574 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLIV. No. 1138 



one competent to criticize his results in any 

 detail. All we can say is that we recognize 

 the same lucidity and fullness of treatment, 

 and the same broadly philosophical point of 

 view, which have long been familiar in the 

 writings of the author on Mollusca. Adding 

 to this the beautiful and abundant illustra- 

 tions, it seems that there is nothing left to 

 be desired. 



To the general zoologist, perhaps the most 

 interesting part will be that in which the work 

 of Darwin on barnacles is reviewed. Darwin 

 wrote about sixty years ago, and to-day Dr. 

 Pilsbry has this to say of his work: 



" His grasp of detail was so comprehensive 

 and his language so lucid that one can not 

 expect to improve upon them. In the field he 

 covered one can not do better than to imitate. 

 Tet it has been possible to extend the work in 

 certain directions." 



" His monograph on the subclass Cirripedia 

 is one of the most brilliant morphologo- 

 systematic studies to be found in the whole 

 field of systematic zoological literature." 



Under Balanus (p. 50) we read: 



" It is a remarkable testimony to Darwin's 

 insight and restraint that every one of the 

 species of Balanus admitted by him is still 

 accepted as valid." 



Under Coronulina? (p. 269) : 



" We owe to him a discussion of the mor- 

 phology of the group so lucid that no subse- 

 quent student has been able to add anything 

 of importance." 



Under ChthamalidsB (p. 292) : 



" We owe the establishment of this family 

 solely to the taxonomic genius of Darwin, who 

 first brought the genera together and demon- 

 strated their relationship. I have examined 

 and dissected many more species, I suppose, 

 than any one else, and I find all of the evi- 

 dence supports Darwin's views." 



Thus, had Darwin never been known as a 

 great philosophical naturalist and evolutionist, 

 he would still have stood in the front rank as 

 a brilliant taxonomist and morphologist. 



One of the important facts brought out by 

 Dr. Pilsbry is that the so-called cosmopolitan 



barnacles, when belonging to the littoral or 

 shallow-water fauna, present numerous sub- 

 species which conform in general to the faunal 

 provinces already recognized for other marine 

 animals. In general, also, the distribution of 

 species is more restricted than has been sup- 

 posed, as it is found that many of the records 

 are taken from specimens attached to ships, 

 far out of their natural range. 



It appears that the British Museum, which 

 contains Darwin's types and the Challenger 

 materials, has the most important collection of 

 barnacles in existence. Second to this is the 

 U. S. National Museum, which possesses no 

 less than 76 types. 



t. d. a. cockerell 



University of Colorado, 

 September 3, 1916 



SPECIAL ARTICLES 



ANTAGONISTIC SALT ACTION AS A DIFFUSION 

 PHENOMENON 



1. The writer pointed out in 1905 1 that the 

 antagonization of the toxic action of Nad by 

 CaCl„ (or in general of salts with univalent ca- 

 tion by small quantities of a salt with bivalent 

 cation) was due to the Ca preventing the dif- 

 fusion of the NaCl through the membrane of 

 the cell. It is often difficult to decide whether 

 or not the antagonistic salt action is a diffu- 

 sion phenomenon or a phenomenon due to the 

 action of the salt upon the living protoplasm. 

 We possess, however, one object in which defi- 

 nite proof can be furnished that the antagon- 

 istic salt action is merely a diffusion phenome- 

 non, due to a direct action of one (or both 

 salts) on the membrane and not on the proto- 

 plasm; namely, the egg of Fundulus. In this 

 case the embryo is the living protoplasm and 

 by comparing the action of salts on the egg, 

 while the embryo is still inside, with the ac- 

 tion of the same salts when the embryo is 

 freed from the membrane, we can make sure 

 that the phenomena of antagonization ob- 

 served in the egg of Fundulus are diffusion 

 phenomena. This may be illustrated by a few 

 simple examples. 



i Loeb, J., Arch. ges. Physiol., 1905, CVII., 252. 



