1-ii 5.06 (73) Ha EVOLUTTKJ 1927-38 100115223 3^ 1^ k%i 5^ .% FOR THE PEOPLE FOR EDVCATION FOR SCIENCE LIBRARY OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY A N 'ainJOJ^S ^^ aaoNiaiiinw / / ^ / / / f Number 3 February, 1928 7 ^ / J 10 Cents ^ ^ -^-\f ¥1.00 per year. Y fEvol I 96 r ution Publishing: Corp., Fifth Avenue. New York. A JOURNAL OF NATURE Monthly Second / A y ^ Courtesy of National I'urlrait Gallery, London, ami Bobbs-Merrilt Company ^^J r ^ ^ / f THE GREAT EMANCIPATOR OF THE HUMAN INTELLECT CHARLES DARWIN Born February 12, 1809 Pace Two EVOLUTION February, 1928 How Charles Darwin and Alfred A. Wallace Discovered Evolution By Alexander Goldenweiser ON the 18th of June, 1858, Charles Darwin received a letter from Alfred Russell Wallace, then naturaliz- ing in far-away lands. The letter contained a paper by Wallace "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Inde- finitely from the Original Type." On the same day Dar- win wrote to his friend Lyell, the geologist, expressing the fear that he, Darwin, had been "forestalled". The fact of the matter was that Darwin himself had for years been interested in the problem the solution of which had come to Wallace in a moment's "flash of insight". And Wallace's flash corresponded to Darwin's own — he also had thought of "natural selection' as the process by means of which new species arose. Now Darwin was in a quandary. He hesitated to pub- lish, fearing unfairness to Wallace, but he was not in- different to the prestige and fame which his own findings deserved and were certain to earn. Finally he was pre- vailed upon by his frinds, Lyell, Hooker, the botanist, and Huxley, the biologist, to have both papers presented at a meeting of the Linnaean Society. On July 1st. 1858, a report was read to the Society by its Secretary con- sisting of Wallace's paper, an extract from Darwin's sketch written in 1814 — thus definitely establishing his priority — and part of Darwin's letter to Asa Grey, the naturalist, written in 1857. The theory of natural selection was launched on its path which was to prove thorny but ultimately triumph- ant. Darwin went to work at once on his book which was finally off'ered to the public on November 24th, 1859, under the title "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". The full data embodying the results of Darwin's painstaking investigations were not published until eight years later (1868) in his two vol- ume work on "The Variation of Animals and Plants un- der Domestication". Finally in 1871 Darwin followed this up with his "Descent of Man" in which the argu- ment, heretofore including only the lower animals, was extended to man. What then was this theory of natural selection, ar- rived at independently by two scientists, one working with wild nature, the other inspired by the same observa- tions but experimenting subsequently with domesticated breeds? The initial observation made by Wallace and Darwin was this: They found that species of animals or birds placed by nature in spots of relative isolation, such as islands, while preserving enough similarity to their con- tinental relatives to make their original identity recogniz- able, varied in diff^erent directions thus developing new species. This discovery, certain as a fact but so far in- explicable, disposed of the then prevailing idea of the immutability of species, an idea supported by scientific authority and strongly entrenched in theological dogma. Both Darwin and Wallace were now certain of the fact of variation. It remained to discover a mechanism by means of which it could be explained. Darwin's ap- proach was through controlled experimentation, notably with pigeons. By interbreeding slight variants in size, form or coloration, he succeeded in producing a large variety of new forms, which, when subsequently mated with individuals of the same peculiarities, proved to breed true, that is to preserve the recently acquired traits. Here Darwin was the selecting agency. The problem re- mained unsolved so long as no corresponding principle was found which would operate with similar results in nature. While continuing his experiments and pondering over the results Darwin received a hint from Malthus' famous essay "On Population" in which Malthus argues that whereas population increased in a geometrical ratio, food supply increased in an arithmetical ratio. A situation was therefore found to arise in which not enough food would be available for all the hungry mouths. In applying this notion to the conditions found in wild nature Darwin finally hit upon the idea that wild life in nature was to be thought of as a struggle — a struggle for life, for substance — in which those in some way better adjusted to their environment — "the fittest", the "favored races" — survived, lived longer, left more progeny among whom the traits of size, shape, color, etc., which had favored the parent animals were likely to be represented to the same or even greater extent. The others — the less favored ones — having briefer lives and leaving fewer offspring, ultimately died out. In this way it came about, for example, that arctic bears, foxes, or hares developed white coloration which was foreign to their ancestors, that the Bengal tiger who lived in tall grass wears stripes — a protective device de- creasing his visibility — , that the predatory cats — the tiger, leopard, jaguar, panther, wild cat, — have sharp powerful incisors, long fine disappearing claws, and can see at night, that numerous insects are in color or in shape so much like the grass, bark, branch, they live in or on as to be practically invisible, and so on and on through the entire range of animal kingdom. It must be noted here that the theory of natural selec- tion took such initial variations for granted and then attempted to account for their propagation by the purely external process of selective survival. But whence the variations? And how account for their inheritance and enhancement? Tlie problem of initial variations Darwin never solved; with the problem of heredity he dealt in his theory of Pangenesis. Of this theory, of the reception accorded the hypothesis of natural selection and of the valiant battles fought in its name by Darwin's friend, Thomas H. Huxley, I shall write in the next issue. February, 1928 EVOLUTION Pace Three Eightieth Anniversary of Hugo De Vries By J. C. Th. Uphof ON die sixteenth of February the eightieth birthday anniversary of one of our greatest and most active biologists, Hugo De Vries, will be celebrated throughout the civilized world. De Vries was born Febru- ary 16th 1848 in Haarlem. Netherlands. The study of botany attracted him at an early age. He studied at the University of Leiden and be- came greatly interested in work on plant physiology. Later he conducted researches in the laboratory of Julius Sachs in Wurzburg, Germany, which made him widely known in the botanical world. He became intensely interest- ed in the origin of species, especially among plants. In Darwin's day it was sup- posed, not as a certainty but just as a hypothesis, that new species originated gradually with but very slight changes. Dr. Hugo De Vries, then a professor of botany at the University of Amsterdam, was one of many scientists who endeavored to solve by ex- periment the problem of how new species originated. In 1885 when botanizing not far from Hilversum near Amsterdam, he found in a neglected field many speci- mens of a well known evening primrose, Oenothera Lamar ckiana. Among them he discovered some hereto- fore unknown species that had escaped the botanists. De Vries gathered seeds of 0. Lamarckiana and also of the new forms. They were sown in the experimental section of the botanical garden in Amsterdam. These unknown species came true from seed. But to his sur- prise De Vries found also that some new species oc- curred among the thousands of plants of 0. Lanmrckuina. Some were the same as those that he had found wild, but there were also novel ones. These species originated from the mother plant, so to speak, with a leap or muta- tion. Upon this De Vries built his Mutation Theory. Later other investigators strengthened this Theory of Mutations by demonstrating the occurrence of such sud den variations among other plants and animals. Hugo De Vries' name is also widely known in con- nection with the Law of Mendel, which has taken such a prominent place in the study of genetics and the origin of species. De Vries' book "Die Mutalionstheorie" whicli was published at the beginning of this century attracted Hugo De Vries world-wide attention and will be important for all time. Although Hugo De Vries retired as professor of bot- any from the University of Amsterdam on his seventieth birthday he still shows great interest in his work which is continuously proven by his many publications. He still conducts zealously his re- searches in the laboratory and experimental garden on his estate in Lunteren in Gelder- land province, Netherlands. Through his enormous en- ergy and love for science Hugo De Vries laid the basis of genetics, namely the study of heredity and of variations, which forms the foundation of our biological sciences, of eugenics and last but not least of plant and animal breeding. Hugo De Vries, who made such brilliant discoveries and far reaching conclusions and who has thrown so much light upon experimental evolution may therefore with all respect be called the successor of Charles Darwin. We all join his many stu- dents of the Universities of Amsterdam and of California, where he lectured for some time, .and the people of the Netherlands by whom he is greatly beloved, in wishing Hugo De Vries in his own native tongue a "Nog vele gelukkige en voorspoedige jaren sij U toegewenscht." Patch of Evening Primrose in Holland, where De Vries discovered mutation, showing mutant in foreground. Pace Four EVOLUTION February, 1928 Science Bridges Gaps in Evolution of Man By Bakkow Lyons CINCE John T. Scopes stood before a jury of his peers two years ago in the famous trial at Dayton, Tenn., science has unearthed a large amount of new evidence which reinforces the argument in favor of the Darwinian view of evolution — that man and the modern man-like apes sprang from a common ancestral stock. Nothing has been brought to light, however, which traces the line of descent more clearly than the study of teeth made by Dr. William K. Gregory and Dr. Milo Hellman of the American Museum of Natural History. The evidence consists of fossil remains of apes and prehistoric men, teeth and bones of existing primitive types and similar records of the most highly civilized men. Teeth time and again have been the key in tracing the development of species. They are harder than other portions of the body and preserve the intricate patterns which trace the growth and adaptation of animals to their environment, often revealing habits of living which no other portions of the fossils divulge. The patterns upon the grinding teeth in the American Museum collection of apes and men illustrate the de- velopment of the human species from its ape ancestors just as clearly as fossil remains show the development of the modern elephant with the multiple folds in its grinding teeth, from the African predecessors of the mastodon, which had but two or three ridges