The Government Commission on the Treatment of the Feeble-Minded, which

has recently reported, has adopted the view which I have explained in

this article as to the origin of feeble-mindedness. A large amount of

evidence was taken by the Commission from medical experts and others. A

certain number of the witnesses maintained the opinion that

feeble-mindedness arises from the action of deficiency of food, of

overcrowding, and possibly of drunkenness upon individuals of healthy

strain, whose offspring, as a consequence, exhibit feeble-mindedness.

Some naturalists, who have committed themselves to a pious belief in

what is vaguely called “the transmission of acquired characters,” think

themselves called upon to support this opinion, in consequence of a

notion that their belief would be rendered more reasonable than it is at

present were such an origin of feeble-mindedness demonstrated. Apart

from the fact that it is not demonstrated, it is difficult to see how,

supposing it were, such a causation could be considered as a

transmission of an acquired character. The ill-fed, drunken parent of a

feeble-minded child (when discovered and examined) is not found to have

“acquired” a condition of the brain agreeing with that of his or her

feeble-minded offspring, though sometimes such parent is found to have

been himself or herself born with a defective brain. No theory of

organic memory, of engrams, inscripts, or transfer of molecular

vibrations can enable us to present a plausible mechanical scheme of the

way in which the acquired general condition (restricting ourselves to

what is new and acquired) of an ill-fed parent can be definitely and

specifically re-embodied in his or her offspring, as the peculiar

structural condition of brain which is called “feeble-mindedness.” It

has not been shown, so far as I am aware, that privation in regard to

the food of a parental organism gives rise to new congenital qualities

in the reproductive germs which that organism throws off.

XXX

DEATH-RATES

The chief index or measure of the health of any locality is what is

called “the death-rate” of that locality. Although there are several

other important evidences as to the healthiness or unhealthiness of any

given area, the “death-rate” is the chief and most obvious indication of

the advantageous or disadvantageous action of the conditions of any

given city or other chosen area upon human life. Its records are more

easily kept with an approach to accuracy than are records of cases of

sickness not terminating in death. The cause of death has to be

certified in civilised communities by a medical man; the total number of

deaths in a year is given by the number of burial certificates. The

death-rate is stated at so many per thousand of the population per

annum. Thus, in a city of 5 million inhabitants,—that is to say, 5

thousand thousands—a record of eighty thousand deaths in the year gives

16 deaths for every thousand persons living. That is called “an annual

death-rate of 16.” The record for any single month may be stated (as it

is stated at intervals in the newspapers) “as at the rate of so many in

the thousand per annum,” by multiplying the actual monthly number per

thousand by 12. Thus, in the case of the city just cited, if the

death-rate were the same in every month of the year—namely, 16—it

would mean that 6500 persons died regularly every month. But we should

probably find that in some month or other as few as 5417 persons died.

That would be reported “as at the rate of” 13 per thousand per annum;

since, if every month gave only 5417 deaths, we should get 65,000 deaths

a year, which works out at 13 in the thousand in a population of 5

millions. In other months it might run as high as 19 or 20 (representing

over 8000 deaths a month), although, taking all the months together, the

deaths are at the rate of 16 in the thousand for the year.

The bald statement of the death-rate, of course, admits of much analysis

where proper records are kept. Thus the death-rate from different

diseases and groups of diseases can be stated, and the death-rate in

each group at different ages and for the two sexes can be given where

proper records are kept. In this country the records of population in

various areas and for the whole country, and of the deaths from various

causes, and at different ages, are collected and tabulated by the

Registrar-General and his officials. The annual reports issued by him

show what an amazing progress has been made in increasing the security

of life in our great cities within the last fifty years. Thus, in

London, the death-rate was, fifty years ago, 24 in the thousand. In 1906

it was only 15.1 in the thousand—it has gradually fallen, year by year,

so that now it is less than two-thirds of what it was half a century

ago. In Manchester and Liverpool it was about 26 twenty years ago, and

has fallen to 19 in Manchester and to a little over 20 in Liverpool. In

the same period the improvement has been (omitting fractions) from 19 to

14 in Bristol; from 20 to 16 in Birmingham; from 20 to 14 in Leicester.

