TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Superscripts are denoted by ^ eg A^n.
Obvious punctuation errors have been corrected after careful
comparison with other occurrences within the text and consultation
of external sources.
More detail can be found at the end of the book.
GEORGE JOHN ROMANES
[Illustration: Frontispiece, signed:
Yours ever the same,
G. J. Romanes]
THE
LIFE AND LETTERS
OF
GEORGE JOHN ROMANES
M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.
WRITTEN AND EDITED BY HIS WIFE
SECOND EDITION
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
LONDON, NEW YORK, AND BOMBAY
1896
_All rights reserved_
LIBERIS NOSTRIS
RECORDATIO
PATRIS DESIDERATISSIMI
MEMORIA JUSTI CUM LAUDIBUS
PREFACE
TO
THE SECOND EDITION
In sending out this Second Edition of my husband's Life, I cannot but
acknowledge the extreme kindness with which it has been received.
But I think it is also due to his memory to say a word in view of
various statements that have been made in America and elsewhere, to
the effect that his mental vigour and powers were impaired before his
death. These statements are absolutely untrue.
I can best refute them by calling attention to the obituary notice
written by Professor Burdon Sanderson for the Royal Society.
In this paper it is said: 'Up to the end he [Romanes] preserved not
only his mental vigour, but the keenness of his interest in his
scientific pursuits.'
This, I think, needs no additional comment from me.
E. R.
OXFORD: _March 1896_.
PREFACE
In writing my husband's life I have tried, so far as it was possible,
to let him, especially in matters scientific, speak for himself.
For the purpose of his biographer it is unfortunate that my husband
lived in almost daily intercourse for parts of many years with more
than one of his most intimate friends. Hence there are no letters
to several people with whom he was in the habit of discussing
scientific, philosophic, and theological questions.
The letters relating to his work will, I hope, interest any one who
cares for biological science. Whatever may be the exact place which
shall be assigned to him, by those who come after, in the great army
of workers for Science, this much may be said: that no one ever
served in the cause of Science with more passionate and whole-hearted
devotion, more entire disinterestedness--
_All for Love, and nothing for Reward._
I have to acknowledge the kindness of many who have put letters
at my disposal. I cannot sufficiently express my thanks to Mr.
Francis Darwin for generously allowing me to print portions of the
correspondence which for seven or eight years was one of the chief
pleasures and privileges of my husband's life. I must also thank
my brother and sister-in-law, the Dean of Christ Church, Professor
Poulton, Professor Schäfer, Professor Le Conte, Mr. Thiselton-Dyer,
and others for like permission.
And I must express my most sincere gratitude to the Rev. P. N.
Waggett, to Professor C. Lloyd Morgan, and to my cousin Mrs. St.
George Reid (late of Newnham College, Cambridge), for their constant
help and advice.
To Mrs. Reid I owe more than I can well express. Her scientific
knowledge and ability have been simply invaluable, and have been used
with ever-ready and ungrudging generosity and kindness.
There are other aspects of my husband's life which are interesting,
but again I think he has told his own story, and it is needless for
me here to speak of what, to some extent, he has laid bare--of mental
perplexity and of steadfast endurance and loyalty to Truth. It may be
that others, wandering in the twilight of this 'dimly lighted world,'
may be stimulated and encouraged and helped to go on in patience
until on them also dawns that Light. If this be so it will not be
altogether in vain that he bore long years of very real and very
heavy sorrow.
E. R.
OXFORD: 1895.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. BOYHOOD--YOUTH--EARLY MANHOOD, 1848-1878 1
II. LONDON, 1879-1890 89
III. LONDON--GEANIES, 1881-1890 136
IV. OXFORD, 1890-1894 248
INDEX 358
ILLUSTRATIONS
PORTRAIT OF MR. ROMANES _Frontispiece_
GEANIES, ROSS-SHIRE _To face p._ 146
94 ST. ALDATE'S " 256
GEORGE JOHN ROMANES
CHAPTER I
_BOYHOOD--YOUTH--EARLY MANHOOD_
BOYHOOD. 1848-1867
George John Romanes was born at Kingston, Canada, on May 20, 1848,
the third son of the Rev. George Romanes, D.D., then Professor of
Greek in the University of that place.
The Professor had come out to Canada some years previously, and,
after a short experience of work in country parishes, had settled
down to teach Greek to the _alumni_ of the little University.
Dr. Romanes was descended from an old Scottish family settled since
1586 in Berwickshire: he had been educated at the High School and
University of Edinburgh, and was an excellent classic and learned
theologian, with views of a strictly 'Moderate' type. From him his
distinguished son inherited the sweetness of temper and calmness of
manner which characterised George John Romanes through life, and
which earned for him amongst his friends the playful sobriquet of
'The Philosopher.'
Dr. Romanes married, after his arrival in Canada, Miss Isabella Gair
Smith, daughter of the Rev. Robert Smith, for many years parish
minister of Cromarty. Mrs. Romanes was connected with several
old Highland families, and was a thorough Highlander. Handsome,
vivacious, unconventional, and clever, she was in all respects a
great contrast to her husband, who, as years went on, seems to have
lived mainly the life of a student, and to have left the care of
mundane things to his wife. Three sons and two daughters were born.
Of these, only two, the eldest son and youngest daughter, now survive.
In 1848, the inheritance of a considerable fortune relieved Dr.
Romanes from any necessity to continue the duties of his chair, and
the family returned home, wandering about for a few years and finally
settling in 18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park. There was a good deal
of continental travel during these first years after their return,
and as he grew into boyhood George Romanes spent several months at
various times in Heidelberg and other German towns, and the family
performed a journey from Nice to Florence in a delightful and now
bygone fashion, travelling with a vetturino.
Probably the beauty of the scenery, the fascination of travel, and
the charm of the beautiful surroundings exercised an unconscious
influence over the boy, and did something to rouse the poetic
sense which was to be so great an element in his life. Otherwise
there seems to have been little or no sense of pleasure in the art
treasures or the historic associations of Italy, and at no time of
his life did he ever care for pictures in anything like the same
degree as he loved poetry or music.
After the family settled in London, George Romanes was sent to a
preparatory school near his own home. Two of his schoolfellows became
in after life intimate friends. These were Francis Paget, the present
Dean of Christ Church, and his brother, Henry Luke Paget, now Vicar
of St. Pancras, London.
An attack of measles put a stop once and for all to his preparatory
school career, and the idea of a public school was never entertained.
He was educated in a desultory and aimless fashion at home, and was
regarded by his family as a shocking dunce. Parts of two years were
spent in Heidelberg, and here he picked up some German, and had a few
lessons on the violin, and saw as he grew up something of student
life in Germany. Music was always a perfect passion with George
Romanes, and if a little wholesome discipline had been exercised, the
boy might have become a very good musician.
Heidelberg and the days at Heidelberg represented to the younger
Romanes the 'golden age.'
They lived in an old house outside the town, surrounded by woods, and
here the children, George and his younger sister, roamed about to
their hearts' content, making collections and keeping pets, like the
born naturalists they were. Shockingly idle children but marvellously
happy ones, and in the peculiar 'let alone' system of their
household, they grew up, neither of them remembering any reproof, far
less any punishment, nor any attempt to make them learn lessons or
carry on studies for which they were not inclined. A long interval
of years separated the brothers, now only two in number,[1] and the
younger brother and sister were looked on and treated as children
long after they had emerged from childhood.
The father and mother seem to have attended Presbyterian and Anglican
churches with entire impartiality, but the younger members of the
family preferred the English church, and were confirmed in it.
Religion was a potent influence with the boy in quite early years,
and there grew up in him a purpose of taking Holy Orders, a purpose
which met with no encouragement from either of his parents.
