( 165 ) 
NEW BOOKS, WITH SHORT NOTICES. 
The Micrographic Dictionary. Third Edition. Edited by J. W. 
Griffith, M.D., Professor Martin Duncan, M.B., F. R.S. ; assisted by the 
Rev. M. J. Berkeley, M.A., F.L.S., and T. Rupert Jones, F.R.S. Parts 
XVII., XVIII., XIX., and XX. London : Van Voorst, 1874. 
(Second Notice.) 
We much regret that our remarks on the subject of the above work 
were “crushed out” of the last number of this Journal, as it neces- 
sarily makes our present observations more brief. We shall now run 
shortly over the Nos. XVII., XVIII., XIX., and XX., — the last two 
being merely one number in reality, containing the remainder of the 
plates, and the various portions, as the preface and title-page, which 
are usually reserved for the final portion of a work which comes out 
in serial parts. And in the first place we must observe, that it seems 
to us the authors and their assistants have taken more care of the 
articles as they have approached the completion of the work, so that 
our criticism is less marked than it was in our review of the earlier 
parts. Imprimis, we have noticed several short paragraphs on the 
subject of Herr Haeckel’s work. These have been all new, and though 
brief, yet they are clear and to the point. Such are, for example, the 
several words Protista, Protogenes, Protohydra, Protomonas, Protomyxa. 
Protozoa is not lengthy, nor is it bad, but we think the writer has 
been much to blame in dismissing the important subject of biblio- 
graphy with the words “ works on Comparative Anatomy.” He must 
have known very well that the great majority of works on the subject 
referred to, contain nothing in the shape of observations upon the 
Protozoa ; and it would not have occupied further space than he has 
occupied with the misleading reference he has given, to have referred 
to the best, and indeed the only book on the subject, the excellent 
‘ Manual of Protozoa,’ by Professor J. Reay Greene. Another point 
on which we have to take the authors to task is their reference to the 
‘ Microscopical Journal.’ Such a term might have been employed 
with indifference in the older editions, when there was but one 
periodical devoted to microscopy. But now it is absolutely inexcusable. 
For how is anyone to know whether the ‘ Monthly ’ or the £ Quarterly ’ 
is the Journal referred to? It is exclusively the fault of one of the 
editors, for the other, when he cites either Journal, is always careful 
to distinguish between the two periodicals. 
As we said in our former notice, the Fungi and Algie are excel- 
lently done, and so we must say of the last three numbers of the work. 
As a type of this we may take the article on Puccinia, which gives an 
excellent account of these peculiar fungi. Herepathite, too, is a good 
paper, describing at length this peculiar salt and its polarizing 
properties. Raphides is not so good a paragraph as we should have 
expected. Much work has been done on this point in our own 
country of late, and we should have expected that the ‘ Micrographic 
Dictionary ’ would certainly have taken notice of it. Rhizopoda is a 