This great diminution in the death-rate has been coincident with the

expenditure of public funds on the improvement of the water supply and

the sewage arrangements of those cities, as well as with the

enforcement of regulations to prevent overcrowding, and with the

demolition of the most insanitary houses. Rules as to the removal of

filth from the neighbourhood of dwelling-houses have been obeyed, and

sick persons suffering from infectious diseases have been removed from

dwelling-houses and conveyed to special hospitals. There is no doubt

that the diminished death-rate is due to the action thus taken, and more

will be done in the future to the same end. The proper provision of pure

milk (at a reasonable price) for the food of the youngest children, of

regular meals for older children, and the protection of adults from the

too frequent inducement to indulge in the use of distilled spirits, will

be taken in hand by the municipalities, and lead to a further diminution

in the death-rate.

We may, indeed, soon have to ask whether, in a population which has

become so much less subject to diminution by death than was formerly the

case, there is not too great an increase by birth—too great, that is to

say, for the existing means of employment and food-production. A most

serious, indeed, an alarming fact, has recently come to light in the

study of this question, namely, that the increase of the population is

due (as pointed out on p. 279) to the proportionately larger number of

births amongst the poorer, and even destitute, sections of the community

who have not the means of training and rearing their children

satisfactorily, and are themselves likely to transmit incapacity of one

kind and another to their offspring; whilst those who have valuable

hereditary qualities and are prosperous have—it is clearly

established—relatively few children—and, in fact, do not increase the

population. Whether this condition of things constitutes a real danger,

how it will ultimately work out if left alone, and how the difficulty is

to be met, are problems for statesmen which cannot be solved off-hand,

but require knowledge not only of the crude facts of statistics, but

also of the causes at work. Scientific knowledge—that is to say,

thorough and unassailable knowledge—of the laws of heredity, of

psychology, and of the natural history of human populations, are among

the essential qualifications for those who have to face and deal with

this difficult matter. And who is there who has this knowledge or is

even trying to obtain it? Not the State in this country or its

officials: for in every department of government (however capable some

of the subordinates may be) there is a determined opposition to and fear

of Science on the part of the political and highly paid chiefs—the

jealous fear due to complete and deadly ignorance.

XXXI

GOSSAMER

Fine as gossamer! Town-bred folks never see it, and do not believe in

its existence; they think it is a poetical figment, like “honey-dew.”

That, too, is nevertheless a real thing—a honey-like juice poured out

by the little plant-lice or aphides. Gossamer is a very real and a most

beautiful thing. You may see it on the hill-sides in fine October

weather, when the sun is bright but low enough to illuminate the

delicate threads and reveal the “veil of silk and silver thin” spread

over Nature’s loveliness. The innumerable threads glisten, and are so

fine that they shine with iridescent colours, as do the equally delicate

soap-bubbles fabricated by men and boys, and from the same cause. When

the eye gets accustomed to them and traces them—rippling and glimmering

over acres and acres of grass-land—one feels disconcerted, almost

awestruck, by the revelation of this vast network of threads. Sometimes

the gentle currents of air break them loose from the herbage, and they

float at a higher level and envelop the puzzled intruder in an almost

invisible entanglement of fairy lines. Sometimes they become felted

together in flakes and float or rest as incredibly delicate tissue,

woven by unseen mysterious agency.

[Illustration: FIG. 47.—A young spider (four times the natural length)

raising its body upwards, whilst the four silk threads (gossamer) spun

by it float in the air, and so draw out further liquid silk from the

spider. They increase in length to three or four yards, when they float

upwards, carrying the spider with them. (After McCook.)]

When the slopes of the new golf course at Wimbledon were covered last

autumn with gossamer, my friends were asking what was its origin, some

boldly asserting that it was impossible that such a vast acreage of

threads could be produced, as others maintained, by tiny unseen spiders!

Yet that is the true history of gossamer. Hundreds of thousands of

minute spiders, young, and of a small kind, are present in grass fields

in autumn, and throw out these marvellously fine threads from their

little bodies (Fig. 47). Those who at first sight doubt this origin of

gossamer are only in accordance with their forefathers. The French

peasants call it _fil de la Vierge_; old English writers held it to be

“dew evaporated.” A great discoverer and leader of science in his time,

Robert Hook, who was elected with Nehemiah Grew as secretary of the

Royal Society in 1677, and published a wonderful illustrated book called

_Micrographia_ (see p. 173), wrote of gossamer. He was so far from

recognising its true nature that he says: “It is not unlikely that those

great white clouds which appear all the summer time may be of the same

substance.” Yet it is now a simple and certain fact of observation that

the countless threads in question are the work of minute spiders!

