! I4 CRITICISMS ON HUXLE Y'S 



a protoplasm, and an egg a protoplasm, and a sheep a pro- 

 toplasm, and a man a protoplasm, we do not thereby get a 

 clearer idea of any one of them than we had before, while 

 on the other hand the words cell, egg, sheep, man, are 

 distinctive, short 3 and generally understood. Living things 

 and lifeless things have been confused together, for both 

 have been called " protoplasm." For many reasons I have 

 been obliged to reject the use of the word protoplasm in 

 speaking of the living matter of living beings, and have pro- 

 posed in its stead the word bioplasm, which exactly expresses 

 what I wish to convey, viz., that the matter referred to 

 lives is alive, and is totally different from matter in every 

 other state or condition that is known. 



Criticisms upon Huxley's Hypothesis. Professor Huxley's 

 " Physical Basis of Life," and much of his general phy- 

 siology founded upon that idea, has been called in question 

 by several observers. His philosophy has been deservedly 

 but severely criticised by many able writers, and especially 

 by Dr. J. H. Stirling of Edinburgh.* Two years after the 

 publication of Dr. Stirling's essay, Mr. Huxley wrote a paper 

 significantly entitled, " Yeast," which was published in the 

 "Contemporary Review," for December, 1871. In this 

 memoir Professor Huxley charges Dr. Stirling with "mis- 

 representation," and speaks of his having written history 

 which is a travesty, says that Dr. Stirling's "method of 

 dealing with the subject is peculiar," complains that 

 Dr. Stirling has not examined Mr. Huxley's favourite plant, 

 a stinging nettle, and intimates that he should have been 



* ' ' As regards Protoplasm, in relation to Professor Huxley's essay 

 on the Physical Basis of Life," by J. H. Stirling, LL.D. Edinburgh, 

 October, 1869. Second edition, 1872, Longmans and Co. 