on its molars. They show man's marvelous change froin a forest creature into a cultured, social being as clearly as another fossil group shows the development of the modern horse from a creature about the size of a fox. which ran over the open plains millions of years ago. While the ihain of evidence goes back further than the point at which the split between the apes and man apparently occurred, the immediate ancestor of each branch seems to have been a widely scattered fossil form found both in Europe and Asia. It is quite pos- sible that none of the actual fossils that have been found were of the species from which modern forms descended. There undoubtedly were many more species at one time than we have records of, and some of these which have left no trace may have been the actual ancestors. Yet, it may very well be that Dryopilhecus rhenanus. found in the Miocene deposits of Germany, may have been our own particular ancestor for the res'uiblances to prehistoric man are, in some respects, very striking. The Miocene deposits in which they were found date back some 2,000.000 years. Next come the Piltdown fragments found in England in the lower Pleistocene, or early glacial period of more A. Palate oj fossil Neanderthal man ( Le Moustier) ; B. Second upper molar oj Le Moustier; C. Second upper molar oj jossil ape Dryopithecus; D. Loner molar oj Dryopilhecus; E. Ehringsdorj- Child. than 500,000 years ago. Then the Heidelberg man of tile first inter-glacial period aliout 350,000 years ago. Then in succession the Ehringsdorf man of early Nean- derthal times, 50,000 years back; the Mousterian youth of the later Neanderthal period, perhaps 30,000 years ago; C'ro-magnon man of 20,000 years ago and then the INeolithic men of about 15,000 years ago. The latter Here more advanced tlian some of the primi- tive races today, like the Australian bushmen, and were the early representatives of modern, European man. The evidence which Drs. Gregory and Hellman have presented is based largely upon an examination of first ;'nd second molars and first and second premolars, or Lower Grinding Teeth of the Lejt Side.- -A. B. Fossil Dryopithecus jaws jroin India; C. Fossil jrom D. Modern White; E. Modern India. Piltdown. England ^Dnutiman) , February. 1928 EVOLUTION Page Five bicuspids. Yet, underlying the study of structure of these teeth is the fact that the whole dental formula is identical in all the forms examined, from Dryopithecus to modern man — two incisors, one canine tooth, two premolars and three molars on each side and in upper and lower jaws. Likewise, the dental formula for the milk teeth in all human races, all anthropoid apes and fossil monkeys is identical. An amazing observation in connection with these teeth is that the crown patterns on the teeth of prehistoric men and some of the primitive living tribes are nearer the crown patterns found upon the fossil teeth of great- grand-uncle Dryopithecus than upon the teeth of civil- ized man. So far as teeth go, the Australian bushmen, some of the remote African tribes and certain Indian tribes are nearer the Old World apes than to you and me. Considering the structure of teeth the gaps in the chain of evidence are closed. There are no "missing links". How Man Differs From The Ape By Bernharu J. Stern I. ANATOMICALLY IN 1860, when the Darwinian controversy was being fought out in England, Thomas Huxley was asked by Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford, whether "it was thru his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent from a monkey." Huxley's mordant answer is now a classic: "I have asserted and I repeat that a man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there was an ancestor I should feel ashamed of recalling, it would be rather a man, a man of restless and versatile intellect, who not content with success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scien- tific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them with aimless rhetoric, and to dis- tract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions and skilled appeals to religious prejudice!" Were Huxley living today when we know more about the relation between man and the apes, he would have been all the more emphatic in his assertion that man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for an ancestor, or rather a relative. Man in his eagerness to rationalize his own futility, and to compensate for his own short- comings, usually exaggerates the differences between him- self and his next of kin to the disadvantage of the apes. In two articles, we shall analyze these differences, devot- ing this article to anatomical differences and the second to psychological differences. Much romantic nonsense has been written about the importance of the structural differences between man and apes. Drummond, for example, speaks of man alone as having the ability to appreciate divinity because his pos- ture permits him to raise his eyes from the ground to look heavenward. We shall resist phantasy and devote our attention to actual observable differences. Look at your hand. Move your thumb. Notice that it can be swung toward or from any other finger; it is "op- posable" as • ;anatomists say. This makes the hand effective in holding and using tools. The thumb of an anthropoid ape is much shorter than the human thumb and it cannot be moved toward and from the other digits. An ape therefore, finds it difficult, sometimes impossible, to pick up a pin between his thumb and forefinger. When he drops to the ground he walks on his knuckles and his toelike thumb is useless. Gregory, Keith and McGregor point out, however, that this difference is functional rather than structural. There are exactly the same number of fingers, exactly the same number of bones in each finger, and the bones are positioned in the same way. Even the fingers of the hand move in the same way. Wiggle your fingers sep- arately and in pairs and you will observe that III and IV are paired and set off against II and V. Notice how much easier it is to move III and IV together than II and III. The tendons are arranged in the same manner in the chimpanzee where the same pairing is found as in the human hand. Furthermore, the embryologist, Schultz, has shown that in the human embryo the thumb is not opposable but is like that of a gorilla or chimpanzee, a thumb that must become rotated to become human. Man's big toe, which is a powerful lever on which the whole body can be raised and which is therefore a me- chanical device for walking, is distinctively human, for the big toe of the ape is not a toe at all but rather a thumb. To convert the foot of a gorilla into that of a man. Dr. Gregory has shown that the big toe must be extended and rotated so that it rests flat on the ground instead of facing the other toes. The bones of the toes must be shortened and made to lie parallel so that the foot is narrowed, and the foot must be turned to lie down rather than in. Schultz has shown that this is exactly what happens to the foot of the human embryo in the course of its development. The difference between the brain of the anthropoid and of man has been much discussed but recently Pro- fessor Tilney has contended that the brain of the gorilla is manlike in all fundamentals, and Dr. Smith has said "No structure found in the brain of an ape is lacking in the human brain, and on the other hand the human brain reveals no formation of any sort that is not pres- ent in the brain of the gorilla or chimpanzee. So far as we can judge, the only distinctive feature of the humati brain is a quantitative one, namely a marked increase in the extent of three areas in the cerebral cor- tex . . . which are relatively smaller in the brain of the anthropoid apes." When it is realized that both literally and figuratively nian uses only a very small fraction of his brain matter, it will be recognized that this differ- ence is not as important as is commonly assumed. Next month: How Man Differs from the Ape: Psy- chologically. Page Six EVOLUTION Febkuary, 1928 What Can Children Inherit ? By Henshaw Ward n^HE student of heredity will tell you that no abuse of body •'- or mind can be inherited, and that no good training of body or mind can be inherited. He would go so far as to say that the following imaginary case illustrates the truth: "Take a pair of infants (a boy and a girl) to a wilderness and bring them up without any education of body or mind; take another pair of infants who have inherited the same qualities as the first pair and give them every advantage of good breeding; let each paii mate and produce a son; the son bom in the wilderness will have as much ability as the son born in fortunate surroundings. I am not saying that this imaginary case represents the whole truth, nor that all biologists are agreed as to what the truth is. I am just giving an example to show picturesquely the two elements of life that biologists dispute about — (1) the germ-cell by which qualities are transmitted to children; (2) the bodily and mental changes produced in a person after he is born. All the influences that act upon a person (such as climate, food, training, accidents) are called the "environment." The effects of the environment upon an idividual, (for example, loss of a finger, skill in using a revolver, a morphine habit) are called "acquired characters." The great debate in biology for the past seventy years has been on the question: Can acquired char- acters be inherited? During these seventy years the opinion of scholars has steadily grown stronger that acquired characters cannot be inherited. This judgment of science seems harsh to conscientious parents. It seems wicked to some hopeful social reformers, because it seems to say, "No matter how much you improve the surround- ings and education of this generation, none of the improvement can be inherited by the next generation." It seems to say that heredity is everything and environment nothing, so that men are born to a certain condition in life. It seems to favor a caste system where those unfortunately born cannot rise. Hence it is disliked. People are always eager for proof that acquired char- acters can be inherited. There are still a few of these bringers of glad tidings in the laboratories. Though the vote of biologists is a very heavy majority against them, the decision is not unanimous. And recently some of the leading students of heredity have been telling us that we don't know what "environment" means or how environment may effect germ-cells or how characters are formed in germ-cells. Only the other day a biologist declared to me, "Within the last three years I have entirely revised my notion of what the genes are." Hence the layman who wants to read about heredity may find two noted scientists seeming to dispute one another, and so may give up in confusion. I will try to show that the confusion is mostly a matter of words. Biologists are not really at loggerheads about the main points at issue, nor do their revised notions of the genes give them very different conceptions of what children can inherit. They are pretty well agreed on a theory of inheritance, and a layman can understand what it is. If you wish knowledge, you must, in the first place, put out of your mind all anger. A man who wants to uplift