Review

Reviewed Work(s): The biology of the cockroach by D. M. Guthrie and A. R. Tindall

Review by: J. W. H. Lawson
Source: Science Progress (1933-), Vol. 57, No. 225 (January 1969), pp. 129-131
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43423760
Accessed: 10-10-2022 11:32 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Science Progress (1933-)

This content downloaded from 129.187.254.47 on Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reviews

and death. Other chapters deal with the The biology of the cockroach
workings of the various orgąris and
tissues and there are also sections on race,By D. M. Guthrie and A. R.
human heredity and evolution and the T i N D A L L. pp. viii 4- 408. London: Edw
population explosion. The author is well Arnold , 1968. 105s.
aware of the problems of popular scienti-
fic writing and he explains that he has From time to time, in teaching and
tried to avoid qualifications without research, reference is still made to The
compromising accuracy, to minimize Cockroach : Miall & Denny, 1886, a
technical jargon and to cut out all but the book which has had much influence in
briefest references to sources. He has done directing interest to this group of animals.
the job very well. I noticed very few Although it harks back to Malpighi,
mistakes and although the book is rather Swammerdam and Lyonet and is re-
long (529 pages) it is not heavy reading. garded as a classic, it is perhaps out-
Thanks to his lively, conversational style standing in being the first 'modern'
and his gift for relating scientific work to monograph on an insect, excellently
topical issues and everyday experience he written by five authors (not just the
holds the reader's interest. Unlike some apparent two), and written particularly
popular science books this one is amusing for the market, specifically to fill a gap
without being facetious and for those who in a series of monographs, and probably
enjoy curious information there is the also to provide information about an
story of the invention of obstetrical animal suitable for 'type' study, then
forceps, of the lady who hiccupped for 2much in vogue. Other insects have since
years, and many others. As a general been monographed more than once,
criticism I felt, in places, that the spate of but there has been no re-issue of The
facts, and especially numerical ones, Cockroach ; nor has it, until now, been
tended to interrupt the flow of the argu- replaced. It is still good to read and
ment. There are very few tables and per- useful as a primer; but, in most respects,
haps there should have been more. Nor it has been out of date for more than 30
are there any illustrations. years.
N. A. Barnicot For Miall & Denny the cockroach
was the common 'blackbeetle' or 'black-
cock' of the kitchen, Blatta orientalis.
In the following year, for Marshall &
Hurst, in their once famous Practical
Zoology , it was the larger Periplaneta
americana , which, in this country, needs
higher than room temperature for suc-
cessful culture. For a long time, now,
most work has been done on the latter
species. Why this should be so is not
very evident. Perhaps it is simply, and
unconsciously, a matter of odour: both
species are recognizably alike in this, but
the odour of B. orientalis tends for
some people to become repulsive, while
that of P. americana remains fairly
Biology pleasantly aromatic.
For at least the last 10 years the need
for a concise summary of our knowledge

129

This content downloaded from 129.187.254.47 on Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reviews

of the cockroach has been so evident into place in their background know-
that it is almost certain several authors ledge. Research workers will see, between
have had such a work in preparation. the lines, problems which had not pre-
It is not likely that the new Biology of viously occurred to them. Undoubtedly,
the Cockroach has forestalled anything this book will stimulate as much as it
better. The authors have recognized informs and the authors will be the
that it would be a book important beyond recipients, for an inevitable second edition,
its apparently narrow field and they have of a flow of reprints directly catalysed
done it well, clearly and as fully as could by the first.
be expected in 400 pages. It is likely There are more than 1000 references
itself to be the first edition of a classic. and, at first sight, it may seem odd that
There are minor irritations: 'micro- so much work, by so many people, has
photograph' for 'photomicrograph';been the done on an insect of no special
occasional use of 'roach', which is, of importance. Biology of the Cockroach
course, a fish ; 'larva' for the early stages is
- hardly as great as Christopher's
it may well be that physiologists cannot monumental Aedes aegypti, where the
yet see any significant differences between subject is one of the extremely important
the early stages of the Hemimetabola vectors of Yellow Fever; but it bears
and the Holometabola, but it is unwise comparison. The preface says: 'Cock-
to discard the long-established dif- roaches have long been favourite experi-
ferentiating term of 'nymph'. It is a pity mental material owing to their large size,
that so many of the otherwise beautifully ease of culture and relatively generalized
clear drawings have so many uncom- structure.' For the same reasons they are
fortably thin lines. Possibly these flawsfavourite type animals for study in
and the occasionally Americanized Eng- Zoology courses. What really makes
lish come from the original papers. Thethem important as experimental animals
precise meaning of the term 'biology' is that, in addition, they suffer from the
now seems to depend very much upon the advantage of being invertebrates, so
user. In this particular case, where the that there is no need to refer to the Home
term is attached to a named insect, an Office before cutting them up alive. It
entomologist at least would hardly expect could be said that they are vehicles for,
the considerable amount of anatomy that rather than objects of, research.
is given. Perhaps the authors felt that Some, at least, of the gaps in our
simply The Cockroach was not distinctive knowledge now become apparent. It is
enough. surprising to find that the palaeontology
Both the publisher and the authors has advanced little beyond Scudder's
commend the book to the general readeroriginal contribution in Miall & Denny.
as an introduction to the cockroach. This The information on embryology is
is to stretch the term 'general' a little. contained in a single paragraph concerned
The section on metabolism specifically with the duration of embryonic develop-
and not unreasonably requires a fair ment in varying conditions. The only
background of biochemistry and com- work on embryonic development known
pounds well known to biochemists are to me is that on the brain of P. americana
referred to only by the conventional contained in a Ph.D. thesis in the library
initials. of the University of Glasgow. Insect
Only well-informed specialists will tissues are well known to have an
find nothing new to them in the section extraordinary capacity for being or
in which they are particularly interested: accepting grafts or transplants and for
in other sections they are likely to find withstanding mutilation. The results of
information which clicks satisfyingly such operations are described in several