If of intellectual achievement he gave as yet no promise, at least
there were the signs of a singularly pure and unselfish nature which
seemed to grow and develope with the growing years. All through his
life he was peculiarly tender, gentle, and unselfish, and his younger
sister describes a little scene of how, while a children's party was
going on downstairs, George found her upstairs alone and miserable,
suffering from some odd childish misery of nerves, unable to go down,
and yet hating to be alone; how he at once soothed and petted her,
sat by her the whole evening, telling her stories and successfully
driving away her unhappiness. The most characteristic bit appears at
the end. This sort of unselfish conduct was so usual, that his little
sister really forgot to thank him, nor did it occur to her till long
after that there was anything unusual in his willingness to sacrifice
a whole evening's amusement to what most boys would have regarded as
mere fancifulness, only deserving a due amount of severe teasing.
During these years the Romanes family spent their summers at
Dunskaith, on the shores of the Cromarty Firth. Here George Romanes
had his first lessons in sport at the hands of Dr. Brydon, the
well-known survivor of the fatal retreat from Cabul, 1842.[2] He soon
became an ardent sportsman and excellent shot, and not until his
fatal illness began did he ever fail to keep August 12 and September
1 in the proper way.
When George Romanes was about seventeen, he was sent to a tutor to
read in preparation for the University, his mother having suddenly
awakened to the fact that he was nearly grown up and not at all
ready for college. One of his fellow pupils was Mr. Charles Edmund
Lister, brother of the present owner of Shibden Hall, Halifax. With
Mr. Lister he formed a friendship destined to be only broken by Mr.
Lister's premature death in 1889. This friendship had important
results for George Romanes. He had been intended for Oxford, and his
name had been entered at Brasenose College, but Mr. Lister was to go
to Cambridge, and he easily persuaded his friend to follow him.
In October 1867 George John Romanes entered Gonville and Caius
College, Cambridge.
CAMBRIDGE. 1867-1873
Most men feel that their University life is one of the most marked
phases of their career. Even to those who come up from a public
school, with all the prestige and with all the friendships, the sense
of fellowship, the hundred and one influences, the customs of a great
school 'lying thick' upon them, realise more and more, as time goes
on, how great a part Oxford or Cambridge plays in their lives; how it
is in their University life they make their intellectual choice, and
receive the bias which, for good or for evil, will influence their
whole life.
And to this raw boy, fresh from a secluded and somewhat narrow
atmosphere, plunged for the first time into a great society,
brought for the first time under some of the influences of the then
'Zeitgeist,' into contact with some of the leaders of thought,
entrance into the University was the beginning of an entirely new
life.
He entered Cambridge, half-educated, utterly untrained, with no
knowledge of men or of books. He left it, to all intents and
purposes, a trained worker and earnest thinker, with his life work
begun--that work which was an unwearied search after truth, a work
characterised by an ever-increasing reverence for goodness, and,
as years went on, by a disregard for applause or for reward. His
Cambridge life was happy; he made several friends, chief of whom was
Mr. Proby Cautley, the present rector of Quainton near Aylesbury.
He enjoyed boating, and once narrowly escaped drowning in the Cam.[3]
At first George Romanes fell completely under Evangelical influences,
at that time practically the most potent religious force in
Cambridge. He was a regular communicant, and it is touching to look
at the little Bible he used while at Cambridge, worn, and marked,
and pencilled, with references to sermons which had evidently caught
the boy's attention. He used to attend meetings for Greek Testament
study, and enjoyed hearing the distinguished preachers who visited
the University.
But of the _intellectual_ influences in the religious world of the
University he knew nothing. F. D. Maurice was still in Cambridge,
but he seems to have repelled rather than to have attracted George
Romanes, nor did he ever come under the influence of Westcott, or of
Lightfoot, or of Hort.
And, when the intellectual struggles began, he seems in early years
to have owed very little to any Christian writer, Bishop Butler alone
excepted.
His summers were spent in Ross-shire, and there is no doubt these
months were of great use to him. He was perfectly unharassed so far
as pecuniary cares or family ambition were concerned, and he had
abundant time to think. Years afterwards, Mr. Darwin said to him:
'Above all, Romanes, cultivate the habit of meditation,' and Mr.
Romanes always quoted this as a most valuable bit of advice. His
intellectual development was rapid in these Cambridge years, and
it is not improbable that his slowly growing mind had not been ill
served by being allowed to mature in absolute freedom, although he
himself bitterly regretted and, through his whole life, deplored the
lack of early training, and of mental discipline.
Through these early Cambridge years he still cherished the idea
of Holy Orders, and with his friend, Mr. Cautley, he had many
talks about the career they both intended to choose. They spent
a part of one long vacation together, and occupied themselves in
reading theology--such books as 'Pearson on the Creed,' Hooker's
'Ecclesiastical Polity,' Bishop Butler's 'Analogy,' and in writing
sermons. Some of Mr. Romanes' are still extant, and are curious bits
of boyish composition--crude, unformed in style, and yet full of
thought, and showing a remarkable knowledge of the Bible.
He seems to have been, for the rest, a bright, good-tempered,
popular lad, always much chaffed for absent-minded mistakes, for
his long legs, for his peculiar name; and he certainly gave no one
the faintest idea of any particular ability, any likelihood of
future distinction.[4] Some slight chance, as it seemed, turned his
attention to natural science; one or two friends were reading for the
Natural Science Tripos, and George Romanes ceased to read mathematics
and began to work at natural science, competing for and winning a
scholarship in that subject.
Eighteen months only remained for him to work for his Tripos, and
it is not surprising that he only obtained a Second Class. In the
Tripos of 1870, in the same list among the First-Class men, Mr.
Francis Darwin's name appears.
Mr. Romanes had gone but a little distance along the road on which
he was destined to travel very far. He had up to this time read none
of Mr. Darwin's books, and to a question on Natural Selection which
occurred in the Tripos papers he could give no answer.
By this time he had abandoned the idea of Holy Orders, perhaps
on account of the opposition at home, perhaps because of the
first beginnings of the intellectual struggles of doubt and of
bewilderment. He began to study medicine, and made a lifelong
friendship with Dr. Latham, the well-known Cambridge physician, of
whose kindness Mr. Romanes often spoke, and to whom he dedicated his
first book, which was the Burney Prize for 1873. But he also began
to study physiology under the direction of Dr. Michael Foster, the
present Professor of Physiology at Cambridge, to whom she owes her
famous medical school, at that time in its very early beginnings.
Science entirely fascinated him; his first plunge into real
scientific work opened to him a new life, gave him the first sense
of power and of capacity. Now he read Mr. Darwin's books, and it is
impossible to overrate the extraordinary effect they had on the young
man's mind. Something of the feeling which Keats describes in the
sonnet 'On Looking into Chapman's Homer' seems to have been his:
'Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
When a new planet swims into his ken;
Or like stout Cortez when, with eagle eyes,
He stared at the Pacific--and all his men
Looked at each other with a wild surmise
Silent, upon a peak in Darien.'
About the spring of 1872 Mr. Romanes began to show signs of
ill-health. He was harassed by faintness and incessant lassitude,
but struggled on, going up to Scotland in the summer and beginning to
shoot, under the belief that all he wanted was hard exercise. At last
he broke down and was declared to be suffering from a bad attack of
typhoid fever. He had a very hard struggle for life, and owed a great
deal to Dr. Latham, who from Cambridge kept up a constant telegraphic
communication with the Ross-shire doctors. It was a long and weary
convalescence, beguiled in part by writing an essay on 'Christian
Prayer and General Laws,' the subject assigned for the Burney Prize
Essay of 1873.
Much of this essay was dictated to one or other of his sisters,
and it is a curious fact that his first book and his last should
have been on theological subjects. Both were written when he was
struggling with great bodily weakness, and in these months of early
manhood he showed the same almost pathetic desire to work, the same
activity of thought which he displayed more than twenty years later
in the last days of his life.