society or improve his children cannot succeed by ramming his emotions against the hard facts of biology. You must, in the second place, read a description of the way every individual begins his life by the union of two cells. (The best brief account that I know of is Chapter XVI of L. L. Woodruff's "Foundations of Biology.") In this short article there is only room to name the facts, without giving any explanation. The egg (a cell 1/200 of an inch in diameter) contains within itself, potentially, all the elements for the making of an entire human being. The sperm (a cell only 1/8000 of an inch in diameter) also contains all the elements of an entire person. But neither cell can develop alone. A new human life does not begin until the sperm has penetrated the egg. Then the elements from the mother and the father are mingled in one cell; this divides into two cells; each of these two cells divides into two others; and so, as the embryo develops, the cells increase in number until there are millions of them. All the while the embryo lives as a kind of parasite within the mother, having its own system of blood-circulation. The number of cells in- creases to billions. There are trillions of them at birth. Thus every one of us began life as a very small and infinitely complex organism, which contained the characters inherited from the father and mother. If the environment can ever affect heredity, it must manage somehow to penetrate a parent's body and alter the germ-cell in some definite corresponding way. The more familiar science becomes with the powers of germ-cells, the more difficult it is to imagine a way in which an environment could get at them. No biologist believes nowadays that any effect of the environ- ment on a woman's body or mind can enter into an embryo and pioduce a corresponding alteration that can enter into the inher- itance of her children. For example, if she is frightened by a bear or a bright light, her child will not have claws or a white spot on its body. If a hundred successive generations of Chinese mothers bind their feet, or a hundred generations of Jewish boys are circumcised, no effect of these long-continued bodily changes is ever inherited. During the past thirty years the biologists have been steadily abandoning the supposed cases of the inheritances of acquired characters. It is not likely that any student of germ-cells now believes that skill in penmanship can penetrate an egg and be born in a child. No amount of training for the mile run can cause a sperm to build larger muscles in an embryo. No amount of education in religion or logarithms or atheism or burglary can enter into a germ-cell and build more mathematical or bur- glarious brains. The possible cases of inherited effects of training are very few and not well accredited. Now that we have seen the field where practically all scholars are unanimous in their opinion, we are prepared to look at the edge of the field, at the boundary where the battles of conflict- ing opinion rage. I can illustrate what all the battles are about bv citing three extreme statements of eminent professors. In each one you will see that the man has encountered a flood of ignorance and foolishness, that he has done good by scornfully exposing folly, but that, for the sake of making bis point, he has gone further than the whole truth warrants. 1. There is much folly talked by educated people about the • inheritance of ways of behaving. They assume that gentlemanly conduct or vicious habits of life are inherited. But John B. Watson of Columbia finds no shred of evidence that any such inheritance of conduct is possible. Conduct, he finds, is a matter of the training that an individual receives. Therefore Watson makes the extreme statement: We have no real evidence of the inheritance of mental traits ... I would feel perfectly confident in the ulti- mately favorable outcome of careful upbringing of a healthy well-formed baby born of a long line of crooks, murderers and thieves, and prostitutes. . . . Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in, and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might se- lect— into a doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant, chief. Watson's extraordinary claim can never be proved or dis- proved, because he cannot have his own specified world in which to experiment. He has doubtless stated a fifty per cent truth, for it seems likely that criminals and business men are largely shaped by their environment, and not by inheritance of mental traits. But most psychologists and biologists are compelled to believe that many persons are born with such mental equipment that they could never be great musicians or artists. 2. The most important idea in twentieth-century study of heredity has been "Mendelism," the theory of the way in which bodily characters are formed in germ-cells by certain definite February, 1928 EVOLUTION Page Seven parts of the cell mechanism, sometimes visible under the micro- scope, called '"genes." In the early days of research men talked with easy assurance of how every character was formed by a certain gene or part of a gene. But lately it has been found that the process of embryo-building is by no means so simple: we now know that even a slight character may be shaped by the interaction of dozens of genes, perhaps of hundreds. Much of the theorizing about inheritance is now seen to be erroneous. So H. S. Jennings of Joluis Hopkins was moved to write a little book, "Prometheus," in which he spoke strongly of the miscon- ceptions. He is one of the most careful men in his profession. The characteristics of the adult are no more present in the germ-celis than are those of an automobile in the metal- lic ores out of wliich it is ultimately manufactured. . . The characteristics that appear under training are as much inherited characters as are those appearing under other conditions. If a college debater quoted those sentences out of context, liis audience would suppose that Jennings is disputing the whole world of biologists. But actually he is doing nothing of the sort. He is engaged in an abstruse argument about the way biologists use certain terms, and he has gone so far in stressing a point for experts that he misleads a non-technical reader. He himself foresaw that he would be misunderstood and tried to avoid the danger by saying in a footnote: Nothing in the text relates to the effect of education on the descendants of the educated person. And that effect is all that concerns us in this arlicle. The quotations from Jennings are typical of how a line of sound reasoning may be perverted, and so deceive us, when a bit of it is cited in another line of reasoning. 3. A very influential writer on heredity is Raymond Pearl, also of Johns Hopkins. He contributed to the Mercury for November, 1927, a slashing article about the fallacies that are making eugenics absurd. It was a wholesome article that will do a lot of good. At one point he remarked fiercely: Heredity does not mean that like produces like. If any competent biologist reads the whole arlicle and gets Pearl's drift, he might not object to the extreme statement. But if it were used, out of context, by a debater, it would appear to say that the children of lunatics are just as likely to have good minds as the children of sensible and intellectual people. Be wary when you hear any such extravagant statement which seems to bowl over the foundation facts of heredity. One ad- mirer of both Pearl and Jennings has said of their popular essays, "These are insidious because they mislead the general reader." The foundation facts of heredity are not altered everj' time a cytologist tries to true up the tricky uses of technical terms. The facts still stand as the basis of biology after all the assaults of the last thirty years. They were admirably summed up by G. Kingsley Noble, a curator of the American Museum, the man who exposed the fraud in Kammerer's experiments. He wrote for Natural History: Heredity gives an animal more potential characters than can ever develop. Environment determines which of these shall appear, but it cannot produce characters which are not provided for by heredity. The actual inheritance of an animal is thus ultimately dependent on the original com- plement of genes. . . . All inheritable adaptations have arisen independent of the environment. There is not yet any proof that the human animal can produce characters which are not provided for by heredity. He cannot, by any sort of education, create new genes in his sperms or eggs. A child cannot inherit any training — good or bad — of a parent's body or mind. It can inherit only what is provided in germ-cells. Does the judgment of science seem pessimistic to you? It is just the contrary. As for environment, its importance is not diminished; an improved environment can be a blessing to each succeeding generation without being put into germ-cells. And as for not inheriting good training, think of the other side of the matter. Think of how children are safeguarded by not being able to inherit the bad training. If we sentimental human beings could change the process of inheritance, and if we made the follies of parents inheritable, the human race would soon die. Life, Love and Civilization By George A. Dorsey EX came into life about fifty million years ago. It brought Love and led to the peacock and civilization. Life is older than sex. The love to live is the older passion — so strong that man invented religions to rob death of its sting and the grave of its victory. But man's love for woman is a passion second only, if at all, lo that of man's love for life. This must be so. Sex is nature's device to make life richer, more economical, more enduring, and less the sport of chance. Having built sex into bodies and hav- ing charged sex with carrying on, nature has to see to il that sex does its work. From nature's point of view, mating is as important as living — not to mate is death (0 the stream of life. As long as the stream renews it- self, life flows on; without renewal, the stream runs dry. Or, look at it this way. Lowest organisms carry on iiy mere division — one body becomes two, two become four. One bacterium in a few hours produces billions, each potentially immortal. But mere division limits diversity — tlie "offspring" are all alike; there is little thance for heredity to work improvements, and the whole body has to stop its work to become two. Sex is the device to get around these limitations. It worked won- ders— it opened up new worlds of life; but it had to work, for the burden of handing life on was taken from division and put on multiplication. Sex had be- come the bearer of immortal life on earth. Whereas nature once said: Eat and divide; she now said: Eat, drink, and be married! Rape is no more a crime in nature's eyes than steal- ing a loaf of bread; both spring from primordial hun- ger. Fortunately, rape is rarely necessary. Civiliza- tion cannot choke the life out of nature — nor breed a lace of celibates or of vestal virgins. Nature did not stint the endowment of either sex. The lion may have more mane and a louder roar, but when it comes to a journey for a mate the lioness is ihe faster traveler. The female rat will brave a danger lo find a mate that only starvation pangs could