i88ij 
Correspondence. 
*73 
A QUESTION OF CONSISTENCY. 
To the Editor of the Journal of Science. 
Sir, — In your January number for the present year I find an 
article on the “ Materialistic Origin of the Sexes,” by Mr. Andrew 
Dewar, who is described as the author of the “ Origin of Crea- 
tion.” Turning to your notice of that work (1875, p. 353) I find 
that the author desires to be judged “ by the light of their (the 
readers’) faculty of common sense and their own personal ob- 
servation, without reference to any book whatever, except it may 
be the Scriptures.” Is it not somewhat strange to find a writer 
who accepts the Scriptures as a scientific authority coming for- 
ward to clear difficulties out of the way of Materialism ? — I am, 
&c., 
An Old Subscriber. 
“ NATIONAL SCIENTIFIC APPOINTMENTS.” 
To the Editor of the Journal of Science. 
Sir,— Having for the first time in my life met with a file of the 
“Journal of Science ” among a number of valuable and thought- 
ful articles, I have been particularly struck with the paper in your 
number for November, 1879 (p. 723), bearing the title which I 
have quoted. You will perhaps not deem it an impertinence if 
I give a guess at the motives of the authorities in their most 
unfair and absurd arrangement of offering, in an examination for 
the post of assistant in the Natural History department in a 
museum, 500 marks for elementary mathematics, 1000 for ad- 
vanced mathematics, 500 for theoretical mechanics, &c., whilst 
zoology, botany, and physiology count for but 500 each. I be- 
lieve it is to give an unfair advantage to the candidates who have 
studied at the public schools and at the old universities, and 
who, if the examination were confined to biology, as it ought to 
be, would be simply nowhere. In an examination arranged in 
the manner you state a zoological specialist must be so handi- 
capped that his success would be a miracle. — I am, &c., 
Fair Play, 