The essay was successful, and its author was more than once claimed
as a champion of faith on the strength of it.
It is a very hard bit of reading, and of course has to some extent
the drawback of a prize essay, a work written not simply to convince
the public, but to impress examiners. It is full of knowledge and of
intellectual agility, but is perhaps needlessly difficult in style.
His success was absolutely unexpected by his family, and made him
very happy, as the following letters show, written in the first glow
of success.
_To Mrs. Romanes._
18 Cornwall Terrace.
My dearest Mother,--Your letter of surprise and rejoicing has
been to me one of the best parts of the result. All the letters
of congratulation which are now coming in mention you: 'How
delighted your mother will be,' &c.; and it is a great thing for
me to find that you are so. Without appreciative sympathy success
soon palls; but the two combined go to make up the best happiness.
I went to Cambridge yesterday to get the manuscript, and as there
happened to be a congregation in the afternoon, I also took my
degree. I saw all my friends, who were overflowing with delight.
Indeed, I never before realised how great the competition is,
for I never had an opportunity of knowing how the successful man
is lionised. The Caius dons especially are up in the air about
it, as this is the first time in the history of the college
that one of its members has got the Burney; so that, as Ferrers
writes to me, 'when the same year produces a Senior Wrangler and
a Burney Prizeman, the college may be said to be looking up.'
I was invited to breakfast with the Professor of Divinity (who
is the principal adjudicator), and I found him very pleasant
indeed. Afterwards I went to the Vice-Chancellor, from whom I
got the well-remembered 'pages' (but now with Prize I. written
across them); and lastly, to the third adjudicator, the master
of Christ's. They all said more in praise of the essay than I
would care to repeat, but, to tell you the simple truth, I was
perfectly astonished. For example, 'In the history of the Burney
Prize there have only been two equals and no superiors.'
The Vice-Chancellor told me that there was another essay well
deserving of a prize which was written by a man of whom I dare
say you will remember I said I was most afraid, viz., Mr. ----. I
knew him very well when we were undergraduates, and three years
ago he obtained the Trinity Scholarship in Philosophy, open to
all competitors, and ended up eighteen months ago by graduating
as Senior of the Moral Science Tripos. It is a great satisfaction
to me that the man who was universally admitted to be the best
of the Cambridge metaphysicians should have written, and that,
notwithstanding, the decision should have been given unanimously
in my favour.
_To James Romanes, Esq._
18 Cornwall Terrace: April 24.
My dearest James,--I am sure you will be as much pleased with
the result of my labours as I am myself. I remember so well our
speculating upon the probable chances of success, and how low we
set them down. Had I known for certain that ---- was going to
compete, I think I should have given up altogether. His essay
does seem to have been extraordinarily good, and yet he cannot
get a second prize, because the foundation requires that every
penny of the interest shall go to the first man. As this seems
rather hard lines for ----, I have to-day written to the Divinity
Professor offering to share the prize money, on condition that
the University recognise ---- as a prizeman.
The extraordinary thing about the whole affair is, not so much
the award, as the opinion which the adjudicators entertain of
the work. I do not know how it is that, stranded on a sandbank
and in a half dead-and-alive state, without thinking I was doing
anything unusual, I should have written the prize essay. But I
don't care how it is so long as it is so, as ---- writes, 'You
certainly have achieved a great success, handicapped as you were
in so many ways.' This, of course, relates to the award; but, as
I said before, what surprised me most is that I should not only
be first, but such a good first. The praise given by each of the
adjudicators separately, in as strong terms as it is possible
in donnish phraseology to convey it, was very gratifying to me,
especially as pronounced in the studiously dignified manner of
the Vice-Chancellor.
I hope soon to see you and tell you more about the whole thing;
for one of the best parts of it is, that 'if one member be
honoured, all the members rejoice with it.'
Ever your loving Brother,
GEO. J. ROMANES.
During his convalescence Mr. Romanes finally abandoned the idea of a
profession and resolved to devote himself to scientific research.
It was about this time that a letter of his in 'Nature' (see
'Nature,' vol. viii. p. 101) attracted Mr. Darwin's attention, and
caused him to send a friendly little note to the youthful writer.
Probably Mr. Darwin had little idea of the effect his letter produced
on its recipient, who was then recovering from his long illness. That
Darwin should actually write to _him_ seemed too good to believe. It
was a great encouragement to go on with scientific work.
Up to 1873 or 1874 Mr. Romanes had been working, when at Cambridge,
in Dr. Michael Foster's laboratory, and was a member of that band
who formed the nucleus of what was destined to be the famous
physiological school of Cambridge. Side by side with Mr. Romanes were
working Mr. Gaskell, Mr. Dew Smith, and others now well known for
their work and achievements.
In some ways Mr. Romanes suffered from not remaining at Cambridge and
becoming a permanent member of the band.
It is impossible not to feel that had he stayed on at the University
he would have devoted himself more and more to strictly experimental
work and less to what may be called philosophical natural history.
Some will regard his removal as a misfortune, and others as a happy
accident, but the might-have-beens of life are never very profitable
subjects for speculation.
In order to be with his now widowed mother, he returned to London,
and made his home with her and his sisters. They spent their summers
at Dunskaith, and Mr. Romanes embarked on researches on the nervous
system of the Medusæ. He began also to work in the physiological
laboratory of University College under Dr. Sharpey and Dr. Burdon
Sanderson. Both he regarded as masters and friends, and perhaps, next
to Mr. Darwin, Dr. Sanderson was the scientific friend George Romanes
most valued and loved, although it is impossible to overrate what he
owed to Cambridge, and to those early longings for biological study
which were inspired by Dr. Foster.
As has been said, a letter in 'Nature' attracted Mr. Darwin's notice,
and somewhere about 1874 he invited Mr. Romanes to call on him.
From that time began an unbroken friendship, marked on one side by
absolute worship, reverence, and affection, on the other by an almost
fatherly kindness and a wonderful interest in the younger man's
work and in his career. That first meeting was a real epoch in Mr.
Romanes' life. Mr. Darwin met him, as he often used to tell, with
outstretched hands, a bright smile, and a 'How glad I am that you are
so young!'
Perhaps no hero-worship was ever more unselfish, more utterly loyal,
or more fully rewarded. As time went on, and intimacy increased,
and restraint wore off, Mr. Romanes found that the great master
was as much to be admired for his personal character as for his
wonderful gifts, and to the youth who never, in the darkest days of
utter scepticism, parted with the love for goodness, for beauty of
character, this was an overwhelming joy.
In a poem written about 1884 Mr. Romanes has expressed something
of what he felt for Mr. Darwin, and in this he has poured out his
'hero-worship' in terms which were to him the expressions of simple
truth.
It is interesting to look over the long series of letters from 1874
to 1882 and notice how the formal 'Dear Mr. Romanes' drops into
the familiar 'Dear Romanes,' and the letters become more and more
affectionate, intimate, personal.
About this time also Mr. Romanes made many other scientific friends,
Professor Schäfer, Professor Cossar Ewart, Mr. Francis Darwin,
Dr. Pye Smith, Professor R. Lankester, Professor Clifford, Dr.
Lauder Brunton, and many more; and as his work became known it is
pleasant to see with what kindness of welcome the new recruit was
welcomed to the scientific army by such men as Professor Huxley, Sir
John Lubbock, Sir Joseph Hooker, Mr. Busk, Mr. F. Galton, and Mr.
Spottiswoode, then President of the Royal Society.