make her face — and she will face it sooner than the male. Lions and rats are uncivilized. So are we all at birth. We cannot walk, we cannot talk — and left to ourselves would perish. Our hands can support our body, but our legs can not; our backbone is as yet fit only for a wriggle. Our body grows human; we learn to act like liumans. Meanwhile, who nourishes us? Who bore us? The male bird wears the fine feathers. In civilization he provides them — and wears them vicariously. This requires energy and strategy. Civilization is, of course, more than all this. It is the accumulated deeds done to make life secure and the prayers uttered to make life everlasting. It is also the heaped-up spoils man has laid at the feet of woman and hung on the walls of his home. Though life is older than love, they pooled their forces eons ago and have been partners ever since. They are as potent today as ever — they make up man's inheritance, they furni-sh the drive to civilization. Page Eight EVOLUTION February, 1928 EUOLUT(ON A Journal of Nature To combat bigotry and superstition and develop the open mind by popularizing natural science Published monthly by Evolution Publishing Corpobation 96 Fifth Ave., New York. N. Y. Telephone: Watkins 7587 L. E- Katterfeld, Managing Editor Subscription rate: One dollar per year In lists of five or more, fifty cents Single copy 10c; 20 or more 5c each Application as second class mail pending at Post Office in New Yorl;, N. Y. NUMBER 3 FEBRUARY, 1928 DARWIN WAS RIGHT On this anniversary of Charles Darwin's birthday let us bring to the attention of our neighbors the verdict rendered on Darwin's work by the recent Congress of the British Association for the Advance- ment of Science through its President, Sir Arthur Keith. After summing up in masterful fashion the unanimous evidence from a dozen fields of science, based on half a century of painstaking investigation, he concludes: "Was Darwin right when he said that man, under the action of biological forces which can be observed and measured, has been raised from a place among anthro- poid apes to that which he now occu- pies? The answer is YES. And in re- turning this verdict I speak but as fore- man of the jury — a jury which has been empaneled from men who have devoted a lifetime to weighing the evidence." The efforts of fundamentalist fanatics will prove futile. As the human race de- velops and progresses Charles Darwin will be honored more and more as the great emancipator of the human intellect. NASHVILLE Our hope that from the convention of the American Association for the Ad- vancement of Science, held recently at Nashville, Tennessee, there would come a courageous call to action to rally the friends of academic freedom against the fundamentalist reaction was not realized. The leaders of the organization seem to feel that by shutting their eyes to the danger it will disappear. However, at this Nashville convention a number of very notable contributions were made to the evolution literature. These will be reviewed in our next issue. THERE ARE OTHERS WHO CAN'T TELL By John M. Work T NOTICE that Edwin Tenney Brewster wants S. Parkes Cadman to tell when the soul entered into man. I should like to ask Mr. Brewster how evolution got started ; also when and how life entered into matter. There are multitudes of things which nobody knows. I believe in evolution, and I can ask Mr. Brewster as many unan- swerable questions as he can ask Mr. Cad- man. The present existence of the soul is as evident as the existence of the body. Whether or not the soul is immortal is a disputed question, but there is nothing in evolution which precludes its immor- tality, and many great thinkers — scientists and otherwise — believe it to be immortal. In short, this is just another way of saying that I do not see any good rea- son why different believers in evolution should attack one another's views upon extraneous questions in your periodical; but if you are going to let evolutionists of one type of religious or anti-religious views attack and ridicule the others, then I take it that you will let the others make reply in your columns too. ONCE MORE WE SAY IT In view of the mountainous mass of manuscripts received it is necessary to re-slate our policy: "Evolution will be non-political, so that all upholders of academic freedom can support and use it no matter how they differ on other sissues. It will be non- religious, never making any effort to re- concile science with religion. Nor will it make atheism its mission. It will carry thc' positive message of facts from every field of natural science and leave it to the reader to make his own mental re-adjust- ment." Articles "proving evolution by the bible" or claiming that the bible is bunk, or that "properly interpreted" the story of Gene- sis and modern science agree, or that every scientist must be an atheist, are alike foreign to the purpose of EvoLUnoN. Evolution is to tell in popular language what scientists have discovered about the processes of nature. We welcome articles: 1. Containing spe- cific proofs of evolution. 2. Championing the right of the schools to teach what- ever science has discovered. 3. Scientific news items. 4. News regarding the strug- gle with the fundamentalists. EVOLUTION DINNER The First Annual Evolution Dinner has now been set for Monday evening. March 19th. This will give an opportunity for the writers, supporters and readers of Evolution to get acquainted. Details in our next issue. INFINITY AT BAY By Ernest Untermann OCIENTISTS make great efforts to re- ^"^ fute fundamentalist illusions by evi- dences of evolution in skeletons, tissues, organs, limbs, teeth, skulls, vestiges of primitivisra in embryos, and the like. Such proofs impress only people who can use their brains freely. A regular fundamentalist suffers from brain paraly- sis due to the malignant growth of a complex which believes in god, free will and immortality. This complex is not cured by mere scientific argument or evidence. Hallu- cinations of belief defy science and de- cline proof. A believer always says: Just because my faith cannot prove its divinity, it must be believed. This is a case for the doctor, not for the lecturer. Kant said long ago: Even if god. free will and immortality cannot be proved by science, they should be believed for moral reasons. This may not impress a savage who makes his own idols by hand and smashes them when they don't deliver the goods. But it works evei7 time with the believer in an immaterial, supernatural, invisible, personal or diffused god. The scientist may ask: Why should I have to prove anything to a fellow who refuses to analyze his own belief by rea- .son, and why should not a fundamentalist be required to justify his belief by rea- soned proofs instead of mere assertion? But the fundamentalist will reply: Belief is inspired, not acquired. The scientist may counter: You can't believe without your brain. Will that shock the fundamentalist into reason? Not a bit. He will retort: My soul is not in any way attached to my brain. No mat- ter what my brain thinks, my soul knows god in ways independent of natural law. Now the scientist proves that any change in normal brain tissue and function by accident or disease makes all reasoning abnormal, and that all personality or soul is wiped out when the brain is wrecked. Does the fundamentalist feel that this hits him in the bull's eye? Why shou'd it? Prove to him that his brain with every idea in it. including his god complex, is a natural product of evolu- tion, and he will still cut your science into shreds with a knife that has neither blade nor handle. He believes that his soul can think of god, free will and im- mortality even after his whole body is dust, the earth wiped out. the sun, moon and stars reduced to broken atoms, and the universe a black void. He is face to face with his god even then, a hundred per cent, fundamentalist of twentieth cen- tury coinage in a state of pure inspira- tion, nothing up against nothing, the in- finite at bay against It. February, 1928 EVOLUTION Page Nine What Caused Noah's Flood? CONGRATULATIONS By Dr. J. Leon Williams In a discussion on evolution which took place in New York between the Rev. Dr. Straton, Fundamentalist leader, and Rev. Mr. Potter, the latter was evidently surprised and somewhat discomfited by a very adroit manoeuvre on the part of Dr. Straton during his speech. He said that an eminent scientist, a "professor in one of the great institutions of learning in Nebraska,'' had ivritten a book called "The New Geology" which sent all previous works on the subject and the theory of evolution into the lumber-room of discarded things. Mr. Potter was un- able to make any reply to this and, in the opinion of the judges, he lost the de- bate. The morning after the discussion I visited several of the largest bookstores in New York in the effort to procure this wonderful new work on geology. But no one consulted had even heard of it. But it really was in existence, and I eventu- ally secured the intellectual treasure. The eminent scientist from the great institution of learning turned out to be a teacher in a small sectarian college. I found that the author had taken his stand squarely on the Bible story of the Flood (or, at least, this was what he pretended) and the cause of the Food as the explanation of the more important geological changes on the surface of the earth. But, appreciating the difficulties of the Bible account of the causes of the Deluge, the author of "The New Geology" has apparently invented a theory of his own. He surmises that a huge meteorite or asteroid, or something of like character, came from somewhere in space and struck the earth and gave it such a shock that it set it badly wobbling and changed the inclination of its axis. But we will let Mr. Price tell his story in his own words. He says that "the hypothesis of a world catastrophe deals with the world as a whole, that is, it deals with the world in its planetary as- pects; and therefore this catastrophe must have been of an astronomical character. . . But the only astronomical cause which we can readily imagine as competent to bring about such results would be some- thing of the nature of a jar or shock from the outside, which would produce an ab- normal tidal action, resulting in great tidal waves sweeping twice daily around the earth from east to west, this wave traveling 1,000 miles an hour at the equa- tor." And then, after mentioning the ''in- conceivable amount of geological work" which this shock would produce, Mr. Price adds this: "In the meantime, the surface of the earth would be shattered and dis- located beyond all description; and twice each day, the oceans would sweep a mighty tidal wave around the world, attaining a maximum, every 150 days, of about six miles in height at the equator." Accom- panying the event were "storms such as the world has never since witnessed." There is not a single item in this theory of the cause of the Deluge which corresponds to the account given in the Bible, and yet these Fundamentalist stick- lers for a rigid adherence to the literal words of the Bible, as all divinely inspired, welcome, with every evidence of great joy, this new and purely imaginary theory of the cause of the Flood. The followers of Mr. Bryan