Reading — 2026 Jan–Apr Recall Set 9

The plants that produce rubber are spread right across the globe, and grow in many different habitats. One might think it likely, therefore, that humankind has known about rubber for thousands of years. Yet, unlike other crops of economic importance, rubber led a relatively anonymous life until the last 150 years or so. The Indians of South America appear to be the first people to have understood the properties of rubber, and the Aztecs of what is now Mexico were the first to be recorded using the substance; a wall painting dating back to the sixth century depicts a scene of a tribute offering of crude rubber. With the arrival of Columbus in the Americas and the resulting Spanish influx, further evidence starts to appear concerning the Native American use of rubber. Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas describes a ritual game played with a rubber ball at the court of the Aztec Emperor Montezuma II, and the Mayan and Toltec people are known to have taken part in similar activities. Rubber was also used to make raincoats, shoes, jars, torches and musical instruments, all of which must have been made from the indigenous Castilla elastica, as the Para rubber plant now favoured for rubber cultivation does not grow in the Mexican region. The first description of latex (liquid rubber) extraction was made by Juan de Torquemada, who noted that if a receptacle was not at hand the Native Americans would place the latex on their bodies to allow it to solidify. However, no real interest in rubber was shown by any European until Charles de la Condamine, a French mathematician, published an account of his journey to South America in 1735. The journey was undertaken on behalf of the Paris Academy of Sciences to measure an arc of the meridian line on the equator, but the journey home was to turn out to be more significant than the true purpose of the trip. Condamine explored Brazil and Peru and discovered how the local people used one single piece of coagulated latex to make boots. The boots were impervious to water and, when smoked, looked like real leather. In 1747 the first description of the rubber tree and latex tapping was made by a military engineer and amateur botanist, François Fresneau, who was posted to French Guiana. The publications of Condamine and Fresneau created considerable excitement among French scientists, and an attempt was made to discover a solvent that could turn the crude rubber into a substance for commercial exploitation. In 1818 a British medical student named James Syme first used rubber to make waterproof cloth. Another early use of the substance was as an eraser of pencil marks, hence the name ‘rubber’. This was complemented by balloons, rubber bands, braces, boots for the army and other ideas that met with varying degrees of success. In 1820 Thomas Hancock, an English manufacturer of rubber goods such as driving belts, industrial rollers and rubber hoses, invented a machine he called the ‘masticator’, which chewed up waste strips for re-use. It was discovered that the masticated rubber was more malleable, while maintaining much of its elasticity. In Scotland at the same time, Charles Mackintosh had discovered a way of using rubber as waterproofing material, by a process he patented in 1823. Hancock and Mackintosh joined forces in 1834, and three years later Hancock invented a machine for spreading rubber onto material. Despite their beneficial qualities, such as waterproofing, rubber goods were still not particularly popular as they had some major flaws, including the fact that they dissolved malodorously. They also became pliant when warm and rigid when cold. Then in 1839 the American Charles Goodyear discovered that it was possible to stabilise rubber by mixing it with sulphur while exposing it to heat — a process he called vulcanisation — and the full versatility of this extraordinary substance became apparent. Rubber goods could now be manufactured which had all the beneficial qualities of the material, such as durability, elasticity and variability, but which were not sticky, soluble or governed by the vagaries of the weather. The economic potential of rubber was now clearly evident. It played an important role in the Industrial Revolution, being employed in the steam engines found in factories, mills, mines and railways. It made a triumphant entrance as a new and innovative material at the Great Exhibition of 1851, where shoes, airbeds, furniture and clothing made out of newly improved rubber were proudly displayed. One of the most important rubber inventions was made in 1888, when an Irishman called John Boyd Dunlop produced the first pneumatic tyre. Solid rubber tyres had been used for the previous 18 years, but Dunlop’s new design, which he updated in 1890, immediately became popular. In 1895 Dunlop’s tyres were first used in motor cars, and with the mass production of cars just over the horizon the rubber industry had never looked healthier. The import levels of rubber over the nineteenth century bear witness to its irrepressible rise. In 1830 Britain had imported just 211 kg of crude rubber. This had risen to 10,000 kg in 1857, and by 1874 levels were just under six times as much again.