Just at that time there was a set of rising young biologists who
all seemed destined to do good work, and it is melancholy to look
back and to see 'how of that not too numerous band a number have been
taken from us in the prime of life, Garrod, Frank Balfour, Moseley,
H. Carpenter, Milnes Marshall, Romanes.'[5]
At Dunskaith a little laboratory was fitted up in an adjoining
cottage, and here during the summer Mr. Romanes worked constantly
for some years, diversifying his labours by shooting. It was in his
country home also that he began those series of observations on
animals which he worked up into the 'Animal Intelligence' of the
International Scientific Series, perhaps the most popular of his
books. The terrier Mathal was his special companion, and he observed
various traits of her intelligence which are recorded in 'Mental
Evolution in Animals,' pp. 156, 157, 158. It was also at Dunskaith
that he began his first attempts at verse making, but for some years
these did not come to much.
His scientific work at Dunskaith led to a paper communicated to the
Royal Society in 1875, and entitled 'Preliminary Observations on the
Locomotor System of Medusæ.'
This paper the Royal Society honoured by making it the Croonian
Lecture, an honour awarded to the best biological paper of each
year.[6]
Mr. Romanes had worked for two years, or rather two summers, very
constantly and very strenuously on the Medusæ. He set himself to try
and discover whether or not the rudiments of a nervous system existed
in these creatures. Agassiz had maintained it did, others considered
his deductions premature, and Huxley, in his 'Classification of
Animals,' summed up the much-debated question by saying that 'no
nervous system had yet been discovered in Medusæ.'
Microscopically, it had already been shown that in some forms of
Medusæ there are present certain fine fibres running along the margin
of the swimming bell, from their appearance said to be nerves, but
in no case had it been shown that they functioned as such. Thus it
was to solve this question, whether or not a nervous system, known
to be present in all animals higher in the zoological scale, makes
its first appearance in the Medusæ, that Mr. Romanes entered upon
a long series of physiological experiments, first on the group of
small 'naked-eyed' Medusæ, and then on the larger 'covered-eyed'
form, the latter division containing the common jelly-fish. These
names, 'naked-eyed' and 'covered-eyed,' are given to the two groups
on account of a difference in their sense organs, which are situated
on the margin of the umbrella or swimming bell, and are protected by
a hood of gelatinous matter in the 'covered-eyed' forms, so called in
contradistinction to the 'naked-eyed' group, where the hood is absent.
Romanes first carefully observed the movements of the Medusæ,
which, it will be remembered, are effected by the dilatation and
contraction of the entire swimming bell, and he found that if, in
the 'naked-eyed' group, the extreme margin of this swimming bell
be excised, immediate, total, and permanent paralysis of the whole
organ took place. This result was obtained with every species of this
group which he examined; he therefore concluded that in the margin
of all these forms there is situated a localised system of centres
of spontaneity, having for one of its functions the origination of
impulses to which the contraction of the swimming bell is, under
ordinary circumstances, exclusively due. This deduction was confirmed
by the behaviour of the severed thread-like portion of the margin,
which continued its rhythmical contractions quite unimpaired by its
severance from the main organism, the latter remaining perfectly
motionless. In the 'covered-eyed' forms Romanes found that excision
of the margin of the umbrella, or rather excision of the sense organs
or marginal bodies, produced paralysis; in this case, the paralysis
was of a temporary character, as in the great majority of cases
contractions were resumed after a variable period. From this series
of experiments he was led to believe that in the 'covered-eyed'
Medusæ the margin is the _principal_, but not the _exclusive_,
seat of spontaneity, there being other locomotor centres scattered
throughout the general contractile tissue of the swimming bell.
Having demonstrated the existence of a central nervous system capable
of originating impulses, Romanes had yet to prove the identity of
this nervous tissue of the Medusæ with that of nervous tissues
in general: therefore, he next proceeded to test whether it was
also capable of responding to external stimulation by light, heat,
electricity, &c.
As regards appreciation of light, he was able to prove conclusively
for at least two species of the 'naked-eyed' forms that as long as
their marginal bodies remained intact they would always respond to
luminous stimulation, and would crowd along a beam of light cast
through a darkened bell jar in which they were swimming; if their
marginal bodies were removed, they remained indifferent to light.
With regard to the 'covered-eyed' forms, he obtained sufficient
evidence to induce him to believe they possessed a visual sense
localised in their marginal sense organs.
The effects of electrical stimulation agreed in all respects with
those produced on the excitable tissues of other animals. He next
experimentally investigated in the jelly-fish the paths along which
the nervous impulses must pass in their passage from the locomotor
centres, where they originate, to the general contractile tissues of
the animal.
The results of these experiments led him to infer the existence of a
very fine plexus of nerve fibres, in which the constituent threads
cross and re-cross one another without actually coalescing. This
conclusion, which he arrived at from purely experimental grounds, was
some years afterwards confirmed by minute histological research.
Finally, the effect of various poisons, chloroform, alcohol, &c., was
tried, and the striking resemblance of their action on the nervous
system of the Medusæ with that which they exert on that of higher
animals supports the belief that nerve tissue when it first appears
in the scene of life has the same fundamental properties as it has in
higher animals.
This piece of work was important, as the facts threw light, as
Professor Sanderson has said, on elementary questions of physiology
relating to excitability and conduction, and it was a characteristic
of Mr. Romanes that in all his work, of whatever kind, he was always
searching for principles. The minutest detail never escaped his
attention if it appeared at all likely in any way to throw light on
some biological or psychological problem. Only a trained scientific
worker can appreciate the amount of labour these Royal Society papers
represented. In 1875 he gave a Friday evening lecture at the Royal
Institution on his work on Medusæ.
He was also at this time working on the subject of 'Pangenesis,'[7]
and a series of letters to Mr. Darwin and to Professor Schäfer may
interest some readers.
18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.:
January 14, 1875.
Dear Mr. Darwin,--I should very much like to see the papers
to which you allude. _A priori_ one would have thought the
bisecting plan the more hopeful, but if the other has yielded
positive results, in the case of an eye and tubers, I think it
would be worth while to try the effect of transplanting various
kinds of pips into the pulps of kindred varieties of fruit;
for the homological relations in this case would be pretty much
the same as in the other, with the exception of the bud being
an impregnated one. If positive results ensued, however, this
last-mentioned fact would be all the better for 'Pangenesis.'
You have doubtless observed the very remarkable case given in
the 'Gardener's Chronicle' for January 2--I mean the vine in
which the _scion_ appears to have notably affected the _stock_.
Altogether vines seem very promising; and as their buds admit
of being planted in the ground, it would be much more easy to
try the bisecting plan in their case than in others, where one
half-bud, besides requiring to be fitted to the other half, has
also to have its shield fitted into the bark. All one's energies
might then be expended in coaxing adhesion, and if once this
were obtained, I think there would here be the best chance of
obtaining a hybrid; for then all, or nearly all, the cells of
the future branch would be in the state of gemmules. I am very
sanguine about the buds growing under these circumstances, for
the vigour with which bisected seeds germinate is perfectly
astonishing.
Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
GEO. J. ROMANES.
P.S.--I have been to see Dr. Hooker, and found his kindness and
courtesy quite what you led me to expect. Such men are rare.
April 21, 1875.
In returning you ----'s papers, I should like to say that
the one on 'Inheritance' appears to me quite destitute of
intelligible meaning. It is a jumble of the same confused ideas
upon heredity about which I complained when you were at this
house. How in the world can 'force' act without any material
on which to act? Yet, unless we assume that it can, the whole
discussion is either meaningless, or else assumes the truth of
some such theory as 'Pangenesis.' In other words, as it must be
'unthinkable' that force should act independently of matter,
the doctrine of its persistence can only be made to bear upon
the question of heredity, by supposing that there is a material
connection between corporeal and germinal cells--_i.e._ by
granting the existence of _force-carriers_, call them gemmules,
or physiological units, or what we please.
