SELBORNIANA. 
75 
which would be a distinct injury to us all. We regret we have only space for one 
short extract from Mr. Miller’s letter : — “The evil, were the thing done, would 
be not merely a local misfortune, but a public and even a national calamity. 
That it would be a serious injury to the town and neighbourhood is clear and in- 
contestable. But it would be far more than that. This favourite walk leads 
along one of the loveliest reaches of the river, and when the lock and weir are 
finished it will, if unvitiated by the threatened ventilators, be at all times beauti- 
ful — always pleasant, attractive and perfectly charming. Moreover it is, without 
exception, the walk most frequented of all by the best of those visitors whom the 
beauties of our neighbourhood attract from not only the whole of the United 
Kingdom, but even the very ends of the earth.” 
It is rumoured that this strong expression of adverse opinion has had such an 
effect upon the Thames Conservators that they have determined to prevent the 
Sewerage Board from erecting any public nuisances on the towing path, over 
which they have control. The Daily Graphic suggests that an indignation 
meeting should be held ; if such a step be necessary we hope that the Selborne 
Society at Richmond will take an active part in the good work. The Lower 
Thames Valley Branch, which had during the year 1889 displayed very great 
activity under the auspices of Mr. Edward King, has been during the past year in 
a dormant state, and, to use the humorous bull of one of its members, has shown 
that it can hibernate in summer just as well as in winter. The present is a good 
opportunity of shaking off its (by no means masterly) inactivity, of which we are 
sure the present able management will be only too glad to take advantage. 
The perilous condition of the beautiful Ait at Kew Bridge is another subject re- 
quiring immediate attention. On this we hope soon to publish an article from 
our contributor, Mr. Archibald Clarke, who has done such good work in the 
battle which has perpetually to be waged in behalf of the beautiful spots which 
are still left near London. 
Evolution. — The difficulty Mr. F. O. Morris perceives (Nature Notes, 
p. 19) is precisely the one which systematists have always felt, to judge by their 
disagreement as to what constitutes a species and what a variety. They dis- 
tinguish them solely by morphological characters, without asking how these arise. 
Thus Ranunculus tripartitus is regarded as a species, but when A\ heterophyllus 
grows on mud it sometimes cannot be distinguished from the former ; and the 
question at once arises (as Mr. Morris remarks). Why not call them both by 
one specific name ? It is in fact perfectly optional. All I contend for is, that 
characters which botanists seize upon by which they recognise varieties or 
species, are due to the response of the individual to its environment. Botanists 
may call them what they please, but whether we regard a plant a variety or a 
species does not affect the individual in the least. 
Mr. Millard’s paraphrase of my sentence (Nature Notes, p. 34) is not 
quite accurate ; for I do not say that “ juices ” are “ non-existent.” Honey, it is 
true, is non-existent until the bee probes the flower, but it often pierces the tissues 
for the sake of the ordinary juices of the plant, wherewith to moisten the pollen 
it has collected. My contention is that sugar is a pathological product of such 
punctures, just as it is formed by the irritation of the pollen tube and by other 
means. George Henslow. 
Who kills the Kingfishers ? — In his article upon “ Bird Extermination” 
in the February number of Nature Notes, the reverend writer very sensibly 
deplores the disappearance of the kingfisher, which he attributes to the vanity of 
women and the caprice of fashion. Ladies, doubtless, are great culprits, and, 
defiant of the Plumage League, will bedeck themselves with birds as with fire- 
flies or with beetles. But are not gentlemen still more destructive to the king- 
fisher ? In his recent work, The Riverside Naturalist — a book which all 
Selborniar.s should read, for it is lull of pleasant knowledge, and says many a 
word of kindness for birds and other creatures — Dr. Edward Hamilton observes : 
The trout-breeders have declared war to the knife against this poor bird, and 
nothing will satisfy them but its complete extermination.” Dr. Hamilton is not 
less well known as a naturalist than famous as a fly-fisher. Yet he pleads most 
warmiy for the bird, affirming that it really does more good than harm, and 
citing evidence to show that, although it catches a troutling now and then, its 
