542 



NATURE 



[August 13, 1896 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 



{The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions ex- 

 pressed by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake 

 to return, or to correspond with the writers of, rejected 

 manuscripts intended for this or any other part of Nature. 

 No notice is taken of anonymous cominunications.'\ 



The Utility of Specific Characters. 



I'ROl'-. Lankkster (p. 245) has alluded to ihe dark pigment 

 in the skin of tropical man as "conceivably . . . not in 

 itself a useful, Ih^t is, a life-preserving or progeny-ensuring 

 character, but merely the accompaniment of a power of resisting 

 malarial germs . . ." residing in the leucocytes. This hypothetical 

 case, used liy Prof. Lankcster for illustrating his argument, 

 has been seriously entered upon by Mr. Thiselton-Dyer (p. 293), 

 with the conclusion that "it does not follow that epidermal 

 pigment is useless because one explanation of it seems to fail." 



I beg permission to call attention to a paper in N.-\tuke, vol. 

 .\xx. p. 401, by Surgeon-Major N. Alcock, "Why tropical man 

 is black," whicli paper has seemed to me of great importance 

 from the time I read it. Ingenuous considerations, together 

 with quotations from vari.nis authorities, led Mr. Alcock to the 

 opinion, that the dark pigment of tropical man's skin does serve 

 as a protection again.st the rays of Z^'/"'- Whereas "... pig- 

 ment placed behind a transparent nerve will exalt its vibrations 

 to the highest pitch " — viz. in the eye — " . . . the pigment in 

 front of the endangered nerve reduces its vibrations by so much 

 as the interrupted light would have excited, a quantity which 

 . . . would, when multiplied by the whole area of body-surface, 

 represent a total of nervous action that if continued would soon 

 exhaust the individual and degrade the species." 



In this way, the blackness of the negro which, as regards heat 

 alone, must appear far from protective, will act as a screen 

 against " the twin stimulant of life," light. " May it not, there- 

 fore, be claimed that there is much foundation for the suggestion 

 that the black skin of the negro is but the smoked glass through 

 which alone his wide-spread sentient nerve-endings could be 

 enabled to regard the sun ? " 



There is no lack of evidence in support of this view. I will 

 confine myself to mentioning a letter by Mr. Flinders Petrie 

 (Nature, vol. xxxiv. p. 76). 



Perhaps I may remind the leaders in the old strife about the 

 utility of specific characters, of the remarkable statements in 

 "Descent of Man" (second edition, p. 61), commenting on the 

 important concessions which, in the fifth edition of the "Origin 

 of Species," Darwin has made to the views of Niigeli and 

 others, concerning "... the existence of structures, which, 

 as far as we can at present judge, are neither beneficial 

 nor injurious ..." David Wetterhan. 



Freiburg, Badenia, August i. 



The Position of Science at Oxford. 



In the correspondence which your recent interesting article on 

 this subject has evoked, the writers have mainly applied their 

 criticism to particular aspects of the general argument raised. 

 This is natural, for they have, scarcely without exception, been 

 professionally interested in the teaching and progress of science, 

 and their letters seem to show that an impression exists that 

 there is a cause for blame in the matter, but that there is an 

 uncertainty at whose door this blame should be laid. May I 

 briefly examine the complaints which your original anonymous 

 correspondent brought against the University authorities, and the 

 present system in vogue at Oxford. 



The first complaint has reference to the allotment of college 

 scholarships to science. The argument may be admitted that 

 strict justice demands that fifty-five scientific scholarships should 

 be given ; that only forty-four science scholars were last year in 

 residence is incorrect. There were at least half-a-dozen men, 

 receiving the emoluments of a nominally mathematical scholar- 

 ship, who were preparing to take physics as a second school. 

 Then, again, Christ Church annually gives an exhibition of the 

 value of ^85. If this be reckoned as equivalent to a scholar- 

 ship, as in common fairness it should be reckoned, it is perfectly 

 evident that it is not desirable to offer more scholarships in 

 natural science until the school becomes larger, or the com- 

 petition more severe than is at present the case. It is not un- 

 important to point out that an examination of the Natural 

 Science Class Lists would show that some of the holders of 

 these emoluments have not justified their selection. 