A Jellyfish have become the curse of beach holidays, permeating every ocean on the globe, thriving in the Arctic and the tropics. In an ever-changing world where other species struggle to endure, jellyfish populations are on the rise. To the untrained eye, these creatures drift aimlessly on the oceans' currents and appear benign. In addition, they lack sharp claws, piercing teeth or even a brain. Despite this, they are armed with an amazing arsenal of weapons, especially the stinging power of their tentacles. As a result, jellyfish are among the most-feared, least-understood creatures in the seas. B According to Dr Monty Graham, a jellyfish scientist at the University of South Alabama, US, 'Jellyfish are a pretty good group of animals to track coastal ecosystems. When you start to see jellyfish numbers grow, that usually indicates a stressed system.' While populations appear to be down this year, Dr Graham sees 'a statistically solid increase' over the longer term. This increase first gained attention in the 1980s when a huge number of jellyfish, Atlantic Ocean natives named Mnemiopsis leidyi, devastated the Black Sea, an ecosystem already weakened by overfishing of anchovies. Scientists believe that this species of jellyfish came in on the bottom of a ship and then rapidly multiplied, feeding on anchovy eggs and the plankton that young fish rely on. C Dense jellyfish aggregations can be a natural feature of healthy ocean ecosystems, but a clear picture is now emerging of more severe and frequent jellyfish outbreaks worldwide. Dr Anthony Richardson, from the University of Queensland, Australia, explains that once jellyfish gain a foothold, if conditions are right they can establish a massive population at the expense of other ocean life. The problem is that parts of the ocean might switch from being dominated by fish to being dominated by jellyfish. D A study done by Richardson and his colleagues explores the causes behind jellyfish infestation, and the need for swift, decisive action to stem jellyfish takeover. Jellyfish outbreaks are linked directly to human actions, including overfishing, the input of fertilizer and sewage into the ocean, and climate change. Overfishing has removed fish from marine ecosystems at astounding rates. According to Richardson, this has made it possible for jellyfish to take their place. 'This is because small fish appear to keep jellyfish in check by predation (on jellyfish when they are very small) and competition (when feeding). So, once we remove fish, jellyfish can proliferate.' Eutrophication is another human-caused change in the ocean that has likely contributed to jellyfish explosions. Eutrophication is an increase of nitrogen and phosphorus in the ocean, largely caused by fertilizer and waste run-off. This leads to algae blooms, which lower oxygen in the marine ecosystem, creating so-called 'dead zones', which have been increasing dramatically around the world. According to Richardson, these low-oxygen waters give jellyfish the advantage. 'Fish avoid low-oxygen waters but jellyfish, having lower oxygen demands, not only survive but can thrive in these conditions as there is less predation and competition from fish.' E Furthermore, Richardson and his colleagues speculate that climate change may expand the traditional geographical range of jellyfish. 'As water warms, tropical species are moving towards the poles. Many venomous jellyfish species are tropical and could move into more densely populated subtropical and temperate regions.' F Once jellyfish appear en masse in an ecosystem they can make it very difficult for fish to stage a comeback. By feeding on fish, the jellyfish successfully prevent fish from returning to their normal population numbers, says Richardson. 'One can thus think of two alternate states with each being stable: one dominated by fish and the other by jellyfish. Unfortunately, where there is a jellyfish-dominated state then this does not support the nutritional needs of other fish, marine mammals, and seabirds.' In other words, an ecosystem that loses fish also loses the species that depend on fish for survival. This state has been defined as a 'monoculture of jellyfish', an apt analogy since the situation shares similarities with other monocultures. When the rich biodiversity of tropical forests is replaced by plantations growing a single species of tree, an area of rich variety becomes a desert in terms of biodiversity, as do ocean ecosystems when jellyfish become the dominant species. One result of large jellyfish populations is the economic effect it has had on the fishing industry. In the Gulf of Mexico, shrimp fishermen are struggling with a jellyfish boom that fills nets, causing them to break and resulting in millions of dollars in losses. G Experts say that a greater understanding of jellyfish, including their ideal water temperature and feeding habits, is necessary to determine with certainty what is causing the recent massive invasion, and to come up with ways to combat it. Due to the difficulty of turning ecosystems around once jellyfish have become dominant, Richardson and his colleagues propose focusing on 'prevention rather than cure'. They recommend a halt to overfishing small fish that are vital to keeping jellyfish in check, reducing the amount of fertilizer and sewage running off into the oceans, and finally, if possible, confronting climate change.

