1898] SOME NEW BOOKS 427 
to send to Germany for klinostats and polar planimeters any more 
than for platinum crucibles and india-rubber tubing. 
The translator has done his work excellently, and we are but 
rarely reminded of the German original. We note, however, a few 
errors. The English of ‘plasmolytische gemacht’ is ‘ plasmolysed,’ 
not ‘rendered plasmolytic’ (p. 145). On p. 43, 1. 19, ‘layer’ would 
be intelligible while ‘meniscus’ is not, though the German is 
‘Meniscus.’ On p. 424, 1. 16, ‘favourable’ is found where ‘un- 
favourable’ is meant. 
The abundant matter of this compendious book is conveniently 
arranged, and the translation of it will be welcomed by the propor- 
tionally increasing number of those among even serious botanical 
students, who are unable to use such a work in the original. 
THE ORGANISM AS UNIT 
PROBLEMS OF BroLocy. By George Sandeman. 8vo, pp. viii+218. London: 
Swan Sonnenschein. 1896. 
Tue Living Orcanism: An Introduction to the Problems of Biology. By Alfred 
Earl. 8vo, pp. xiv+272. London: Macmillan & Co. 1898. Price 6s. 
THESE two books appear to have similar aims and to arrive at much 
the same ultimate conclusion, or absence of conclusion, and yet they 
stand in strong contrast to each other. Mr Earl’s book is nicely 
printed and bound; it is written in an easy style, has all the clear- 
ness that can be imparted by division into chapters with many sub- 
divisions and running: headlines, uses italics where appropriate, and 
is furnished with a full table of contents and with an index. Mr 
Sandeman’s book is needlessly repellent in type and binding; its 
style has an individuality that is strongly marked, but far from 
attractive or lucid ; the chapters and the paragraphs are of weary- 
ing length ; there is no analysis of contents, and no index. Never- 
theless, we set Mr Sandeman’s book above Mr Earl’s: it is more 
interesting, more critical, and more suggestive. If the author 
would rewrite it with more feeling for the dulness of his readers, 
if he would be guided by the example of Mr Earl, and if he 
would temper his biological erudition to the ignorance of the 
philosopher, his philosophical jargon to the simplicity of the 
biologist, we should recommend both parties to read his second 
edition. We dare not recommend the perusal of the first, except 
to those superior beings who have mastered “Sordello” and 
“ Bygmester Solness.” 
For both of these writers a theory of the unity of the organism 
forms the chief object of biological enquiry. Each of them is at pains 
to tell us in what this unity does not consist; but, as is natural, 
neither of them can formulate a clear conception of what it is. Mr 
Earl lays stress on the impossibility of conceiving the organism apart 
from its environment; they may be expressed in terms of subject 
and object, and constitute “a dual manifestation of a single reality.” 
Mr Sandeman dallies with ‘feeling’ as that which gives unity to the 
organism, but presently rejects it and falls back on the barren con- 
ception of ‘character,’ which, he says, “is the identity in difference 