The pretty name “gossamer” has puzzled the etymologists and led to some

far-fetched suggestions. That favoured by the authority of the great

Oxford dictionary of the English language is that it is a corruption of

“Go-summer,” because gossamer appears in autumn and is associated with

St. Martin’s summer. This is like saying that the word “cray-fish”

refers to fish that live in a “cray” or brook, instead of deriving it

from the French word _écrevisse_. The Germans call gossamer

_Sommerweben_. But the Latin word for cotton is _gossypium_; and there

is an Italian word, _gossampino_, which occurs in an English form,

_gossampine_, in the sixteenth century, and means a kind of silk or

cotton obtained from the fluffy hairs of a plant called bombax. We also

find “gossamer” spelt “gossamire” in English of that date; and it seems

to me most likely that an Italian word _gossamira_, signifying

“fairy-cotton” or “magic goose-down,” is the origin of our word.

[Illustration: FIG. 48.—View of the lower surface of the head and body

of a large Burmese spider, known as Liphistius, to show the spinnerets

(3 and 4), which are really reduced or rudimentary legs, and are in this

spider retained in their original position, instead of being pushed down

to the end of the body, as they are in all other spiders (see Fig. 49,

_spn_), I. to VI., the basal joints of the legs and palps of the

head-region; 1, the first abdominal segment; 2, the second; 3 and 4, the

legs of the third and fourth abdominal segments, which are the

spinnerets; 11, the eleventh abdominal segment—in front of it rudiments

of the segments 5 to 10 are seen; _an_, anus; _a_, _b_, inner and outer

lobes of the first pair of spinnerets.]

There are 500 different kinds of spider carefully described as occurring

in the British Islands, and about 2000 others from remoter regions.

Precisely which of them forms the “gossamer” of our meadows it is

difficult to say, as all have the habit of secreting a viscid fluid from

one or two pairs of projecting spinning knobs or stalks, which are seen

at the hinder end of the body (Figs. 48, 49, and 50). The viscid fluid

is poured out by a great number of minute tubes, and hardens at once

into a thread, which is wonderfully fine, yet strong. Different kinds of

spiders make use of these threads for different purposes, hence their

name “spinners.” Some make burrows in the ground and line them with a

felt of these threads, others enclose their eggs in a case formed by

winding them round the eggs, others form “snares” of the most marvellous

mechanical ingenuity with them, by which insects are entangled and are

then paralysed by the poisonous stab of the spider’s claws, and have

their juices sucked out of them at the spider’s leisure. The snares of

spiders are in some species merely irregular webs fastened and suspended

by threads, in other cases they are gracefully-modelled funnels or cups,

whilst a third kind, the disc-like webs made up of radiating and

circularly-disposed threads fixed in a geometrical pattern, excel—in

the mechanical precision of their workmanship and the masterly treatment

of engineering difficulties—the constructions of any other kind of

animal. It is amongst this kind of spiders that the formation by the

spinning knobs of threads or lines and their use in various ways is

most general and frequent. The smaller spiders expel the viscid thread,

drawing it out from their bodies by their own movement away from the

object to which it at first adhered. When it breaks loose from that

support it is carried upwards by air-currents and drawn out from the

spinners body to many yards’ length (Fig. 47). It then becomes a

“flying-line,” and the spider may sail away on it or run up it and

disappear. The celebrated story of the Indian juggler’s

performance—traditional and even solemnly attested by witnesses, but

failing to pass the test of photography—must have been suggested by

this common, yet wonderful, proceeding of small spiders. The juggler,

standing in an open place, surrounded by a ring of spectators, uncoils a

rope, 50 feet long, from his waist, and holding one end, throws the

other up into the air. The rope, without any support, remains stretched

and upright. A small boy now enters the ring and climbs up the rope,

draws it up after him, and disappears with it in the upper air! That is

an illusion, but it is precisely what thousands of small spiders are

continually doing. A big spider—the well-grown female of the common

garden spider, for instance, cannot do this—her thread is not strong

enough, and her weight is too great. But the male of the same species,

who is much smaller, fortunately for him, can safely run on a hanging

line—and thus can rapidly escape from the side of his mistress, who,

after receiving his caresses, has an unpleasant habit of seizing,

killing, and sucking the blood of the adventurous male, should he linger

longer in her company, and fail in the agility and rapidity of his exit.

