202 NATURAL SCIENCE [September 
The present volume contains two parts, the first dealing with the 
cell and its functions, the second with the Protozoa. In the first part 
the authors give a review of general cytology, and deal with the vexed 
questions of protoplasmic and nuclear structures. Here, as they admit, 
they are often on very controversial ground, and experts would find 
much to criticise and to dispute in the opinions put forward. It 
cannot, however, be laid to the charge of our authors that they have 
neglected or passed over other views, though their criticisms upon 
them are occasionally perhaps rather one-sided; for having in view 
once more the exigencies of the student they have divided the work 
into two parts, one printed in large type composing the main text, 
the other in small type contained in the footnotes. In the former 
the objects are described in a simple and straightforward manner from 
the point of view taken by the authors, while to the footnotes are 
relegated the more controversial subjects as well as details concerning 
the less important or doubtful genera and similar matters. In this 
way the work is rendered extremely complete, and while on the one 
hand the student is treated to a clear and continuous, if at times 
dogmatic, exposé of the subject, he is enabled, on the other hand, to 
greatly extend his knowledge, if he wish, by means of the references 
and discussions in the footnotes. 
The portion of the work dealing with the Protozoa contains a mass 
of information which it would be impossible to criticise in detail. We 
must, however, take exception to one innovation which has been 
introduced into this work, namely, the manner in which the authors 
have changed the names of the groups, in the attempt to introduce 
one uniform system of terminations for the equivalent taxonomic 
subdivisions. The results have been in some cases almost disastrous ; 
we can hardly recognise such familiar groups as the Flagellata and 
Ciliata when we see them written as ‘“Flagellia” and “Ciliae” 
respectively. In science a very good excuse is always necessary 
before the alteration of well-established names can be permitted. In 
the present case it is again solicitude for the student which is 
responsible for this well-meant but, we think, injudicious reform. 
It is supposed, for instance, that to make the names of classes end in 
ia, and subclasses in z@e, in all cases, will tend to clearness. Not 
only, however, is this alteration of names rather confusing, especially 
to the beginner, but it involves the assumption, which can scarcely be 
maintained, that the various categories known as classes, subclasses, 
orders, and so forth, are of the same taxonomic value in all groups. 
The fact alone, however, that in the classifications of different authors, 
different names are given to equivalent divisions, is a sufficient refuta- 
tion of this view, for where one author has a subclass divided into 
orders, another may have an order divided into suborders. It is, 
therefore, rather premature to coin a uniform termination for sub- 
classes or orders until the value of these categories is more fixed. 
But further, Messrs Delage and Hérouard have given new names in 
their scheme to just those taxonomic categories for which, being of 
lesser and therefore of more definite value, the almost universal custom 
of naturalists has already established a uniform terminology. Nearly 
everywhere now names of families are made to terminate in zdae and 
subfamilies in inae; yet our authors choose to employ the termination 
ee ee ee ee ee a ee 
a 
ie Lg ae 