Lawson Tait says (p. 60)--'The process of growth of the ovum
after impregnation can be followed only after the assumption
either expressed or _unconsciously accepted_ of such a hypothesis
as is contained in Mr. Darwin's "Pangenesis;"' and it is
interesting, as showing the truth of the remark, to compare,
for example, p. 29 of the other pamphlet--for, of course,
'Pangenesis' assumes the truth of the persistence of force as
the prime condition of its possibility. If ever I have occasion
to prepare a paper about heredity, I think it would be worth
while to point out the absurdity of thinking that we explain
anything by vague allusions to the most ultimate generalisation
of science. We might just as well say that Canadian institutions
resemble British ones because force is persistent. This
doubtless is the ultimate reason, but our explanation would be
scientifically valueless if we neglected to observe that the
Canadian colony was founded by British individuals.
The leaf from 'Nature' arrived last night. I had previously
intended to try mangold-wurzel, as I hear it has well-marked
varieties. The reference, therefore, will be valuable to me.
Before closing, I should like to take this opportunity of
thanking you again for the very pleasant time I spent at Down.
The place was one which I had long wished to see, and now that
I have seen it, I am sure it will ever remain one of the most
agreeable and interesting of memory's pictures.
With kind regards to Mrs. Darwin, I remain, very sincerely and
most respectfully yours,
GEO. J. ROMANES.
_To Professor E. Schäfer._
Dunskaith, Ross-shire.
My dear Schäfer,--I am glad to hear that your rest has been
beneficial, and also about all the other news you give.
I should like to have your opinion about the meaning of the
following facts.
In Sarsia gentle irritation of a tentacle or an eye-speck causes
the _polypite_ to respond, but not the bell (stronger irritation,
of course, causes both to respond); this seems to show that there
are nervous connections between the eye-specks and the polypite.
By introducing cuts between former and latter, these connections
may be destroyed--the tolerance of the tissue to such sections
being variable in different cases, but never being anything
remarkable. So far, then, the matter seems favourable to the
nerve-plexus theory.
In another disc-shaped species of naked-eyed Medusæ with a long
polypite, which I have called _Tiaropsis indicans_, from its
habit of applying this long polypite to any part of the bell
which is being injured, the _localising_ function of the polypite
is destroyed as regards any area of bell-tissue between which
and the polypite a circumferential section has been introduced.
In other words, the connections between the bell and the
polypite, on which localising function of the latter depends,
are exclusively radial. But not so the connections between the
bell and the polypite, which render it possible for the one to be
aware that something is wrong _somewhere_ in the other. For if
the whole animal be cut into a spiral with the polypite at one
end, irritation of the other end of the spiral, or any part of
its length, causes the polypite to sway about from side to side
trying to find the offending body. And here it is important to
observe that wherever a portion of one of the radial tubes occurs
in the course of the spiral, irritation of that portion causes
a much stronger response on the part of the polypite than does
irritation of any of the general bell-tissue, even though this be
situated much nearer to the polypite. This seems to show that the
nervous plexus, if present, has its constituent fibres aggregated
into trunks in the course of the nutriment tubes.
Thus far, then, I should be inclined to adopt the nerve-plexus
theory. But lastly, we come to another species with a very
large bell and a very small polypite. Irritation of margin or
radial tubes causes the animal to go into a violent spasm, but
irritation of the general muscular layer only causes an ordinary
locomotor contraction. On cutting the whole animal into a spiral,
and irritating the extreme end of several marginal strips,
the entire muscular part of the spiral goes into spasm. On
interposing a great number of interdigitating cuts in the course
of the spiral, there is no difference in these results. Now the
question is, What is the nature of the tissue that conducts
impressions from the ganglionic tissue to the muscular, making
the latter go into a spasm? A spasm is as different as possible
from an ordinary contraction, and will continue to pass long
after the ordinary contractions have been blocked by severity
of section. It is scarcely possible to suppose a nerve-plexus
here--the tolerance towards section being so great, although it
varies in different cases. Besides, suppose this to be a segment
of animal cut as represented. On irritating margin at _a_ all
the bell goes into a spasm, and it is evident that whatever the
nature of the conductile tissue, all the connections must pass
through the tract of tissue at _b_. Yet on irritating that tract
no spasm is given. I cannot understand this on any view as to the
nature of the conductile tissue.
[Illustration: FIG. 1.]
Altogether, then, this part of the inquiry is very perplexing.
Other parts are definite enough. All the poisons, for instance,
yield very definite results, which are in conformity with their
actions elsewhere.
I have had no time to do anything at the histology as yet. Would
it be worth while for me to send you various species in a little
sea water? They would arrive in a tolerably fresh condition,
but would require to be examined at once. I might try sending
some in spirit and others in chromic acid. I have made a few
preliminary experiments with the galvanometer on Sarsia, placing
one electrode on the margin and another on the muscular sheet,
but without any decided results. I also tried placing a Sarsia in
one beaker and simple sea water in another, connecting by means
of the electrodes, but no disturbance was observable.
June 4.
I am working very hard just now, as there are so many irons to
keep hot at once. It is too soon yet to see the results of spring
grafting on the many plants I have operated on, and I have not
had time to do anything with animals since I left London.
The Medusæ have now come on in their legion, and occupy my
undivided attention. The results so far have proved as definite
as they are interesting and important. The following is a summary
of the principal.
All genera of naked-eyed yet examined become immediately and
permanently paralysed (except polypite) upon excision of margin,
but not so with the covered-eyed.
The organism thus mutilated responds with a single contraction
to a nip with the forceps, also to various chemical stimuli. The
chain of ganglia do the same, and further resemble the mutilated
organism in contracting once to both make and break of direct
or of induced shock. They differ, however, in one important
particular: the severed margin retains its sensibility to the
induced shock much longer than to the direct, while with the
necto-calyx the converse is the case--the latter responding
vigorously to make and break of direct current after it has
ceased to be affected by even interrupted current with secondary
coil pushed up to zero (one cell).
A strange and, so far as I am aware, an unparalleled phenomenon
is sometimes manifested by Sarsia after removal of ganglia. It
only happens in about one case out of ten, and _never_ except in
response to either chemical or electrical stimulation. A bell
quite paralysed, and which may have responded normally enough
to stimulation for a number of times, suddenly begins an active
shivering motion, which may last from a minute to half an hour.
This motion is totally different from anything exhibited by the
animal when alive, and after ceasing never recommences without
fresh stimulation. The shivering appearance, I think, is due to
the various systems of muscles contracting without co-ordination,
but why it should take place in some cases and not in others, I
am quite unable to determine.
Irritability of bell to shocks increases progressively from
centre to circumference, and is greatest when electrodes are
placed on marginal canal. Also a similar progressive increase
is observable on approaching one of the _radial_ canals, and
is greatest when electrodes are placed on one of these. (I may
observe that however neat a person's fingers may be it would be
simply impossible to conduct these and other observations of the
same nature without a mechanical stage. The electrodes must be
needle-points passed through cords, the latter being supported
by a copper wire fixed to the stage, and therefore moveable with
it; and I defy anybody to get the electrodes into the field, and
at the same time upon the marginal canal, unless they all move
together.)
[Illustration: FIG. 2.]
Sarsia stands an astonishing amount of section without losing
nervous conductibility. For instance, the whole organism may be
cut into a three-turned spiral, and on irritating the end, the
whole contracts; yet a moment's thought will show how trying
this mode of section is to nervous connections. As the animal
may be cut, as in the following diagram, which represents the
whole organism in projection--the dotted lines being the canals,
and the thick ones the cuts--on now irritating any part of the
animal, the whole contracts, but the co-ordination power is lost,
both in spontaneous contraction and for those in response to
stimuli.
If the entire margin be cut out in a continuous piece save a
small portion to unite it with the bell, and if the distal end
be now irritated, a main of contraction runs along the entire
severed part till it arrives at the small united part, when
the whole bell contracts. I should like to try whether under
such circumstances the margin would be thrown into a state of
electrotonus, but only having one cell I am not able to make out
this point satisfactorily.