[Illustration: FIG. 49.—Section through the body of a spider to show

the spinning organs. _h_, heart connected by four big veins with _b_,

the lung-bosks or air-gills; _f_, genital lid; _ov_, ovary; _a_, the

anus; _spn_, the three pairs of spinnerets or spinning warts; _c_, _e_,

and _d_, the three kinds of glands producing liquid silk, viz.,

cylindrical, tree-form, and pyriform. These are one thousand in number

in the common garden spider, and each has its separate spout or spigot

standing up on one of the spinnerets (see next figure).]

[Illustration: FIG. 50.—One of the two middle spinnerets of the common

garden spider (_Epeira diadema_), to show the three kinds of spouts or

spigots (one thousand in all) corresponding to the three kinds of

silk-glands. Each kind of “spigot” pours out a different kind and size

of thread. _sp.c_, one of the big spigots of the cylindrical glands;

_sp.t_, middle-sized spigots belonging to the tree-form glands; _ss_ and

_s.ss_, the small-sized spigots of the very numerous pyriform glands.]

The threads of the garden spider (the _Porte-croix_ of the French,

white-cross spider, _Epeira diadema_, Fig. 51) are fixed by astronomers

in their telescopes for the purpose of giving fine lines in the field of

view, by which the relative positions of stars may be accurately

measured. For a century astronomers desired to make use of such lines of

the greatest possible fineness, and procured at first silver wire drawn

out to the extreme limit of tenuity attainable with that metal. They

also tried hairs (1/500th of an inch thick) and threads of a silk-worm’s

cocoon, which are split into two component threads each only 1/2000th of

an inch thick. But in 1820 an English instrument maker named Troughton

introduced the spider’s line. This can be readily obtained three or four

times smaller in breadth than the silk-worm’s thread, and has also

advantages in its strength and freedom from twist. In order to obtain

the thread, the spider is carefully fixed on a miniature “rack,” and the

thread, which at the moment of issue from the body is a viscid liquid,

is made to adhere to a winder, by turning which the desired length of

firm but elastic thread can be procured. It has been proposed to use

spiders’ silk in manufactures as a substitute for silk-worms’ silk, and

pioneers have woven gloves, stockings, and other articles from it. It

appears that there are species of spider in other parts of the world

whose thread is coarser and more suitable for this purpose than that of

any of our British spiders. But it is estimated that the expense in

feeding the spiders—which require insect food—would make the thread

obtained from them far too costly to compete with silk-worm silk.

[Illustration: FIG. 51.—The common garden spider, more correctly called

the white cross spider (_Epeira diadema_): a female drawn a little

(one-fifth) larger than life.]

A number of different kinds of the lower animals besides spiders have

the power of producing threads. The caterpillars of some moths are

especially noted for this, since their thread is familiar to us all as

“silk.” It is secreted as a viscid fluid by a pair of tubes opening at

the mouth, and hardens on escape. Even some marine creatures—the

mussels—produce threads, in this case from a gland or sac in the

muscular foot, by means of which they fix themselves to rocks. A very

big mussel—the _Pinna_—called _Capo lungo_ by the Mediterranean

fishermen and _Capy longy_ at Plymouth, where they are also found,

produces a sufficient quantity of fine horny threads to be used in

weaving, and gloves have been made at Genoa from the shell-fish silk.

The threads produced by the hardening of the tenacious fluid exuded by

these various animals were probably simply protective in origin. The

curious caterpillar-like creature _Peripatus_ spits out a viscid fluid

when it is disturbed, which hardens into threads, and hopelessly

entangles any small enemy which may venture to attack it. Threads of a

poisonous nature are thrown out by jelly-fishes, polyps, and sea

anemones, and serve them both as defence and as means of paralysing and

capturing prey. A later stage in the use of such threads is their

“felting” to form a case or tube (as in the sea anemone called

_Cerianthus_), and so their application has gradually developed to the

formation of egg-cases, snares, and the wonderful web of the geometric

spider, and the countless “flying-lines” of smaller spiders, which make

up the mysterious thing we call “gossamer.”

