SECRETS OF EARTH AND SEA

Hokitika Guardian, 29 December 1920, Page 3

SECRETS OF EARTH AND SEA

Distinguished scientists do not, generally speaking, shine ns expositors of ,their wisdom to the layman. Some will not comloscencl to “Write down” to tho public; others, with the best intentions, find it difficult to avoid the language and the atmosphere of tho lecture room, and are apt to assume on the reader’s part a knowledge which he does not possess. But there are exceptions to the rule, of whom one of the most notable is Sir Ray Lnnkestcr. Sir Ray Lankester lias two audiences', the savant, for whom his serious treaties are designed, and the inan-in-the-street, who can enjoy his popular disquisitions without any preliminary scientific equipment whatever. “Secrets of Earth and Sea” is in his happiest manner. It deals with a wide range of subjects, hut a considerable proportion of it is devoted to primitive man and his accomplishments. Our dim forefather was by no means as uncultivated as we sometimes think. In one phase lie developed a high degree of artistic ability. The modern practitioner would not be ashamed of the rock paintings in the caves'of Altimira, Lortet, and Combnrelles; their movement, their accuracy, and their finish are extraordinary. Moreover, Cromagnard man was not content to paint on the walls of his caverns ;he anticipated the arts ot the etcher, the process engraver, and the printer. On rounded antlers of reindeer he carved hunting scenes, filled the lines with a mixture of fat and charcoal, and by rolling the cylinder over bark or dried skins produced an impression of the picture. Tlie reproduction in the text of these old carvings are simply rolled-off prints from the original specimens. But art died temporarily with the Cromagnards; there is no evidence that their successors were capable even of the crudest and most rudimentary attempts. They were frank Philistines, and the world had to wait long for a renascence.

• In this connection Sir Hay Lankester mentioned a very common error. When imaginative writers seek.to reconstruct the past they endow primitive mail with attributes which he never possessed at any one time. They “confuse all the periods and races of prehistoric man together, and so picture to themselves one ideal primitive man.” Even Mr Rudyard Kipling, who is usually , sound on his facts, must plead guilty. ! His ‘Ung, the maker of pictures,’ scribing on bone on the glittering ice- j field, is a flagrant anachronism, and “ft j would be no further from a truv con- I ception were Mr Kipling to blend his . ancient Batons, his Phoenicians, his j Homans, his Saxons, his Normans ,and a few Hindoos into one imaginary mail , and represent hjm as taking a coloured j photograph of the Druids of fetoiiphenge on a piece of Egyptian papyius, Vor another prevalent fallacy M r E. T. Reed, the comic artist, lips been responsible. On the strength of “Prohistoric Peeps” we think of the life of primitive man as being one long struggle with huge monsters of portentous and terrifying aspect—a succession of desperate encounters with dinosaurs and hair’s-breadth escapes from igua nodons and the like. Certainly bis life was no bed of roses, but he was at least spared these nerve-wracking experiences. The immense reptiles were all dead long before his time; the' biggest beast he had to face was the mammoth whom lie entrapped in pits ; the fiercest the sabre-toothed tiger, Rut even when the diplodocus and his interesting contemporaries flourished, they were not so very formidable. Despite the size of their skeletons their actual bulk was not great. Although the skeleton is 84ft long, the diplodocus when clothed in flesh was mostly neck and wlup-like tail. These together account for 69ft of the whole ; the body is. scarcely larger than that of on elephant, the head no longer than that of a cart horse. The diplodocus is always represented as towering aloft, a fearsome object. As a matter or fact he wats ant aquatic animal; his legs could not have supported his weight on dry land. He wallowed in shallow water, liis feet on the bottom, his head above the surface, sucking floating * weeds. Indeed, he .was a strict vegetarian j Nevertheless, despite Sir Ray Lankester’s reassuring words, we are glad that he is extinct! In a very interesting chapter on the cross-breeding of races, the author raises the question whether the prejudice against mixed breed is justified. Our attitude to it is somewhat illogical. In the animal world many “races” j which are spoken of to-day as “purebred” or “thoroughbred” have been produced as “mongrels,” i.e. by mating individuals of previously existing distinct and pure-brCods. Thus the English racehorse was gradually evolved by crossing the English war horse, the Arab, and the Barb. A very fine mongrel stock having at last been obtained it was considered that no further improvement (for the purpose aimed at, namely, flat racing) could be effected by introducing the blood of other stock. So henceforth this strain was par excellence “the thoroughbred,” and was only mated within its own race. Another “mongrel” breed which is now kept pure is that of the St Bernard dog, a blend of the Newfoundland, bloodhound, and English mastiff. Our attitude to cross-breeding would seem to be that while it is desirable up to a certain point, beyond that point is is undesirable. Our standards are quite arbitrary. The same principle applies to human relntioTiships. White people of different races readily intermarry, but where the alliance is between persons of different colour it is “miscegenation,” forbidden by public opinion, an din some countries by law. The general feeling against mixed marriages of this character is due to pride of race which, says Sir Ray Lankester, can be defended on the highest grounds, although it may lead to erroneous beliefs as to the unreasonable and cruel treatment of the parties thereto, and of their children. For instance, the ideas that mixed marriages arc relatively infertile (i.e., that the mixed stock dies out in seven or eight generations), and that their offspring 'tend by some strange fatality to inherit the had qualities of both races and the gooc qualities of neither, are not, Sir Haj j Lankester declares, supported by any--1 thing like conclusive evidence. “In si far as it is truo that miscegenation pro duces a stock that rapidly dies out this is due to the adverso conditions i the opposition and hostility to wind the mixed race is exposed by the atti tude of the dominant white race. Ti

the same cause is due the development of ignoble and possibly dangerous char acteristios in the unfortunate offspring of these marriages more frequently than in those who find their natural place and healthy bringing up either in the white or the coloured sections of the community.” Space permits reference only (o a few of the subjects which Sir Ray Lankester touches upon, and illuminates with the touch of his wisdom. The book is packed with interest from cover to cover.