. 

 E. Ray Lankester, Linacre Professor, Oxford. 



There are some points in the article on this .subject in 

 NATUREof July 9, which call for comment. The defects pointed 

 out are not, I believe, due to the causes mentioned by your 

 correspondent. The fault lies mainly in the public schools. 

 The lower forms of public schools are, as a rule, mainly classical, 

 the division into sides, classical, modern and science, only be- 

 ginning when a boy has finished about half his school career. 

 The choice of sides is chiefly left by the parents to the masters, 

 and since in the lower forms these masters have, as a rule, little 

 sympathy with any kind of work which is not purely classical, 

 boys of ability are drafted as a matter of course into the classical 

 side. The boys who enter the science side are often the failures 

 of the classical side, and unless special care is taken by the science 

 masters, even they are kept at classics until it is hopeless to 

 make them into respectable science scholars. Naturally there 

 are rnany exceptions ; some clever boys have enlightened parents, 

 and others, early developing a taste for scientific matters, per- 

 suade their parents to allow them to give up the dead languages. 

 There are also some classical men who admit that other subjects 

 than their own have educational v.alue. But the rule is for the 

 able boy to be kept at classics, while his less favoured brother is 

 sent to science. I know that this is the case at the five public 

 schools with whose working I am familiar, and I have little 

 doubt that the science masters of other public schools have the 

 same experience. Occasionally able boys are recruited from the 

 modern side, and it is these boys who are practically shut out 

 from Oxford. However small the knowledge of Greek required 

 for passing responsions may seem to a classical man, it is no 

 light matter for a boy who has it all to learn in little more than a 

 year, and who has much other work to do during the time. At 

 Cambridge the necessary knowledge of Greek is almost nominal, 

 and it is a pity it is not abolished altogether. If both Univer- 

 sities would substitute a good knowledge of German — so neces- 

 sary for every scientific student — for the very imperfect and quite 

 useless modicum of Greek which they now require, it would 

 result in a great saving of time to many science students, and 

 ultimately in raising the science standard at both Universities. 



H. B. Baker. 



In your article on "Science at Oxford," in Nature for 

 July 9, you say : " It may be objected that every public school 

 has one or more science masters of tried capacity, and that 

 science is a compulsory subject in nearly all." 



The first part of this statement may be correct, but I venture 

 to demur to the second. Certainlv at one school I could name, 



NO. 1396, VOL. 54] 