The severed margin continues its rhythmical contractions for
two or three days. I am now trying the effect of different
chemical stimuli, and if you can suggest any further line of
experimentation, of course I shall be very pleased. Only, if
you can think of anything which might be tried and which is
not mentioned in this letter, please write soon, as the Sarsia
will not last much longer, and they are the best adapted for my
purposes.
I remain, very sincerely yours,
GEO. J. ROMANES.
P.S.--I should have said that neither gold nor silver brings out
any nervous tissue.
Medusa muscle is not doubly refracting, but then none that I
have here seen is striated, and unstriated muscle is not doubly
refracting anywhere, is it?
Dunskaith: June 24.
Many thanks for your long and suggestive letter. The poisons
also are most acceptable. I have waited before writing to try
effect of the latter, but the weather has been so stormy that no
jelly-fish could be got.
The most interesting observations I have made since writing
before are the following. Unmutilated Sarsia in a dark room seek
a beam of light thrown into the bell-jar containing them, and
this as keenly as do moths. But when the so-called eye-specks are
cut out, the animal no longer cares for light.
I have only come across two species of luminous Medusæ--both, I
believe, as yet undescribed--and in these the light is emitted
from the margin alone, and, with electrical stimulus, is strictly
confined to the intra-polar regions, being strongest at the two
poles.
There is no doubt at all about the muscular nature of the fibres
we saw. In the larger kinds of Medusæ (the covered-eyed) these
fibres are much coarser, and are clearly seen to be arranged in
concentric bundles, having four or five fibres in each bundle.
Alternating with these bundles, and about the same width as
these, are strands of undifferentiated protoplasm. These strands
are not spontaneously contractile, although their dimensions
are altered by the contraction of the muscular branch on each
of their sides. No part of the tissue is doubly refracting in
the fresh state. Is there any way of treating it with a view
of bringing out this property if latent, so to speak? The
peculiarity is not due to the _transparency_ of the tissue, for
I find that the muscular fibre of the transparent osseous fish
_Leptocephalus_ is as doubly-refracting as could be wished. There
are no signs of striæ, but Agassiz says that in some of the
Mediterranean species striæ are well marked. But if both striated
and unstriated fibres are elsewhere doubly-refracting, it does
not, I suppose, much signify whether or not the muscles of Medusæ
are striated--so far, I mean, as the peculiarity in question is
concerned.
I wish you would say what you think about this peculiarity in
relation to a subject that I have been working up. You no doubt
remember that in ----'s paper that we heard read, he said that
the snail's heart had no nerves or ganglia, but nevertheless
behaved like nervous tissue in responding to electrical
stimulation. He hence concluded that in undifferentiated tissue
of this kind, nerve and muscle were, so to speak, amalgamated.
Now it was principally with the view of testing this idea about
'physiological continuity' that I tried the mode of spiral and
other sections mentioned in my last letter. The result of these
sections, it seems to me, is to preclude, on the one hand, the
supposition that the muscular tissue of Medusæ is merely muscular
(for no muscle would respond to local stimulus throughout its
substance when so severely cut), and, on the other hand, the
supposition of a nervous plexus (for this would require to be
so very intricate, and the hypothesis of scattered cells is
without microscopical evidence here or elsewhere). I think,
therefore, that we are driven to conclude that the muscular
tissue of Medusæ, though more differentiated into _fibres_ than
is the contractile tissue of the snail's heart, is, as much as
the latter, an instance of 'physiological continuity.' (Whether
or not the interfascicular protoplasmic substance before
spoken of is the seat of this physiological continuity is here
immaterial.) Dr. Foster fully agrees with me in this deduction
from my experiments, and is very pleased about the latter, thus
affording additional support to his views. But what I want to ask
you is, supposing the interfascicular substance to have no share
in conducting stimulus (and I have no evidence of its presence
in Sarsia), and hence that the properties of nerve and muscle
are united in the contractile fibres of Medusæ--supposing this,
do you think that the peculiarity you observed in the molecular
conformation of this tissue, considered as muscular, is likely to
have anything to do with this peculiarity in its function?
I know you do not like theory, so I shall return to fact. There
can be no doubt whatever that the seat of spontaneity is as
much localised in the margin as the sensibility to stimulus
is diffused throughout the bell. There _must_, therefore, be
some structural difference in the tissue here to correspond to
this great functional difference. Agassiz is very positive in
describing a chain of cells running round the inner part of the
marginal canal. Now, although I sometimes see a thin cord-like
appearance here, I should not dare to say it was nervous. Gold
certainly stains it, but it also stains many other parts of the
tissue, and until I can see _cells_ here I cannot be sure about
a _visible_ nervous cord. The cord I do see may be the wall of
the marginal canal. I intend to persevere, however, trying your
suggestions, also osmic acid.
I can get no indications of electrical disturbance during
contraction in the way you suggest--at least not with Sarsia; but
I intend to try with some of the larger Medusæ.
Some apparatus is coming from Cambridge to enable me to test
for electrotonus and Pflüger's law. I shall apply it to the
luminous Medusæ also, whose light, I forgot to say, is seen under
the microscope in the dark to proceed not only from the margin
alone, but from that particular part of the margin where Agassiz
describes his chain of nervous cells.
GEO. J. ROMANES.
_From C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes._
Down, Beckenham, Kent: July 18, 1875.
I have been much interested by your letter, and am truly
delighted at the prospect of success. Such energy as yours is
almost sure to command victory. The world will be much more
influenced by experiments on animals than on plants. But in
any case I think a large number of successful results will be
necessary to convince physiologists. It is rash to be sanguine,
but it will be splendid if you succeed. My object in writing has
been to say that it has only just occurred to me that I have not
sent you a copy of my 'Insectivorous Plants;' if you would care
to have a copy, and do not possess one, send me a postcard, and
one shall be sent. If I do not hear, I shall understand.
Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
Dunskaith, Nigg P.O., Ross-shire, N.B.: July 20, 1875.
My dear Mr. Darwin,--Your letter arrived just in time to prevent
my sending an order to my bookseller for 'Insectivorous Plants,'
for, of course, it is needless to say that I shall highly value
a copy from yourself. At first I intended to wait until I should
have more time to enjoy the work, but a passage in this week's
'Nature' determined me to get a copy at once. This passage was
one about reflex action, and I am very anxious to see what you
say about this, because in a paper I have prepared for the 'B.A.'
on Medusæ I have had occasion to insist upon the occurrence of
reflex action in the case of these, notwithstanding the absence
of any distinguishable system of afferent and efferent nerves.
But as physiologists have been so long accustomed to associate
the phenomena of reflex action with some such distinguishable
system, I was afraid that they might think me rather audacious in
propounding the doctrine, that there is such a thing as reflex
action without well-defined structural channels for it to occur
in. But if you have found something of the same sort in _plants_,
of course I shall be very glad to have your authority to quote.
And I think it follows deductively from the general theory of
evolution, that reflex action ought to be present before the
lines in which it flows are sufficiently differentiated to become
distinguishable as nerves.
I am very glad that you are pleased with my progress so far.
_From C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes._
Down, Beckenham, Kent: Sept. 24.
I shall be very glad to propose you for Linnean Soc., as I have
just done for my son Francis. There is no doubt about your
election. I have written for blank form. Please let me have your
title, B.A. or M.A., and title of any book or papers, to which I
could add 'various contributions to "Nature."' Also shall I say
'attached to Physiology and Zoology'? When I have signed whole,
shall I send a paper to Hooker and others at Kew; or do you wish
it sent to some one else for signature? Three signatures are
required. The paper will have to be read twice or thrice when
Soc. meets in November. But you could get books out of library or
out of that of Royal Soc. by my signature or that of any other
member.