As to the limits of the tenuity of the threads of gossamer there are no

direct observations. Probably they are often as fine as the 1/16,000th

or 1/20,000th of an inch in diameter. The condensation of a very minute

quantity of moisture on gossamer threads and spiders’ webs no doubt

helps to make them more readily visible to us in October weather than

they are in full summer, when such moisture would not condense except in

early morning or at sunset. It seems strange that man should have been

unable to produce a thread so fine as that of the spider, but this

reproach has now been removed. Spun glass is easily obtained 1/1000th of

a inch in diameter; but Mr. C. V. Boys, F.R.S., has, by fusing quartz

(rock-crystal) by the oxy-hydrogen flame, and drawing it out by means of

a small arrow (a straw), discharged from a bow—the near end of the

arrow being adherent to a fused droplet of quartz which is held

fast—produced threads of great strength and of extraordinary tenuity.

The fineness can be regulated by the rapidity with which the drawing is

effected. The threads are prepared (for use in suspending swinging bars

in delicate measurements of force) of a thickness of 1/10,000th of an

inch. Some have been made so fine as to be not only invisible to the

naked eye, but to be only vaguely indicated by the highest powers of the

microscope. They are estimated to be only one-millionth of an inch in

diameter. It is difficult to form any mental picture or conception of

these finest quartz threads spun by Mr. Boys. But the following fact

helps us to realise how delicate they are. A grain of sand just visible

to the eye—that is to say, 1/100th an inch long, the same in breadth,

and the same in height—would make twenty miles of such thread.

XXXII

THE JUMPING BEAN

One way of thinking of the six hundred thousand kinds or species of

insects—those tiny, ubiquitous fellow-creatures of ours which inhabit

nearly every corner and cranny of the earth’s surface—is to associate

them with the plants upon which, either for food or protection, the

greater number of them are dependent. This makes them appear less

overwhelming in their astonishing and, at first sight, meaningless

variety, than when one calls them to mind pinned out in long lines in

innumerable drawers and cases, or assorted, like with like, in the

wonderfully accurate and interminable pictures of them produced by those

patient benefactors of mankind the systematic entomologists. Every plant

of any size has a number of insects associated with it, living more or

less completely on its substance, or making its home in some part of the

plant. Some trees are known to have more than a hundred and fifty kinds

or species of insects thus dependent on them, those which are vegetarian

serving in their turn as food to a variety of carnivorous insects.

The ways in which insects are associated with plants may be briefly

stated. It must be remembered that often, though not always, one

particular species of plant, and that only, is capable of serving the

needs of a given species of insect. Thus, the leaves of a given plant

are the necessary food of the grubs of one or more insects which bite

their food; its internal juices serve others which suck; its roots

others; its nectar in the flower others, which in return serve the plant

by carrying away its pollen and fertilising the other plants of the same

species which they visit. Protection is sought and obtained from the

same plant by insects which burrow in its leaves, or roll them up, or

cut them into slices and carry them away, or hide in its bark, or in the

flowers, or in other parts—or burrow for food and shelter into its

wood. Others lay their eggs in the soft buds, producing or not producing

according to their kind distorted growths, known as “galls” (one plant

is known to have as many as thirty species of gall-flies which make use

of it). Other insects lay their eggs in the flower-buds and immature

fruits, or place them on the plant so that the young grubs, when

hatched, can at once eat into those soft parts. Others bore into the

wood or into hard or fleshy fruits expressly to lay their eggs, or into

the ripe seeds. Certain ants live in chambers specially provided by the

woody parts of the plant for them, and benefit both themselves and the

plant by devouring other insects which seek the plant in order to devour

it. In a museum of natural history there should be exhibited at least

one plant with specimens and enlarged models of all the insects which

depend upon it for food, protection, or nursery, and with accompanying

illustrations of the way in which those purposes are served.

Science from an Easy Chair · 第 20 / 33 段