are never weary of heaping scorn on what they call the "theories", "hypotheses" and "guesses" of evolution, but they will swallow whole, without a wince, an insane absurdity like this, for which there is not the slightest trace of evidence and in face of the fact that it con- tradicts the Bible story in every particular. Of course, no geologist of reputation will waste his time in any detailed attention to this travesty of science called "The New Geology." But I may permit myself one comment. When we contemplate the spectacle of Noah guiding that box with- out sail or rudder, through the most awful storms the world has ever known, climbing those mountainous waves six miles high and running 1,000 miles an hour, I am lost in admiration for the most consum- mate seamanship that has ever been ex- hibited in the history of navigation. Truly, there were sailors in those days! Sir Arthur Keith whose ringing declaration for Danvinism as President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science at the recent congress in Leeds was heard around the world, sends us the following:- My dear -Sir, 3rd January, 1928. May T C(5ngi-H tulate you on the outstnnding inei-lts of the firet number of "Evolution?" With a gfllaxy of tal'jnt, which nomprises Starr Jordan, W.K.Gregory, Henshaw War.i, A.G.IngallR, Maynard Shipley and many other nen who are recognised In all lands ap; leaders of taought, it could not be otherwise. I wish your venture, which Is a mission- ary enterprl.se of the highest Importance, every suoces,") . What effort deserves better than that which "I pads men and women to seek the truth - be the cost what It may- In your fir.st number you have laid hold of the one essential:- we must have liberty to pursue the truth. Be- yond doubt there Is with us as with you men so little with science and its ways that they would willingly re- sort to the old methods of the Snanish Inquisition for its suppression. For my part we have to fight not with arg\iments begotten of e-iotlo'n, pre.ludice and passion - hut .just the still small voice of truth telling how and why we have searched the world of life and what we have found there , you might send copies of "ivolution" to the Kditcr of Nature and to the Editor of the Lancet - both In London, enclosing a note to them to the effect that I would be glad to write short notices for their paners so that your .journal ma.y become known in England, '.Vith very best wishes. Believe me Yours sincerely, ^Z/v^iCt-^-'x^ Xc^^u Pace Ten EVOLUTION February, 1928 How Old Is the World? THE EVIDENCE FROM RADIO-ACTIVITY By Allan Strong Broms TN the last few years a very reliable test ■*■ of the age of the earth has been found in the breakdown of the radioactive ele- ments uranium and thorium into ordinary lead. We can measure the rates of break- down in our laboratories by counting the number of helium atoms released in the process. The rates prove to be so very slow that one-half of a particle of thorium needs five billion years to "transmute" into lead, while one-half of a particle of uranium takes even longer, about thirteen billion years. To transmute one-half of the remaining particle takes another five or thirteen billion years, and so on in- definitely. These rates are unchanging, for heat, cold, pressure, electricity, any- thing we can do, seem to have no effect. The elements uranium and thorium are found in small quantities in rocks of various geologic ages and if we can only determine how long they have been break- ing down since they were included in those rocks, we will know just how old the rocks are. This very thing has been done by a number of scientists, among whom Pro- fessors Soddy and Joly are conspicu- ous. It has been done in three quite independent ways, with results fairly in agreement. Uranium is the heaviest of the elements, its atom weighing about 238 times as much as that of hydro- gen, its atomic weight being there- fore 238. It breaks down by a series of steps, at certain of which it gives off helium atoms (atomic weight 4) and thus loses weight until it winds up as a kind of lead having an atomic weight of 206. Thorium, which starts with an atomic weight of 232, also breaks down by steps, loses helium atoms and weight and ends as another kind of lead of atomic weight 208. Our ordinary lead, which weighs about 207, is a mixture of these two pure kinds. The Ubanium-Lead Ratio If a mineral is found to contain uran- ium (but no thorium) and lead of atomic weight 206, we need only measure their relative amounts, apply a simple mathe- matical formula and learn how long the uranium must have been breaking down to produce that certain proportion of lead. The longer the time, the more lead there will be and the less uranium. Many in- vestigators, analysing rocks from widely separated parts of the earth's surface, have independently reached results remarkably close, the ages for the oldest known rocks ranging from one to one and a half bil- lion years. The overlying, hence younger, rocks always show a lower proportion of lead, a very convincing test of the method. Of course, the thorium-lead ratio can be used instead. The ages indicated are generally less, but the fundamentalist will find no consolation in this, for they still run into the hundreds of millions. The Uranium-Helium Ratio In breaking down to lead, the uranium atom gives off eight helium atoms and the thorium atom gives off six. If we meas- ure the relative amounts of uranium (or thorium) and helium, we ought again to be able to fix roughly the ages of the rocks. But as helium is a gas and likely to be lost from any but the most solid rocks, the results should be somewhat smaller and so we find they are. Discoloration Haloes Professor Joly has made much use of a third method depending on the fact that a particle of uranium or thorium embedded in certain colored micas will slowly dis- color the nearby mineral matter, produc- ing minute spherical shells of discolora- tion. When viewed in cross-section, these appear as concentric rings or haloes. They are produced by the helium atoms shot out at the several steps of radioactive breakdown. As they are shot out at dif- fering (yet definite) speeds at each of the several steps, they travel to different dis- tances and thus produce clearly defined rings. In the diagrams, these various penetra- tion distances are shown for the helium atoms from both uranium and thorium. Each step in the breakdown is given its consecutive number, each disintegration product is named and its atomic weight given. Obviously, the high speed helium atoms fropi Radium C and Thorium C, as they get no help from their brother atoms, can discolor the outer rim of the haloes but faintly. In the microphotograph of the thorium haloes, this outer shell is clear. Note also in the diagrams that the heli- um atoms from thorium penetrate further and produce larger haloes. The largest uranium halo is only one four-hundredth of an inch in diameter, while that from thorium is one three-hundredth. The sizes therefore identify the parent radioactive substances, and the degrees of discolora- tion measure the ages of the surrounding mineral. Some of the oldest show very clearly the effects of "over-exposure," just like a photographic plate. Joly found that the younger a rock was geologically, the less discoloration there was. His es- timates of rock ages based on this method involve hundreds of millions of years. The three methods of fixing geologic ages from radio-activity agree too closely in their results to leave any serious doubts as to the enormous age of the earth crust. And before the earth crust — who knows how many billions of years must have passed? Certainly the fundamentalists' six thousand years are as impossible as the rest of their absurd notions. NEXT; Some more on radioactivity and its part in the evolution of the earth. Fkbruary, 1928 EVOLUTION Pace Eleven FUNNYMENTALS "In its conception, development and ap- plication evolution is utterly false, as false 10 science as to Scripture; and so Scrip- ture and this unproven and unprovable hypothesis can never speak together. Truth is the embodiment of intolerance. It can- not be forced into any fellowship with falsehood. God's word is Truth. Darwin's theory is falsehood. Between them there ■can be no fellowship. . . . "If it were in my power I would take «very false teacher out of every pulpit and professorship in the land. . . . "If any philosophy was ever weighed in the balance and found wanting to sucli an extent that intelligent men ought to turn with loathing from the same, it is the theory of evolution; and if there is a spot on earth where this theory has ren- dered any profit to an individual, to so- ciety or to the Slate, let its advocates migrate to that spot and continue their teachings there." — Rev. W. B. Riley, in February, 1928, Christian Fundamentalist. "Evolution is an unchristian fraud. It is a blank unproved theory unsupported in fact. It is illegal to teach it in tax- supported schools. Under the common law it is blasphemy." — Evangelist L. S. Hoov- er, Ithaca, Journal News, Jan. 3, 1928. "I want the people of Mississippi to know that, as Assistant State Superin- tendent of Education, I believe that man ■was made in the image of God, his Cie- ator, and I favor putting out of the school- room any man or woman teaching any other doctrine." — Knox M. Broom, A. B., quoted by American Mercury, Jan., 1927. "I would rather my babies' eyes be gouged out at this minute than to have them taught this blatant atheism. When you teach a man that he is nothing more than an evolved animal he is going to live like a beast. When you teach a community or a nation that they are made up of animals, they are going to live like a jungle. Monkey men mean monkey mor- als. If evolution is not checked, it will put America into a seething pit of anar- chy within ten years." — Gerald B. Winrod, "The Mark of The Beast" "As nearly as we know it at present, the Lord's return took place between 45 and 50 years ago; and all the upset times the world has had since are simply signs that Christ is getting ready to destroy all the bad and wicked works of the devil, who has kept mankind in trouble for so many thousand years." — Int. Bible Students Association, October 5, 1927. "The discoveries of modern science make it impossible to place any credence what- ever in Darwinism. Darwinism has been almost wholly discarded by scientific men." —George McCreadv Price, in January, 1928, Signs of the Times. "People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth re- volves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. But sacred scrip- ture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." — Martin Luther. "We make bold to assert that from the beginning to the end of Genesis there is not a blunder from a scientific standpoint." — Dr. Harrv Rimmer. President of the Fundamentalist Research Science Bureau. DEBATING EVOLUTION IN NORTH CAROLINA By Howell S. England TN the spring of 1926 Dr. T. T. Martin, ■^ National Secretary of the Anti-Evolu- tion League of America arranged two de- bates with the writer in Charlotte, North Carolina, on the subject of Evolution. The debates were very unpopular. No hall could be had in the city. When an amusement park several miles out of town was secured the