22 
J. Bret land Farmer. 
NUCLEAR OSMOSIS AND MEIOSIS. 
By J. Bretland Farmer. 
A THIRD instalment of Professor Lawson’s nuclear studies has 
just appeared in the Transactions of the Royal Society of 
Edinburgh. In it the author develops further some of the views 
put forward in his previous memoirs, and makes certain obser¬ 
vations in reply to a brief criticism upon them which I contributed 
a few months ago to this journal (Vol. XI, p. 139, 1912). 
I may say at the outset that I observe with great pleasure that 
Professor Lawson agrees with the results, as regards the essential 
facts of meiosis, which have been arrived at in my laboratory during 
the last few years. Differences in detail of course there are, but a 
near examination lessens their importance and I shall refer to this 
aspect of the matter later on. It is necessary, however, to enter a 
little further into his hypothesis of “ nuclear osmosis,” inasmuch as 
some of the remarks made in the review referred to above appear 
to have been misunderstood, and so far as I have been able to 
discover, none of the criticisms have been met. 
I gladly take this opportunity of putting right one point in my 
previous communication. In discussing Dn Lawson’s statement 
that no contraction of the chromatic mass occurs during the stage 
often described as Synapsis, 1 referred to his own figures, and 
pointed out that they as a matter of fact did show a very considerable 
contraction of the chromatic tangle. Unfortunately, however, I 
included amongst them his Fig. 13, which in the text he had 
exempted from use in this connection, by saying that it did not 
represent a median section. In the sentence immediately following 
it is stated that “All of the other figures [ i.e ., except 13] were 
drawn from sections that were cut in a median plane—or nearly 
so—through the chromatin mass.” On turning to the explanation 
of the figures, however, I find it said of Fig. 13 “The same. The 
nuclear cavity enlarged still more.” And of Fig. 14, “ The same, 
from a section that has not been cut in a median plane throug hthe 
chromatin mass.” There is obviously discrepancy and confusion 
here, and although I sincerely regret the error which has arisen 
therefrom, I cannot hold myself to be solely responsible for the 
mistake. 
However, the matter is of no great consequence, for in the Figs. 
1—12, about which there is no contention, a contraction of about 
25% as compared with Fig. 1 is shown. Any one can easily verify 
this for himself. It is therefore hardly possible to accept Professor 
Lawson’s statement that “ The original paragraph itself is a com¬ 
plete reply to the criticism.” 1 do not think the matter of the 
diminution in the space occupied by the chromatin is of “ secondary 
importance” as Professor Lawson now suggests. When an author 
is very confidently indulging in speculation, one may fairly require 
that facts at any rate should be treated with respect. What may 
appear to be of “secondary importance” to-day may assume a very 
different aspect in the light of more complete knowledge, and it is 
of infinitely greater value, in the long run, to get at the facts than to 
spin hypotheses, be they never so attractive. 
