162 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. I. No. 6. 



ture, published in 1886. The latter code 

 has been already adopted, not only by orni- 

 thologists, but also by leading mammalo- 

 gists, paleontologists, herpetologists and 

 ichthyologists, and its essential features 

 have been accepted by many prominent en- 

 tomologists and other wi-iters on inverte- 

 brates. It is a matter for special congratu- 

 lation, therefore, that the botanists have 

 ' fallen into line ' so that, for the first time, 

 the naturalists of a great continent are in 

 substantial accord on the main points in- 

 volved in the nomenclature of genera and 

 species. Better still, the agreement is by 

 no means confined to America, for many 

 of the more progressive naturalists of the 

 Old World have already accepted the same 

 guiding principles. 



These principles, as applied in the work 

 under consideration, may be briefly stated 

 as follows : (1) Priority of publication the 

 fundamental principle of nomenclature ; 

 (2) Botanical nomenclature to begin with 

 1753, the date of the first edition of Linnse- 

 us's Species Plantarum; (3) Original specific 

 name to be retained without regard to ge- 

 neric name ; (4) A name once a synonym al- 

 ways a synonym ; (5) Original name re- 

 tained ' whether published as species, sub- 

 species or variety ' ; (6) Varieties [sub- 

 species] written as trinomials; (7) Double 

 citation of authorities. 



The well printed volume is not wholly 

 above criticism. One is surprised to find 

 that the original spelling of generic names 

 has been violated — as Buettneria for Butne- 

 via (p. 163), GleditscJiia for Gledetsia (p. 

 192), and so on. The retention of capitals 

 in certain specific names is also to be regret- 

 ted. A word of explanation respecting the 

 synonymy, and also a more explicit state- 

 ment as to the exact scope of the 'List ', 

 would have been acceptable. But these 

 matters are trivial compared with the obvi- 

 ous merits of the work. 



C Haet Meeeiam. 



SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. 



CAN AN OEGANISM T^TTHGUT A MOTHER BE 



BOEN FEOM AN EGG ? 



1. Ein (jeschlechtlkhe erzeugter Organismus 

 ohne mufterUche EigenscJiaften. — Boveei. — 

 Berichte d. Gesellsch. f. Morph. u. Phys. 

 zu Miinchen, 1889. 



2. Giebt es gesehleehtliohe erzeugte Organimnen 

 ohne miltterliche Eigenschaften. — Seeligee. 

 — Arch. f. Entwickelungsmechanic, I., 2, 

 1894. 



In 1889 Boveri gave an account of cer- 

 tain experiments which seemed to him to 

 prove that a denucleated fragment of the 

 egg of one species of sea-urchin may be 

 fertilized by a spermetazoon from another 

 species, and that it develops into a lai-va 

 with none of the characteristics of the spe- 

 cies which supplied the egg, but exactly 

 like, though smaller than, the normal lar- 

 vse of the species which supplied the sper- 

 metazoon. He believes that his experi- 

 ments demonstrate the law that the nu- 

 cleus alone is the bearer of hereditarj^ quali- 

 ties ; that with the removal of the mater- 

 nal nucleus are removed at the same time 

 the maternal hereditarj^ tendencies of the 

 egg, and that while the maternal proto- 

 plasm famishes a large share of the mate- 

 rial for the production of the new organism, 

 it is without influence on the form of this 

 organism. 



This paper was welcomed with great en- 

 thusiasm as a contribution of the utmost 

 value to the solution of the problem of in- 

 heritance, although careful study of it, or 

 of the translation which was published in 

 the American Naturalist for March, 1893, 

 will show that Boveri's evidence for his be- 

 lief is not direct but very circumstantial. 



Seeliger has repeated Boveri's experi- 

 ments with great care, and on a much more 

 extensive scale, and he shows that the in- 

 direct evidence, upon which Boveri bases his 

 belief that the larvse in question were bora 