I am terribly sorry about the onions, as I expected great things
from them, the seeds coming, I believe, always true. As tubers of
potatoes graft so well, would it not be good to try other tubers
as of dahlias and other plants? I have been re-writing a large
portion of the chapter on Pangenesis, and it has been awfully
hard work. I will, of course, send you a copy when the work is
printed. How I do hope that your fowls will survive! F. Galton
was here for a few hours yesterday; I see that he is much less
sceptical about Pangenesis than he was.
Dunskaith, Nigg, Ross-shire, N.B., Sept. 29, 1875.
My dear Mr. Darwin,--Many thanks for your kind letter. I am an
M.A. and a fellow of the Philosophical Society of Cambridge,
but otherwise I am nothing, nor have I any publication worth
alluding to. I suppose, however, this will not matter if I am
proposed by yourself, Dr. Hooker, and Mr. Dyer. I think there
would be no harm in saying 'attached to Physiology and Zoology.'
I may read a paper before the Linnean next November on some new
species of Medusæ, but I think it is better not to allude to any
contributions in advance.
Your letter about Pangenesis made me long for success more even
than does the biological importance of the problem.[8] Yesterday
I dug up all my potatoes. Some of the produce looked suspicious,
but more than this I should not dare to say. By this post I send
you a box containing some of the best specimens, thinking you may
like to see them. The lots marked A and B are sent for comparison
with the others, being the kinds I grafted together. If you think
it worth while to have the eyes of any of the other lots planted,
you might either do so yourself or send them back to me. Lot C is
the queerest, and to my perhaps too partial eye looks very like
a mixture. In the case of this graft the seed potato was rotten
when dug up yesterday, and this may account for the small size
of the tubers sent.
I did try dahlias and peonies, but in the former the 'finger and
toe' shape of the tubers, with the eyes situated in the worst
parts for cutting out clearly, prevented me from getting adhesion
in any one case. With the peonies I was too late in beginning.
It was also too late in the year when I began Pangenesis to try
the spring flowers, but I hope to do so extensively this winter.
Next year I shall try grafting beets and mangolds by cutting the
young white root into a square shape and placing four red roots
all round. In this way the white one will have a maximum surface
exposed to the influence of the red ones. I shall also try
grafting the crown of the red in the root of the white variety,
and _vice versâ_. I have already done this very successfully with
carrots--making a little hole in the top of the root, and fitting
in the crown like a cork in a bottle.
I shall look forward with great interest to the appearance of
the new edition of the 'Variation.' I only wish I had begun
Pangenesis a year earlier, when perhaps by this time the
graft-hybrid question might have been settled. Perhaps, however,
it is as well to have this question once more presented in its
_a priori_ form, for if it can soon afterwards be proved that a
graft hybrid is possible, the theoretical importance of the fact
may be more generally appreciated.
A day or two ago I saw on a farm near this a beautiful specimen
of striping on a horse. The animal is a dark dun cob, with a very
divided shoulder stripe coming off from the spinal one on either
side. Each shoulder stripe then divides into three prongs, and
each prong ends in a sharp point. All the legs are black as far
as the knees (_carpi_ and _tarsi_), and above the black part for
a considerable distance all four legs are deeply marked with
numerous stripes. I can get no history of parentage. If you would
like a drawing I can send one, but perhaps you have already as
many cases as you want in the 'Variation.'
Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
GEO. J. ROMANES.
_To Professor E. Schäfer._
Dunskaith: Sept. 1875.
My dear Schäfer,--I have to apologise for having left your last
letter so long unanswered, but there has really been nothing
going on here to make it worth while writing.
I gave my careful consideration to all you said about publishing,
and at one time nearly decided to wait another year. But
eventually I sent in the paper.[9] It seems to me that the
histology can very well wait for future treatment--that its
absence is not sufficient justification for withholding the
results I have already observed. These results, after all,
are the most important; for they prove that some structural
modification there _must_ be; whether or not this modification
is _visible_ is of subordinate interest. Besides, I do not,
of course, intend to abandon the microscopical part of the
subject altogether. In my view, inquiry into function in this
case must certainly always precede inquiry into structure; for
although, when all the work shall have been collected into one
monograph, the histology must occupy the first place in order of
presentation, very little way could have been made by following
this order of investigation.
I also had to reflect, that if I postponed publication, it would
be impossible to expect the R.S. to publish the results _in
extenso_,--_i.e._, I should have to bring out the work through
some other medium.
And in addition to all this, there came a letter from Foster
preaching high morality about it being the duty of all scientific
workers to give their results to others as soon as possible.
As I said before, I thank you very much for the consideration and
advice you have given, but I know that you would not like me to
feel that the expression of your opinion in a matter with which
you are not so fully acquainted as myself should lay me under any
obligation to be led by it, after mature consideration seemed to
show that the best course for me to follow was the one which I
took.
Hoping soon to see you, I remain, very sincerely yours,
GEO. J. ROMANES.
P.S.--I forgot to say that I acted upon your suggestion about the
Linnean, and have been proposed by Darwin, Hooker, and Huxley.
_From C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes._
Down, Beckenham, Kent: July 12, 1875.
I am correcting a second edition of 'Var. under Dom.,' and
find that I must do it pretty fully. Therefore I give a short
abstract of potato graft hybrids, and I want to know whether I
did not send you a reference about beet. Did you look to this,
and can you tell me anything about it? I hope with all my heart
that you are getting on pretty well with your experiments; I have
been led to think a good deal on the subject, and am convinced
of its high importance, though it will take years of hammering
before physiologists will admit that the sexual organs only
collect the generative elements.
The edition will be published in November, and then you will see
all that I have collected, but I believe that you saw all the
more important cases. The case of vine in 'Gardeners' Chronicle'
which I sent you I think may only be a bud-variation, not due to
grafting.
I have heard indirectly of your splendid success with nerves of
Medusæ. We have been at Abinger Hall for a month for rest which I
much required, and I saw there the cut-leaved vine, which seems
splendid for graft hybridisation.
Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
_To C. Darwin_, _Esq._
Dunskaith: July 14, 1875.
I was very glad to receive your letter, having been previously
undecided whether to write and let you know how I am getting on,
or to wait until I got a veritable hybrid.
In one of your letters you advised me to look up the 'beet'
case, but I could nowhere find any references to it. Dr. Hooker
told me that although he could not then remember the man's name,
he remembered that the experimenter did not save the seed, but
dug up his roots for exhibition. I forget whether it was Dr.
Masters, Bentham, or Mr. Dyer who told me that the experiment
had been performed in Ireland, although they could not remember
by whom. But if the experimenter did not save the seed, the mere
fact of his sticking two roots together would have no bearing on
Pangenesis, and so I did not take any trouble to find out who the
experimenter was.
As you have heard about the Medusæ, I fear you will infer that
they must have diverted my attention from Pangenesis; but
although it is true that they have consumed a great deal of
time and energy, I have done my best to keep Pangenesis in the
foreground.
The _proximate_ success of my grafting is all that I can desire,
although, of course, it is as yet too early in the year to know
what the _ultimate_ success will be. I mean that, although I
cannot yet tell whether the tissue of one variety is affecting
that of the other, I have obtained intimate adhesion in the great
majority of experiments. Potatoes, however, are an exception,
for at first I began with a method which I thought very cunning,
and which I still think would have been successful but for one
little oversight. The method was to punch out the eyes with an
electroplated cork-borer, and replace them in a flat-bottomed
hole of a slightly smaller size made with another instrument in
the other tuber. The fit, of course, was always perfect; but
what I went wrong in was not having the cork-borers made of the
best steel; for after I got about one hundred potatoes planted
out, I found that the inserted plugs did not adhere. I therefore
tried some sections with an exceedingly sharp knife that surgeons
use for amputating, and the surfaces cut with this always adhered
under pressure. The knife, however, must be set up in a guide,
in order to get the surfaces perfectly flat. Next year I shall
get cork-borers made of the same steel as this knife is made
of, and then hope to turn out graft-hybrids by the score. Even
this year, however, a great many of my potatoes are coming up,
so I hope that some of the eyes may have struck. I think it is
desirable to get some easy way of experimenting with potatoes
(such as the cork-boring plan), and one independent of delicacy
in manipulation, for then everybody could verify the results for
himself, and not, as now, look with suspicion upon the success of
other people.
