EDITOR'S TABLE. 



499 



it. But this negative evidence is worth 

 nothing, except to correct the error of 

 those who supposed Bathybius to be 

 universally distributed over the sea- 

 bottom. It does not touch the question 

 of its existence. Sir Wyville Thom- 

 son, in charge of the Challenger expe- 

 dition, wrote to Huxley that they had 

 not only failed to discover Bathybius, 

 but that it was seriously suspected that 

 the thing to which the name had been 

 given is little more than sulphate of 

 lime, precipitated in a flocculent state 

 from sea-water by spirits of wine. Prof. 

 Huxley immediately communicated this 

 report of Sir Wyville Thomson to Na- 

 ture, 1 and he adds : " Prof. Thomson 

 speaks very guardedly, and does not 

 consider the fate of Bathybius to be as 

 yet absolutely decided. But, since I am 

 mainly responsible for the mistake, if 

 it be one, of introducing this singular 

 substance into the list of living things, 

 I think I shall err on the right side in 

 attaching even greater weight than he 

 does to the view which he suggests." 



Let it be remembered that the sole 

 question here is as to the interpreta- 

 tion to be given to observations on 

 sea-slime. But such observations had 

 been made elsewhere over and over 

 again, in many places, and by numerous 

 microscopists. The flocculent gypsum 

 precipitate in sea-water had been, more- 

 over, known to everybody who had pre- 

 served marine animals in alcohol. It 

 was, of course, a proper question to raise, 

 how -far such an effect might not be 

 mistaken for reactions of protoplasm ; 

 but to suppose that anything was here 

 finally decided is simply preposterous 

 much more so, that all previous observa- 

 tions on sea-bottom protoplasm were 

 proved worthless. The "suspicion" 

 was quite legitimate, but it was only a 

 suspicion, and was offered as nothing 

 more. Huxley expressed himself sim- 

 ply in the terms of courtesy that were 

 suitable to the occasion. Sir Wyville 



1 See Popular Science Monthly, October, 

 1877, p. 648. 



Thomson spoke cautiously ; and Huxley 

 accorded to his statement all possible 

 weight. If he had been disposed to 

 contest the matter, this would not have 

 been the appropriate time, as his object 

 was nothing more than to communicate 

 to the public what had been sent to him 

 for that purpose. Mr. Cook makes a 

 great ado about Huxley's " recantation,'' 

 but, so far from recanting, he does not 

 even admit that he had been mistaken. 

 He gave Sir Wyville Thomson the fullest 

 benefit of his doubt, and there left the 

 matter for further investigation. The 

 Kev. Mr. Cook, however, returns to the 

 subject in his third lecture, and edifies 

 his intelligent Boston audience by clos- 

 ing with the following whoop : '"That 

 Bathybius has been discovered in 1875 

 by the ship Challenger, to be hear O 

 heavens! and give ear, earth! sul- 

 phate of lime. (Applause.) " 



We may here note the contrast be- 

 tween the theological biology which so 

 evoked the plaudits of Boston ortho- 

 doxy and biology of the common sci- 

 entific kind. It was evidently a part of 

 Mr. Cook's polemical tactics to open his 

 course of lectures by a sensational dash 

 that should make a breach in the sci- 

 entific ranks which it was the object 

 of the " Monday lectureship " to rout, 

 and for this purpose nothing could be 

 more telling than to discredit Prof. 

 Huxley at the outset. So much had 

 been said, and so little was really 

 known, about "Huxley's Bathybius," 

 that this seemed to offer the most vul- 

 nerable point of attack. But had Mr. 

 Cook not been talking to people who 

 know nothing about the difficulties of ar- 

 riving at the truths of Nature nothing 

 of the inexorable disciplines of science 

 and who pride themselves on never 

 giving up a dogma once professed ; had 

 he not, in short, been catering to the 

 " closed, dogmatic " mind of a locality 

 proverbial for pride of opinion, his effort 

 would hardly have been greeted with 

 the reported applause. Had Prof. 

 Huxley been in error, would it not 