The second part of the indictment against the college autho- 

 NO. 1398, VOL. 54] 



rities is concerned with the aiipnintment (or non-appointmeni) 

 of science tutors. And in this matter your article is calculated 

 to give a wrong impression, for it should be clearly understood 

 that the college can exercise no compulsory power in choosing a 

 course of study for any commoner. That cimimoner only can 

 be influenced in this way, who starts his university career with 

 no preference for a particular school, and it is inconceivable 

 that such an one can ever really adorn any branch of study. 

 But the man who knows what he wants to do, will find that he 

 can get all the assistance he requires from his college lecturer, 

 and that he is in no way worse off because the latter is not on 

 the tutorial staff. 



Vour article contains a comparison between the conditions 

 which obtain at Oxford and Cambridge respectively, much to the 

 disadvantage of the former, and three reasons are given for the 

 fact. First, at Cambridge scholarships are given to men of one 

 year's standing ; but if a man has failed in win a scholarship 

 before his .second term, it is not easy to see how he will qualify 

 for one after a year's work. The fact that there is no lack of 

 candidates of suflicient merit at Cambridge, is beyond a doubt 

 largely accounted for by the fact that the scholarships are in 

 many cases of smaller monetary value, and a lower standard is 

 con.sequently expected. Secondly, a greater prestige attaches 

 to the science school at Cambridge ; and this is probably 

 the greatest hindrance to an increase in the science school at 

 Oxford. Time alone, by removing this ignorance and pre- 

 judice, can overcome the popular idea that science teaching is 

 better, and, it might be added, cheaper in one university than 

 in the other. At an}- rate, it cannot be said that Oxford col- 

 lectively has not done her best to remove any inferiority she 

 may have had in the past. The tliird argument is that the 

 ranks of Oxford undergraduates are mainly recruited from the 

 public schools, that science teaching in public schools is bad, 

 and that the university is responsible. In fact, the essential 

 argument of the article, and the only one that can possibly 

 stand the test of criticism, is that the examination known as 

 " responsions " urgently needs alteration, both in the direction 

 of excluding the compulsory Greek test, and including an 

 examination in the elements of natural science. Such an 

 alteration, it is contended, would improve the science teaching, 

 and it is the duty of the university to efl'ect this reform. 



The question of the Greek test is not new, and it cannot be 

 denied that it has been considered and discussed with the utmost 

 deliberation by those who have decided in favour of its reten- 

 tion. It is idle, in the face of facts, to throw a doubt on the 

 .sincerity of the University's good will towards science : it is 

 equally impossible to deny, and it is admitted in your article, 

 that the university is perfectly right to demand of its alumni 

 a preliminary "fair general education" : at the same time, it 

 would be difficult to name a body better qualified to decide 

 what is a good general education than Convocation itself. 

 The writer of your article appears to think that the dons — 

 especially the younger dons — are foolish, childish, narrow- 

 minded persons, absolutely ignorant of science and modern 

 languages. This is, fortunately, far from true, and their 

 deliberately expressed opinion, on a point of the greatest im- 

 portance in public education, is assuredly entitled to some re- 

 spect. Vour correspondent complains that the knowledge of 

 Greek demanded is too small to serve any usefid purjjose, and 

 some of us may wish that the standard should be raised ; but 

 this complaint applies far more aptly to Cambridge than to 

 Oxford. After all, a knowledge of Greek is insisted on because 

 it is the most beautiful, the most expressive language ever 

 written, and it contains the finest literature. A boy may forget 

 how to conjugate a Greek verb (the sneer is rather hackneyed), 

 but the reading of a Greek play, perhaps the most perfect form 

 of literature the artist could use, will still have left a perm.anent 

 effect on the mind of any one who is capable of culture. 

 Besides, since a proper equivalent for Greek, even if a sub- 

 stitute be possible, will require as much time and as much 

 application in its preparation, it is difticuU to see in what way 

 this alternative subject — be it German or any other — will prove 

 more suitable, more convenient, or more congenial. 



The question remains of making a knowledge of the elements 

 of natural science cf)mpulsory in responsions, for comjnilsory it 

 must be, if it is to change the exi.sting slate of things. The 

 occasion for making this propo.sal is certainly unfortunate, for it 

 evidently appears to be made not so much as an abstract sug- 

 gestion for the improvement of education in general, as a scheme 

 f(ir the express |-)urpo.se of improving the scientific teaching in 

 schools. That it would have even this latter effect is open to 