With beans I get very good adhesion of the young shoots, but the
parts which grow after the operation always continue separate. In
some cases I am trying a succession of operations as the plant
grows.
With beetroots and mangold-wurzel of all varieties, adhesion is
certain to occur with my method of getting up great pressure by
allowing the plants to grow for a few days inside the binding. I
have therefore made grafts of all ages, beginning with roots only
an inch or two long and as thin as threads.
The other vegetables also are doing well, but with flowers I have
had no success. The vine-cuttings were too young to do anything
with this year, but I hear from my cousin, who has charge
of them, that they are doing well. They certainly have very
extraordinary leaves.
This year I never expected to be more than one in which to gain
experience, for embryo grafting, as it has never been tried by
anybody, cannot be learned about except by experiments. But as I
am a young man yet, and hope to do a good deal of 'hammering,' I
shall not let Pangenesis alone until I feel quite sure that it
does not admit of being any further driven home by experimental
work; and even if I never get positive results, I shall always
continue to believe in the theory.
I am very sorry to hear that you 'much needed rest,' and do
earnestly hope that you will not work too hard over the new
edition of one of the most laborious treatises in our language--a
treatise to which we always refer for every kind of information
that we cannot find anywhere else.
Dunskaith: November 7.
I have to-day sent you a beautifully successful graft. It is
of a red and white carrot, each bisected longitudinally, and
two of the opposite halves joined. You will see that the union
is very intimate, and _that the originally red half has become
wholly white_. The graft was made about three months ago, at
which time the carrots were very small, but the colours very
decided. I think, therefore, that unless red carrots ever turn
into white ones--which, I suppose, is absurd--the specimen I
send is a graft-hybrid so far as the parts in contact are
concerned. It will be of great importance, as you observed in
your last letter, in a case like this, to see if the other parts
are affected--_i.e._ to get the plant to seed if possible. This,
I suppose, can only be done at this late season with so young
a plant by putting it in a greenhouse. Perhaps, therefore, you
might pot it, as soon as it arrives, and keep it till I go up.
If you do not care, to take charge of it altogether, I can then
get a home for it somewhere in the South. It will not require a
deep pot, for I see that I have cut through the end of one of
the roots. It would be as well, before potting, to cut off the
end of the other root also, so that the one half may not grow
longer than the other, and thus perhaps assert an undue amount
of influence during the subsequent history of the hybrid. If
the plant when you get it, or after potting, shows signs of
drooping, I should suggest clipping off the older leaves to check
evaporation: having found this a good plan with beets, &c.
In the same box with the hybrid there is another carrot. This is
for comparison, it having been from the same seed and grafted
(upon the crown) at the same time as the originally red half of
the hybrid.
I am doubtful about the potatoes I sent. On looking over a number
of 'red flukes,' I find some here and there are mottled. At any
rate, I shall try other varieties next year, and not say anything
about this doubtful case.
I forgot to say that the hybrid carrot is the only specimen
of longitudinal grafting which I tried with carrots, having
been somewhat disheartened with this method by the persistent
way in which beets and mangolds refuse to blend when grafted
longitudinally. There have thus been no _failures_ with carrots
grafted in this way.
If it is not too late, I may suggest that the passage in the
'Variation' about the deformity of the sternum in poultry had
better be modified. I have this year tried some experiments
upon Brahma chickens, and find that the deformity in question
is caused by lazy habits of roosting--the constantly recurring
pressure of the roost upon the cartilaginous sternum causing
it to yield at the place where the pressure is exerted. The
experiments consisted merely in confining some of a brood of
young chickens in a place without any roost, and allowing the
others to go about with all the March chickens. The former lot
have the sternum quite straight, and the latter lot have it
deeply notched.
I write to thank you for the copy of the new edition of the
'Variation' which I received a few days ago. I am very glad to
see that you have thought my views about rudimentary organs worth
a place, and that you speak so well of them.
The chapter on Pangenesis is admirable. The case is so strong,
that it makes me more anxious than ever to get positive results
in this year's experiments. I mean there seems less doubt
than ever that such results must be obtainable if one hammers
long enough. I did not know that there were so many cases of
graft-hybridisation in potatoes. Perhaps it will be better this
year to give one's _main_ energies to other vegetables.
I find that a German, Dr. Eimer, is on the scent of the
jelly-fish, but he does not seem to have done much work as
yet. It is arranged that I am to have a Friday evening at the
Institution soon after Easter, to tell the people about my own
work.
_From C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes._
6 Queen Anne Street: April 29, 1876.
I must have the pleasure of saying that I have just heard that
your lecture was a splendid success in all ways. I further hear
that you were as cool as the Arctic regions. It is evident
that there is no occasion for you to feel your pulse under the
circumstances which we discussed.
Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
_To C. Darwin, Esq._
I write to thank you for the slip about graft hybrids, and to
say that as yet I have obtained no results myself. This place
is too far north to admit of the seeds ripening properly after
the plants have been thrown back several weeks by the operation.
This applies especially to onions, so next year--the neck of
Medusæ having now been broken--I intend to wait in London till
all the grafting and planting out is finished. I do not think you
will regret my not having followed such a course this year when
you come to read the paper I am now writing. I never did such a
successful four months' work, and if as many years suffice to
answer all the burning questions that are raised by it, I think
they will require to be years well spent.
And this makes me remember that I have to apologise for the
inordinate time I have kept your copy of Professor Häckel's essay
on Perigenesis. Since you sent it I have scarcely had any time
for reading, and as you said there was no hurry about returning
it, I have let it stand over till this paper is off my hands.
Lankester seems to have doubled up Slade in fine style. I suppose
the latter has always trusted to his customers not liking to
resort to violent methods. His defence in the 'Times' about the
locked slates was unusually weak. 'Once a thief always a thief'
applies, I suppose, to his case; but it is hard to understand
how Wallace could not have seen him inverting the table on his
head. In this we have another of those perplexing contradictions
with which the whole subject appears to be teeming. I do hope
next winter to settle for myself the simple issue between Ghost
_versus_ Goose.
Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,
GEO. J. ROMANES.
_To C. Darwin, Esq._
18 Cornwall Terrace.
Professor Häckel's paper on the Medusæ is called 'Beitrag zur
Naturgeschichte der Hydromedusen' (Leipzig, 1865). Professor
Huxley has lent me his copy, but says he wants it returned in
a week or two. I ought certainly to have the work by me next
summer, so I thought that if you happen to have it and can
spare it till next autumn, I need not send to Germany for it,
remembering what you said when I last saw you. I should also much
like to see the other paper of Häckel's about cutting up the ova
of Medusæ.
I have an idea that you are afraid I am neglecting Pangenesis for
Medusæ. If so, I should like to assure you that such is not the
case. Last year I gave more time to the former than to the latter
inquiry; and although the results proved very disproportionate,
this was only due to the fact that the one line of work was more
difficult than the other. However, I always expected that the
first year would require to be spent in breaking up the ground,
and I am quite satisfied with the experience which this work has
brought me. I confess, however, that but for personal reasons
I should have postponed Pangenesis and worked the Medusæ right
through in one year. There is a glitter about immediate results
which is very alluring.