130

This content downloaded from 129.187.254.47 on Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reviews

sections of this book; but the character with food, insatiably exploring new ob-
itself appears not to have been investi- jects or leisurely rubbing its back against
gated. a wall like a cow against a fence can be a
Our knowledge is considerable in surprise, a delight and a stimulus.
many fields. As would be expected, the Agassiz believed that the study of one
greatest and increasing gains are in the animal in depth led to more profound
physiological and biochemical aspects. understanding, and indeed Miall &
Of the 137 references on metabolism, Denny wrote expressly with this in mind.
only twenty-eight date from before The view may still be held; but the
1955. This chapter ends with a significantpractice is unfashionable. The divarica-
caveat : 'It is not safe to assume that anytion of biology has long been so great
result is true of anything except that tothat the student too early becomes a
which it refers.' This is because 'there physiologist, biochemist, ecologist and
are real differences between species, so on, without the chance to see any
ages, stages in development and even animal in anything like its entirety. This
between sexes and the different types of excellent book is not only of value to the
muscles of the same animal'. Here, it general reader and research worker; it
seems, we may look for marked advances could be the basis of an extended teaching
in chemical characterization. On endo- course in which the student came to see
crines, regeneration and tissue culture
an animal as a living organism.
only fifteen of the ninety-five references J. W. H. Lawson
date from before 1955; for the nervous
system the figures are thirty-two of 115.
These and similar fields are growth areas
clearly dependent on the developmentNucleus
of and cytoplasm
fine techniques, apparatus and skills.
By far the shortest chapter is that Byon Henry Harris, pp. xv + 142.
behaviour and of its twenty-two refer- Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Boards
ences seventeen date from before 1955. 30s. Paper covers 15s.
In part, this is because, as the authorsThe subject matter of this book is
say, the recorded field observations aresomewhat more limited than might appear
not easily related to each other and thefrom the title. Most of the discussion in
material of the chapter is therefore res- fact comes within the area covered by the
tricted to more clearly definable and title of the first chapter: 'The expression
analysable experiments: indeed, there of is genetic information'. This is a topic
not much more information available. of much interest in current biological
As is so often the case when there is thinking, and the author has some im-
much new knowledge on a complex portant things to say about it. He is
subject, it is possible to read through this highly critical of certain views which
book and get very little impression of are frequently put forward, and held to
the cockroach as a living entity. The be almost axiomatic by some writers.
addition of some of the colloquial The book is therefore stimulating, even
descriptions of behaviour not only mightthough many readers will not want to
help the student to see the animal in theagree with it.
round, they might even be inspirational. The main target for Harris' attack is
It took a neurophysiologist of my acquain-the Jacob-Monod operon hypothesis,
tance 5 years to recognize that the insectand in particular its application to the
he worked with was more than a rather problem of control of genetic expression
simple machine. To such, the sight of in a higher organisms. According to this
cockroach 'stealing' and running away
hypothesis, which was of course developed

131

This content downloaded from 129.187.254.47 on Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:32:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms