Sn Memoriam, 
JOHN MORGAN 
WE are sorry to learn, as we go to press, of the death of Mr. 
John Morgan, of Worthing, who was in his eightieth year. 
Mr. Morgan was one of Nature’s gentlemen. It was a privilege 
to know him. He regularly attended the meetings of the 
Museums Association, where he was much respected; and only 
a fortnight ago the writer had the pleasure of accepting his 
invitation to see some of the gems of his collection. Mr. 
Morgan was principally interested in shells and corals, and 
many provincial museums are indebted to him for valuable 
gifts. 
+O: 5=—— 
Survival and Reproduction: A New Biological Outlook. By H. Rein- 
heimer. London: J. M. Watkins. Pp. X. and 410. 7/6 net. toro. 
The object of this work is that in place of certain ‘ uncalled for generali- 
sations which form the unscientific legacy of Darwin’s otherwise invaluable 
work,’ to institute a ‘scientific enquiry into the effects of surfeit and 
infeeding ’ (a) as they directly affect the organism individually; b) the 
species ; (c) the total biological community, and (d) as they indirectly 
produce reactions in the wider field of cosmic relation. In a former 
volume, the author gave a first instalment of a study of cumulative effects 
of nutrition and its teleological significance in general, and he now claims 
that modern biology provides ‘interpretations of facts which are in the 
main inaccurate,’ and that the ‘important study of nutritional habits as 
they .... affect reproduction and survival has been almost entirely neg- 
lected.’ After careful perusal of the book, we fail to find any trace of a single 
original experiment or observation the author has made. He repeatedly 
falls foul of Darwinism, because ‘natural selection’ does not offer a 
complete explanation of organic evolution. In the author’s opinion, 
nutrition is the key to unlock the door of this chamber of mysteries. The 
evidence against natural selection, we are told, is steadily accumulating, 
and a full explanation of its fundamental errors was not to be expected 
so long as the cumulative and teleological significance of nutrition re- 
mained unelucidated. It would be infinitely to the advantage of science 
if the energies of these people were devoted to elucidating some knotty 
problems involved, and contribute their quota to the great subject of 
which Darwin admittedly laid only the foundation. The author of the 
work under consideration, while drawing attention to an obviously im- 
portant factor, does not appear to realise what an amount of work has 
been done on the subject of nutrition, nor in spite of it all how impossible 
it is to generalise and how unsafe to dogmatise from the facts known even 
to-day. His discussions are often couched in almost incomprehensible terms, 
some, like teleological status, and dysteleological behaviour, from their 
frequent occurrence, the author seems very proud of, and we are informed 
(!) that the * precariousness of plant life is due to parasitic diathesis, and 
even the moss, shows reproductive nemesis resulting from’ the same 
complaint. Further, ‘the appearance of “sports” is frequently a matter of 
dissociation (disintegration of the intra-atomic or intra-cellular energy)’. 
The further elucidation in brackets would hardly seem to be necessary, 
but it gives the author an opportunity of using a highly technical if 
practically meaningless phrase. 
Naturalist, 
