84 
NEW BOOKS, WITH SHORT NOTICES. 
But it must not be on this account imagined that the book has 
been badly edited by Dr. Duncan. Quite the contrary. And if we 
take the majority of the foraminiferal, fungal, and lichenological 
articles as being fully done, we have but to consider how the rest of 
the work has been achieved, and to this we shall make answer by an 
examination in detail of several of the more important sections of the 
Dictionary. In doing this we do not purpose to go farther in the 
present notice than Parts XY. and XVI., leaving the remaining six por- 
tions to be dealt with in our next number. First, of the subject of 
Muscle. This is, in our opinion, very good ; the structure, especially 
that relating to the position of the ultimate nerves, is very well given ; 
and although some theories receive no notice, still all that are worthy 
of attention are given ; even Mr. Shafer’s quite recent paper before the 
Royal Society receiving due consideration. Next comes Haeckel’s new 
genera of Monera, which, though shortly given, have nevertheless as 
much space as is necessary to give the reader clear ideas on the subject. 
Navicellae may be said nearly the same of ; and references to Mr. Ray 
Lankester’s and Professor Van Beneden’s Memoirs are given. Nerves 
is the heading of another article of import. We confess that this rather 
disappoints us, not so much in reference to the structure of the cords, 
as in regard to the subject, partly touched on, of cerebellar structure. 
This is completely behind the time ; and though the paper in Strieker’s 
Handbook (the best paper in existence) is referred to, we should have 
had a more complete summary of the recently made out structure of 
so important an organ as the cerebrum. Under the head of Nucleus we 
have that of animals and plants described separately, and we do not 
see why the former is so much more fully and scientifically dealt with 
than the latter. Yet so it is, most undeniably. The subject of 
immersion objectives is one which we should have expected to have 
read an important contribution upon. But truly it is about the 
worst treated matter in this “ part.” It really might as well be left 
out of consideration completely, for the only remark that pertains to 
originality is that the immersion glass is more readily used than its 
predecessor, a fact we would certainly call in question. It is much 
to be regretted that some one like Mr. Wenham was not asked to 
contribute a short paper on this, at present, important question. Ovary 
and Ovum, too, are articles that we cannot say have been well executed; 
much might have been added, and some alteration made. Palmella 
is, of course, excellent. Parasite, too, is by no means badly done. 
Pedalion also is briefly but fairly given. This animal, the reader 
will remember, was first described in these pages, being the subject of 
a paper before the Royal Microscopical Society, by Dr. Hudson. 
Petalonema, too, is very good, though short. Photography, we fear, 
was entrusted to some one unfamiliar with the best workers at the sub- 
ject. Else, how is it that no allusion is made to any of the splendid 
photographs, and of the many excellent suggestions made by Col. Dr. 
Woodward? This is to be regretted. Pitted Structure is well done, 
too, and it is well illustrated with woodcuts in the text. Plastids is 
a new paragraph, and though short is a very good one ; it shows us 
what is the relation of the true Amoeba to its congeners. Podura is 