local Ku Klux Klan let it be known that no atheist should ever be allowed to set foot in the state of North Carolina, much less to speak there, and that upon my arrival I would be captured. taken in charge by the hooded gentlemen, and promptly put on the next train out, possibly having received in the meantime an appropriate coat of tar and feathers. After the American Civil Liberties Union had informed the Governor of North Carolina and the mayor of Charlotte that the constitutional right of free speech saould not be abridged in their city and state, the local Klan executed a beautiful somersault and announced publicly that they would see I was protected in all my constitutional rights, and that they had five hundred men in the mountains who would come down if necessary for ray protection. So the debates took place; and if the applause that followed our points was an indication, I had as many backers in the audience as had Doctor Martin. The mod- erator of the first debate was a former judge of the circuit court. He was emi- nently fair. The moderator the second night was a fundamentalist preacher by the name of Holland who became very solicitous as to the time taken up by myself as soon as I began to make light of the account of creation and the flood in Genesis. Holland said to me after the debate, with what was intended to be crushing sever- ity: "Mr. England, you are the first man I have ever heard willing to admit that he did not believe the divinely inspired story of creation as given in the Bible, and it will give me great pleasure in re- calling this incident to remember that the same man acknowledged he was a blood- brother to the skunk and the turkey- buzzard." Apparently many people in the audience heard the story of evolution for the first time at these debates. One woman asked in all seriousness: "Mr. England, do you really believe that what you told us this evening is the truth?" The people ol North Carolina I found hospitable, eager to hear and to learn what the debates were about. The crying need of the state, as I see it, as well as of all the other states in the Bible belt, is modem education broadcast among all their people. Really Bright Son — "Say, Dad! Teacher says we are descended from monkeys." Fundamentalist Father (not so bright) — "Nonsense! You may be, but I'm not!" SHARES AVAILABLE The Evolution Publishing Cor- poration, organized under New York State laws, offers its 110.00 shares of 6% preferred stock. With every five shares of preferred one $10.00 share of common, voting stock will be given, if paid before March 20. The immediate business is publish- ing this journal, Evolution and selling books. Later a Lyceum Bureau for touring natural science lecturers will be developed. Although it is expected the business will pay, share-holders are not invited on the basis of making profits, but be- cause this work is WORTH DOING. Additional capital furnished now will help make the circulation campaign for Evolution magazine a success. Checks should be made payable to Evolution Publishing Corporation. In remitting kindly state whether pay- ment is made in full, or whether it should be applied on a larger block of stock to be held until balance is paid. LET US MAIL SAMPLES TO YOUR FRIENDS Of course you'U show this issue of Evolution to your friends and ask them to subscribe. But you probably know some who would be interested, whom you can not visit yourself. Send us their names and addresses and we'll mail them sample copies. It will cost us about five cents a copy to send out these samples, so if you can send along a check to help pay for them we'll not object. How- ever, if your bank account is minus don't let that stop you. Send us the names anyway and we'll raise the cash otherwise. WHAT'S A HUNTER WITHOUT AMMUNITION? A hunter without ammunition is in the same fix as an evolutionist without copies of Evolution. Surely YOU don't want to remain in such a pickle. The best way out is for you to fill in appropriate characters on the fol- lowing blank in a hurry. Evolution Publishing Corp., 96 Fifth Ave., New York City. Send me a bundle of — copies of Evolution every month for one year. (Rale: five or more, 50c each per year) I enclose $ — Name - - — Street and Number - - City & State Pace Twelve EVOLUTION February, 1928 The Origin of Reptiles and Birds By Maynard Shipley npOWARD the close of the Age of Am- phiblans extensive land elevations oc- curred throughout the world, draining swamps and drying up ponds and lakes. Nearly all the continents were then con- nected by land bridges, and cooler tem- peratures prevailed. There was every in- centive for an extensive development of land animals. The transition from low lands to high lands being gradual, many of the Amphibia were sufficiently plastic to meet the new conditions, by slow, progressive adaptations, modifications of pre-existing structures. It is quite possible that some fish-like form gave rise to both Amphiljia and Rep- tilia. Be this as it may, we know that, as stated by Prof. H. F. Osborn, "the most ancient solid-headed reptilian skull type is very similar to that of the solid-headed Amphibia. Bone by bone its parts in- dicate a common descent from the skull type of the fringe-finned fishes." Prof. Charles Schuchert remarks: "It is becoming increasingly difficult to distin- guish the late Paleozoic reptiles from their stegocephalian associates." But the "mailed headed" or armored Amphibia are not re- garded as the most primitive of land verte- brates. Evidence is rapidly accumulating. Professor Schuchert tells us, to show that the stegocephalians "arose in an older stock (Protopoda) , which gave rise on the one hand to the water-loving amphibians, and on the other to the reptiles, which became completely adapted to the dry land." We know that the Amphibia and Rep- tilia have as common ancestor a lung- breathing and gill-breathing fish, and that the Reptilia gave rise on the one hand to the lowest or egg-laying mammals and on the other to birds. The lizard-like reptiles gave rise to two distinct types of dinosaurs, one of which, bird-like ischium, shows many structures similar to those of birds — e. g., brain, re- productive organs, pelvic bones, three toes, ankle bones united with the leg bones, etc. Feathers are but modifications of reptilian scales, with the edges frayed out. Like the scales of lizards, feathers are a develop- ment of the outer or horny layer of skin. Not only is the skeletal structure of birds essentially reptilian, but they are also much alike in their developmental history, from fertilization of the reptile-like egg to their emergence from the envelope or shell. Jurassic and Cretaceous birds possessed reptile-like teeth, and some of them had not yet lost their reptilian claws. Fortunately, two fossil specimens of the Jurassic bird — the most primitive known — were found in a slate quarry at Solen- hofen, Bavaria. It was about the size of a pigeon. So closely related to the rep. tiles was this genus of bird, that if the skeleton had been found minus the feathers, the comparative anatomist might reason- ably have described the fossil as belonging to the Reptilia, though it possessed some distinctly bird-like characters. The first specimen found possessed a long reptilian vertebrated tail of twenty-one joints, with one pair of quill-feathers attached to each vertebra; whereas in all modern birds the feathers are arranged like the sticks of a fan, with the large feathers folding upon one another. Archaeopteryx (Greek for ancient wing), as this bird was named, had a bird-like head and a bird-like brain; but its jaws, or beak, instead of being of horn, as in modern birds, were provided with sharp reptilian teeth. It appears that the head and neck were devoid of feathers, but the legs were equipped with quill feathers. The wing retained three fingers with rep- tile-like claws, and the bones of the palm (metacarpals) were free from one another. The fingers had the same number of joints as are found in lizards. The ver- tebrae were biconcave, as in fish and some reptiles. The breast-bone ("keel'') was but slightly developed: whereas in modern birds the keel is relatively large, affording abundant room for the attachment of muscles. Archaeopteryx was a poor flyer, probably using its primitive wings fol gliding or soaring through the air. (The Pterodactyl, or flying reptile, which de- veloped quite differently, was a far better flyer than the earliest true bird.) Here, then, we have another non-missing link, a transition stage in the evolution of dinosaur-like reptiles into birds as we know them. "TENNESSEE "They Can't Make a Monkey Out of Me" (Fundamentalist Ditt\) I'm from good old Tennessee, I'm a plain out-spoken man. I go to church on Sundays, And do my neighbor when I can. This world wus made in seven days, The good book tells us so: — If anyone doubts it, scoffs or flouts it We all know where he'll go ! ! They're tryin' to upset the his'tty Of how the world began: — They've got a thriller That a big goriller Wus the ancestor of man. Did y' ever hear such a fool idee? It seems unfair to me: — For my face is pale and I've got no tail. And I've never climbed a tree!! Refrain Oh! the things they do And the things they say Won't go in Tennessee! They can shout, they can hoot They can evolute In some other state maybe. When they say I come from monkeydom They insult my family tree!! They can teach, they can preach, They can get up an' screech. But not in Tennessee; An' I'm goin' to shout 'Til I drive 'em out, For they can't make a monkey out o' me ! ! (Copyright 1928 by Shafter Howard. Reprinted by permission) EVOLUTION LOST Evolution was put out of business in a debate held January 31st in City College, Detroit, between Dr. Newman Dorland of Chicago and Harry Rimmer of the funda- mentalist Research Science Bureau. One of our readers, A. D. Latham, reports: "Mr. Rimmer produced fossils to prove that the evidence of Paleontology con- tradicts the evolution theory; named so many various strata formations in Cali- fornia, Mexico, Alaska, Europe, etc., where the oldest is on top and the newest on the bottom or all mixed up that geo- logical disturbance was not acceptable; said there is not a particle of biological evidence to show transmutation of species and hurled a defi at science to prove it. He spent half an hour to show how ridicu- lous the vestigial theory is and wound up with a peroration to the effect that science first forms an opinion and then misin- terprets facts to fit that opinion. "A vote was taken. Needless to say, anti-evolution won by a majority of 1500 against 20 for evolution." This was not in back-woods Tennessee, DEBATE IN NEW ORLEANS W. B. Riley of the World's Christian Fundamentals Association and Charles Smith of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism will debate un- der the auspices of Delta Gamma Sigma Lecture Bureau in Jerusalem Temple, St. Charles Ave. and Clio Street, New Or- leans, March 14th and 15th. The question for the first evening is: "Is Evolution a Fake Philosophy?" The second: "Should Evolution Be Taught as An Established Science in Tax Supported Schools?" Readers having open minded friends in New Orleans will confer a favor by send- ing us their names and addresses so that we may mail them sample copies