The writer of some of the best-known stories in the English language, including Treasure Island and The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It is more than 100 years since the death of the Scottish writer Robert Louis Stevenson on the South Pacific island of Samoa. And it seems that time has not been kind to Stevenson’s memory. Immediately after his death, his family and friends set to work to fashion the legend of Robert Louis Stevenson, or R.L.S. as he became known—one of the few writers familiar from his initials alone. Subsequent works of biography then turned him into a writer of almost religious importance. One example was critic Balfour, who in 1901 portrayed Stevenson’s family as ministering angels to the dying genius during his final illness. Similarly, the biographer Crouch absurdly overstated Stevenson’s significance by placing him in the same company as those most revered names in English literature, Shakespeare and Keats. The reaction to this nonsense was a number of highly critical assessments of Stevenson’s legacy in the 1920s. Normally, the critical pendulum can be relied on to swing back again, but there are several aspects of Stevenson’s work that have until recently acted against a more balanced appraisal. First is the allegation that Stevenson was a mere master of linguistic fireworks who lacked moral depth. Some critics accused him of being a literary charlatan, juggling words very prettily to strike effects that overawed an ignorant public and served to distract from the inadequacy of his ideas. Then there has been a prejudice against the adventure story as the proper medium for deep moral seriousness, a prejudice which is still extremely influential today. It seems that we can accept that an adventure film can successfully express profound moral truths, but we reject the same idea for a book. The absurdity of this becomes apparent when we think of writers like Joseph Conrad and Graham Greene, but it is no use pretending that this bias against adventure stories is not part of our high culture. A further problem is that Stevenson has often not found favour in the land of his birth because his conservatism so often collides with the strong radical tradition in Scotland. His many escapist stories and preference for living abroad have led to accusations that he camouflaged Scotland’s real problems. Lastly, the high adventure of Stevenson’s own lifestyle has sometimes obscured his output. His globe-trotting, and above all the final phase of his life in Samoa, tended to make his own life a greater story than any he could devise. This was precisely what his friends feared would happen towards the end of his short life: his art might be overwhelmed by the drama of life in Samoa. One consequence of this has been that Stevenson’s influence on other writers has too often been neglected. The writer and poet Oscar Wilde was deeply influenced by Stevenson, even though he declared that Stevenson would have produced better work if he had lived in London rather than Samoa. Stevenson tends to stick in the throat even of those writers who would like to spit him out, such as Shaw, who claimed to have learned from him that the romantic hero is always mocked by reality. Likewise, the writer Galsworthy, who was a determined critic, later changed his mind and said that the superiority of Stevenson over the novelist Hardy was that Stevenson was all life and Hardy, all death. The influence on the novelist Chesterton would also repay detailed study, for it was through him that Stevenson has managed to cross the ages, emerging as an influence on the modernist movement and our own contemporary Latin American school of magical realism. When making an assessment of his life and work, one question must inevitably be asked: was Robert Louis Stevenson Scotland’s greatest writer of English prose? For most commentators this honour falls to Sir Walter Scott, author of Ivanhoe among many other classic novels, and it is true that in terms of craftsmanship, precision and the ability to minutely regulate language to create the desired effect, Scott takes the prize. However, this is not the same thing at all as inherent talent: by way of comparison one may take the example of the two great Russian composers Shostakovich and Prokofiev, of whom the former had learned more precise skills of execution but the latter’s intrinsic genius was greater, and so it seems to be with Scott and Stevenson. Admittedly, Scott’s detailed style does permit his stories to explore levels of tragedy that are beyond Stevenson’s reach, but in this regard they have the musty smell of the museum, somehow artificial and removed from modern-day reality. On the other hand, Stevenson’s skill with plotting and narrative give his books a timeless quality, so that they still live today. And Stevenson was also the shrewder judge of behaviour and psychology. For example, his compelling description of a man with a split personality in The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde has proved so accessible and accurate that the expression “Jekyll and Hyde” has entered common English usage. Even if we do not see a revival of critical interest in this great Scottish writer, it is to be hoped that readers go back to Robert Louis Stevenson’s magnificent stories and reassess this neglected genius.