of Evolution in advance of this debate. but in a metropolitan community of the "intelligent" North. Those evolutionists who think that Darwinism is already univers- ally accepted and that there is no need for a publication such as this will have a rude awakening some of these days. February, 1928 EVOLUTION Page Thirteen SLOW EVOLUTION VERSUS FAST EVOLUTION By Albert Duy McNair T^HE Darwinian theory of evolution as- sumes that scores of millions of years and perhaps hundreds of millions of years have been consumed in the process of evolution from the lowest forms of life to the highest. As far as man, himself, is concerned, evolutionists believe that a million years, more or less, have passed since man became really man. Those who object to this theory of evo- lution on biblical grounds, say that they do not believe in evolution at all although admitting that minor changes have oc- curred in man, animals and plants since they were first created. They admit that there are many varieties of the human species, of cattle, dogs, deer, oak trees, pine trees, clovers, etc., and they admit that these varieties have taken place by certain natural processes. In taking the Bible as their standard of authority on this matter of the variation of animals and plants they are also com- mitted to other consequences of the bib- lical story. If the biblical story of the Flood has any real historical meaning, it means that all species of land animals and plants that are on the earth today have descended from the pairs that were pre- served in the ark about 4000 years ago. Also the biblical story that snakes were made to go on their bellies after the ser- pent tempted Eve, involves the idea that they did not go on their bellies previous to that time, and involves the further con- clusion that all present snakes, including the poisonous and non-poisonous kinds, have grown their differences in 6000 years. In regard to other animals, if we classify them as "lumpers" instead of "splitters"; if we make the number of species so few that the ark could have held them, then we make the variations in 4000 years such as would, according to the real evo- lution theory, require millions of years. It follows from the foregoing that those •who object to the theory of evolution on biblical grounds really believe in a more rapid change in animals and plants than do the Darwinian evolutionists. They may call this change by the name of variation or development or something else, but it is evolution just the same. Has any one seen Negro children or Esquimaux children born from white par- <>nts, or white children born from Negro or Esquimaux parents? The differences between these races must have come about l)y some process of change, development, or evolution, or call it what you will. How long has it taken for these differences to develop? According to the evolutionists it has taken hundreds of thousands of years. In the case of whites and negroes it may have taken a million years. Ac- cording to the opponents of evolution, it has all come in 4000 years. It comes, then, to this: The Darwinian evolutionists believe in slow evolution, iheir opponents believe in fast evolution. CHARLES DARWIN: THE MAN AND HIS WARFARE. By Henshaio Ward. Bobbs-Merrill Co.: $5.00. It was decidedly appropriate that Hen- shaw Ward should write the story of the Father of Evolution, for his "Evolution for John Doe" placed him securely near the top of the list of those who can make this subject interesting and understand- able for the mythical man in the street; and, as was to be expected, he has here given us now not merely a readable biog- raphy but a human document that pre- sents its subject as a real, living char- acter— simple, lovable, painstaking, but always the scientist. If only those who prate about evolution as a guess could be induced to read this story of a man's patient investigation, careful study, and cautious judgment, to say nothing of his physical handicaps, they would certainly be shamed into silence. How ridiculous their puny rav- ings in the light of Darwin's ceaseless devotion to scientific truth! Darwin's procedure, says Ward, was to ask, "What do you make of these facts that I observe?" And he observed for an ordinary life-time before venturing to a conclusion. Here we have tlie account of his travels, interesting and romantic as a novel, the introduction to his long search for facts; and then we are shown how his ideas correlated with the events of his life. There have been many erroneous state- ments about Darwin and his conclusions, and many misconceptions. One was the notion that he changed his mind and came to accept the Lamarckian philosophy. Air. Ward pays his respect to those respon- sible for the spreading of such errors, including Dr. H. F. Osborn. With fine discrimination and accuracy of judgment and language the author examines the facts available and reaches apparently rational conclusions on all these disputed points. Not the least interesting part of the book is that which relates how the "Origin of Species" was received, how the conservatives gathered for the onslaught under "Soapy Sam," the Bishop of Lon- don, and how they were met in the arena by Huxley. Ward says, "The hurricane of wrathful hypocrisy that burst upon Dar- win in December, 1859, is perhaps the most simian exhibition that the Imman race ever made of itself." Needless to say, this is a book that is recommended without reservation for the readers of this publication. Harry Hibschman. THE SERVANTS OF SCIENCE 1 keep six honest serving-men (They taught me all 1 know) Their names are IfhcU and IFhy and When And Iloiv and Where and Who. Rudyard Kipling, "Just So Stories" SOME GOOD BOOKS T^VERY reader of Evolution is of course also a reader of books. We recommend the following in their respec- tive fields. The commission we receive on book sales will help to broadcast Evolution, but we'll share it with you. In combination with a one year sub- scription for Evolution at one dollar, you may deduct $1.00 on an order of $5.00 or more. EVOLUTION BOOK SERVICE 96 Fifth Ave., New York, N. Y. Send the items checked to undersigned: MY HERESY: Bishop William Mont- gomery Brown _ _ $2.00 WAR ON MODERN SQENCE: May- nard Shipley 3.00 THE HIGHER FOOUSHNESS: David Starr Jordan 2.50 EVOLUTION FOR JOHN DOE: Hen- shaw Ward 3.50 CIRCUS OF THE INTELLECT: Henshaw Ward „ _._ 3.50 EXPLORING THE UNIVERSE: Henshaw Ward _ 3.50 DARWIN, THE MAN AND HIS WARFARE: Henshaw Ward 5.00 OUTLINE OF MAN'S KNOWL- EDGE: Clement Wood 5.00 SQENCE VERSUS DOGMA: Charles T. Sprading _ _ 1.50 MICROBE HUNTERS: Paul de Kruif 3.50 WHY WE BEHAVE LIKE HUMAN BEINGS: George A. Dorsey 3.50 THE NATURE OF MAN: Dorsey _ 1.00 MAN'S PLACE IN NATURE: Thomas Huxley 1.15 ORIGIN OF SPECIES: Darwin 1.25 CREATION : NON - EVOLUTION- ARY THEORIES: Edwin Tenney Brewster 3.50 CHIMPANZEE INTELLIGENCE: Yerkes and Leonard 1.50 MENTALITY OF APES: Koehler 3.00 ALMOST HUMAN: Robert Yerkes.... 3.00 ORGANIC EVOLUTION: Lull „ 3.40 RIDDLE OF THE UNIVERSE: Haeckel ..._.. 2.50 EVOLUTION: Monthly, One Year, $1.00 (Write VERY plainly) Amount enclosed $ PLEASE RETURN UNSOLD COPIES Again so many re-orders were received for the second issue of Evolution that we have none left. We shall appreciate very much the return of all unsold copies. The honors for greatest sale this month go to the Little Blue Bookshop, 3441 Wood- ward Ave., Detroit, with 150 copies. Name Street & No. .. City & State Page Fourteen EVOLUTION From Our Readers "If some of you provincial ignoramuses in New York would ever come out into the middle west and meet a few red- blooded, patriotic, straight-and clean- thinking Americans, you would soon learn that these same "ignoramuses of the bible belt" are the backbone of America. And that hundreds of men west of Pittsburgh whose names glow in letters of fire in the Pantheon of Science are also men who revere an omnipotent God and confess His Son as the One whose sublime sacrifice on Calvary redeemed a world. "Certain scientists" have developed a curious and laughable atheistic complex, whereby the fruits of scientific research have turned to wormwood and Dead Sea apples in their mouths. A large propor- tion of the criminality among the youth of America today is directly chargeable to vicious and irresponsible atheists in American colleges who pervert the doctrine of Evolution into a dogma of bestialism. destroying in the student mind the sense of accountability to a supreme Power." — Donald P. Beard, Missouri. "Herewith find check for $50.00 for broadcasting Evolution. Use it as you see fit. But on bended kness I beg you, if you can, do something for poor old Funda- mentalist, Klan-ridden Indina. It is not one jump ahead of Tennessee. The dark- est of the northern states. "I live in a hick town where the bible is taught in the schools and where the superintendent of schools never missed a meeting of the woman's weekday prayer meeting. He would not allow Wells' Out- line of History in the schools because it taught evolution. He could name on his fingers all the books he would not de- stroy if he had the power. And he was respected. Doctors "eat the flesh and drink the blood" of a dead god and the only laivyer teaches a Sunday school class. "What can one poor devil of an evolu- tionist do? To poke your head above the dead level is to get batted. I poked. I know. "Best wishes for Evolution. Yours for Humanity,"— M. Mark, Indiana. "I am delighted with this undertaking. In conversation with Dr. Gregory two or three years ago I stressed the importance of such a step and pointed out the folly of underestimating the strength and in- fluence of Fundamentalists."- — J. Leon Wil- liams, New York. "The magazine Evolution has just reached me. I must congratulate you upon its matter and get-up. Its timeliness should ensure it a long and prosperous life." — Hugh F. Munro, Pennsylvania. "Why wasn't such a magazine started long ago? Send me 20 copies quick and the crop returned to you will be abund- ant."—Wm. George Henry, California. "Just received sample. It looks like the stuff. Here's check for two dollars. More power to you." — G. M. Morris, Ohio. "Please do not send me any more of this disgusting literature." — B. S. L. Davis, Maryland. "Judging by the sample copy you have been good enough to send me, I am in hopes the periodical will be of great as- sistance both to laity as well as clergy." — Leslie E. Goodwin, Maryland. "Good luck to you. More power to your elbow." — Hutton Webster, Nebraska. "Here are some more — five one-year sub- scriptions, $2.50. It's surprising the funda- mentalists one meets in high places in our ranks."— P. B. Cowdery, California. "Enclosed $2.00. Evolution is splendid. This kind of work should have appeared long ago. But I believe you still have the opportunity to make it a great success." — A. Guleserian, Illinois. "You are going strong. Look out for the weak-kneed evolutionists." — ■ Frank Hart, Pennsylvania. "Please send copy of Number 1 of Evolution again. I gave it to a good Christian and he never returned it. Wish you great success." — Tobias Sigel, Mich. "It is high time that a magazine of this kind is published and widely circulated. May it prosper and become a formidable factor in combatting ail the falsehood and bigotry which infest the people. Here's check for $2.50 for five." — John Krama- rich, Minnesota. "Hope you get a few million more sub- scribers. Good luck." — Paul L. Knorr, Pennsylvania. "I am not alone in this feeling, for I have received letters and telephone calls asking whether I have read your publica- tion and expressing delight with it. En- close $4 for five subscriptions for your needed magazine." — J. DeRose, New Y'ork. "Will do everyting in my power to help spread this splendid mind developer." — David J. Zimmerman, California. February, 1928 "You are a dirty, black, hell-bound out- fit. You'll cry for the Rocks and the Mountains to fall on you so.ne day. The devil have got you bound hand and foot.'" Unsigned letter from Jamestown, No. Dak. "Received two issues. Read every word. Like it well. Here's a dollar for broadcast- ing."— Henry H. Gonor, Canada. "My heartiest congratulations on both the December and January numbers of Evolution. It is by far the clearest, to say nothing of the most courageous, of all the strictly scientific publications. Put us on your list for 100 copies monthly until further notice. "And don't let anybody persuade you to stop 'making fun' of the fundamentalists, but just keep it up. We have a real bat- tle on in this evolution controversy and all effective weapons must be used." — Queen Silver, California. "I am very much interested in learning the truth about ourselves. It appears to me that our civilized people are under in- fluence of false teaching. In other words. Humbug Rules the World."— Vac J. Hlad- ky. South Dakota. "The schools have failed to popularize Evolution. Result: the multitudes in ig- norance are being preyed upon by nar- row, stupid fundamentalists. I enclose copy of a lecture delivered here by Winrod, who hails from Wichita. He promises to have an anti-evolution bill in our next Kansas legislature. His delivered lecture was much worse than the printed. He defied any one to find anything on earth more than 6000 years old. He was in church, and one had no chance to inter- rupt or reply." — Andrew Shearer, Kansas. "Send us 20 copies, January number. Let this be a standing order. The little new- comer is catching on quite well here." — Harper News Co., Arkansas. "It's great. Already passed through sev- eral hands. If I knew how I would pray for your success for we surely need such publications." — N. H. Robinson, Oregon. Saator'a :?tui)y JbDeton,3Ro6Bnrh«j»etl9 Jan.ll,19?.8. evolution PubliGhing Corpn., 96 fifth Avenue, New york,IJ.Y. To the Editor of '"Evolution": My dear air: I was rlBG to see your photograph and that of one of your ancestors on the' front page of "Evolution" for January. Trie contents of the paper are precisely what I should expect from those photograpns. For dogmatic asi-ertion anc massed ignorance it would be diffic-ilt to fi.nd anything that would surpass Evolution . I rea.lly think you are to be congratulated on being able to pre:;ent sometnmg "e"trely dlflerent" for I am quite sure neither on this nor tht other Gidd of the water has anything thus far reen presented so ent rely unique in its jungle wisdom as your paper, i wish ycu the largest sucess, for I can coneeive of nothing whici^i.l so tnoroughlj turn people away from organic evolution, as yoi>c n^er. Very truly yours, — Your Education is it well rounded and up-to-date? Does your knowledge of history and Current affairs need brushing up? Will an illuminating survey ot liter- ature and art be of use to you? Have you been able to keep up with the amazing strides made in the sciences? Do you want to enlarge your knowl- edge of religion and philosophy? T'hen read this brilliant and fascin- ating book — The Outline of Man's Knowledge History — Science — Literature Art — Religion — Philosophy By CLEMENT WOOD Here you have the essentials of a liberal education in only one vol- ume of 700 pages. Highly praised by leading critics. "Freshly and powerfully projected" — Zona Gale. "The one book to read and know" — Philadelphia Public Ledger. "The best book for self education avail- able anywhere" — Minneapolis Star. FIFTH PRINTING ILLUSTRATED— $5.00 At All Bookstores By Mail Postpaid $5.12 Lewis Copeland Co. 119 W. 57th St., New York Science League of America FoT Freedom in Science Teaching Every sympathizer invited to join. Fee: Annual, $3; Life, $25 Write for pamphlet. 509 Gillette Bldg., San Francisco. American Association for tlie Aflvancement of A THEI S VI Announces Its Second Annual Report For Free Copy Write FREEMAN HOPWOOD, Genrral Secretary 119 E. 14th St., New York BROADCASTING FUND The broadcasting of several thousand .sample copies of Evolution was made pos- sible by the contributions of the following generous friends: Mrs. J. O. Beebe, Cal. Adolph Brenuer, Cat. F. U. Weiss, Cal. H. L/. Gonor, Canada D. N. Schatfor, 111. M. Mark, luiliaua Tobias Sigel, Mich. Bob Lyle, Miss. Julius Minez, N. J. E. E, Eimbach, N. .T. A. S. Broms, N. Y. Micbael A. Colin. X. Y. Geo. W. Claiip. N. Y. C. N. Fuchs, N. Y. F. Heinzelmau, N. Y. F. W. Hodge, N. Y. Ida Ho£fmnn, N. Y. A. L. Goldwater. N. Y. J. Kossove, N. Y. H. Lilienthal, N. Y. W. H. McGreevey, .V. Y. Wm. Mendelson, N. Y. L. S. Moiseiff, N. Y. Frances Pilat, N. Y. David Pinski, N. Y. Grace Potter, N. Y. Chas. H. Recht, N. Y. Bruce Kogers, N. Y". John Serrigan, N. Y'. F. A. Sieverman. N. Y. J. L. Williams. N. Y. Ella G. Brown, Ohio Wm. M. Brown. Ohio r. M. nckkcr. Ut.ili r.ennett Larson. Wise. The quickest way to build the circula- tion of Evolution in new territory is to mail out samples. We have addresses of thousands and shall "broadcast" 20 samples for every dollar contributed. Every reader is invited to help this way to plant the seed in new ground. First Annual EVOLUTION DINNER New York Monday Eve., March 9 Details in Next Issue HEALTH FOOD, Not Breakfast Food Food for every meal and for every ailing person — has stood the public test 29 years. Tyler's Macerated (whole) Wheat Combin- ation— fruit, nuts, etc. (no drugs) — tasty, ready to eat — banishes constipation at once, restoring normal health and strength. In- comparable for women in delicate condi- tion. Send dollar or check for week's sup- ply on a nionev-back auarantee. BYKON TYLER (Established 1S99), 1920, Gibraltar Bldg., Kansas City, Mo. Harry Hibschman, ll.d. Lecturer and Writer Available for Lectures and Debates on EVOLUTION and kindred subjects. Recently broad- : ast a series ot debates over WEAP ind other stations ; formerly practiced law on the Pacitic Coast; but since 1917 has devoted his time exclusively to the platform and pen. Address care of EVOLUTION, D6 Fifth Ave., New York City. £^y HJbNSHi^W WARD Author of Evolution for John Doe CHARLES DARWiN The Man and His Warfare A truly noble human soul stands forth in clean-cut perspective. — Professor A. G. Keller of Yale. Illustrated. ^^qq By ALBERT EDW.\RD WIGGAM Autlior of New DecaloEue of Science Fruit of the Family Tree TVie NexV Age of Man The best thing that Mr. Wiggam has done. — Christian Century. $3.00 By FLOYD L. DARROW a^^STORYo/ CHEMISTRY A masterpiece in explaining science to the public — pre- senting a thousand surprising facts. — HensJiaw Ward. Illustrated. $4.00 By D.Win STARK JORDAN The Higher FooVisliMess A delightful human- itarian, distinguished scientist. Has both a sense of style and of humor — N. Y. Times. $2.50 The Bobbs-Merrill Co. Publishrrs - - Iiidianannlif! Page Sixteen EVOLUTION February, 1928 'T^ReT'HERKl AM SISTeRS I HAVe ^En;E^ MOTeD -tab. SLItjHTEST Re - terAQl.'^'^'^^ ReTWBEKJ MAN AMD !iONK€V^ HAVE Vou^ THROTTLING THE SCHOOLS Shipley reports that two thirds of rural schools prohihit teaching evolution. This is no accident. The September issue of the Fundamenatlist De- fender explains how it is done:- "Tax payers may play an important part by de- manding of their local school boards that only those teachers be engaged who are openly and without hesitation opposed to evolution. "Notice, I say 'openly opposed', for many people repudiate evolution with their lips when questioned, but retain mental reservations. Make sure that your money, as a tax-payer, goes only to pay the salaries of teachers who reject the beast theory in its en- tirety. Let there be no half-way business! "The responsibility must rest with individual tax- payers, working through their school boards, until such time as a sufficient number of people can be awakened to the seriousness of the situation and demand action on the part of legislative bodies." WHAT WILL YOU DO about this effort of fundamentalism to throttle the teaching of science? Here is a convenient blank on which to make appropriate answer. IN THIS ISSUE: ALLAN STRONG BROMS: Formerly Science Lecturer. Twin Cities Workers University Society. GEORGE A. DORSEY: Author "Why We Behave Like Human Beings" and "The Nature of Man". HOWELL S. ENGLAND: Pres. Michigan Rationalist Assn. ALEXANDER GOLDENWEISER: Editorial Staff, "En- cyclopedia of the Social Sciences"'. HARRY HIBSCHMAN: Lawyer, Lecturer, Writer. BARROW LYONS: Science Writer, N. Y. Evening Post. ALBERT DUY McNAIR: University of Arkansas. MAYNARD SHIPLEY: Pres. Science League of America. Author, "War on Modern Science". BERNHARD J. STERN: U. of Washington. Author, "Social Factors in Medical Progress". ERNEST UNTERMANN: Edit. Dep't, Milwaukee Leader. J. C. TH. UPHOF: Head Dep't Biology, Rollins College. HENSHAW WARD: Author. "Evolution for John Doe". "Darwin, The Man and His Warfare", etc. J. LEON WILLIAMS: Author and Science Lecturer. JOHN M. WORK: Edit. Dep't, Milwaukee Leader. HONOR ROLL Here are the friends that have sent three or more subscriptions for Evolution the past month :- 15 Julius Minez, N. J. 13 Gustave Weiss, 111. 13 P. B. Cowdery, CaliL 9 Tyler H. Bennett, N. Y. 8 David N. Shaffer, 111. 8 A. A. Avery, Kans. 6 H. H. Briggs, N. C. 6 A. F. Schiveley, N. M. 6 Wyman R. Green, Tenn. 6 Wm. G. Schultz, Ohio 6 A. F. Heiskanen, Mich. Five each:— D. M. Moore, Ark.; W. B. Scaife, Calif.; W. E. Maxcy, Me.; C. J. Larson, John Kramarich, C. P. Sigerfoos, Minn.; George Panouses, Mich.; Ed. Langren, Mont.; Max Breslow, J. De Rose, D. A. Newman, Chris Jordan, N. Y. ; J. Willnecker, Ohio; Glen G. Kennedy, T. E. Walsh, Wash. Four each: — Frank Hart, Pa.; Ed. Lindgren, N. Y.; Jane Goodloe, Md; F. G. Heahle, N. J. Three each:^ R. L. Rockwell, M. A. Grover, Ala.; Cora P. Wilson, Wm. Geo. Henry, Natta F. Dygert, D. J. Zimmerman, Calif.; A. H. Ketcham, Colo.; George O'Brien, Conn.; N. Pieros, Karl Schumacher, James Oliverio, 111.; Louis Hamburger, J. Wm. Ketzky, Md.; Mignon Talbot, F. A. Delabarre, Mass.; W. J. Savage, Mich.; H. C Lippincott, J. S. Bailin, Wm. VanBeek, Earl S. Newkirk, Samuel Schept, N. J.; M. S. Crosby, Allen Strong Broms, C. P. A. Peterson, L. King Quan, N. Y. Getting your friends and neighbors to read Evolution is the most effective method to defeat these nefarious fundamentalist plots. In a school district where the people understand, the fundamentalist schemers will be helpless. So we call upon every reader of Evolution to enlist in this Honor Roll by send- ing in at least three subscriptions THIS month. Evolution Publishing Corporation, 96 Fifth Avenue, New York, N. Y. For the enclosed S „. send Evolution for one year to: Name Street and Number (Single subscription, $1) (To three addresses, $2) Citv and State • If you don't want to tear cover, any old sheet of paper will do.) J <9>