April 7, 1898J 



4(^ ruHE 



531 



able to find words in a dictionary, and another to know the 

 language to which the dictionary is the key. Mr. Brown 

 has written many papers on astronomical matters, and 

 we are willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that 

 they may be of value ; but from the manner in which 

 he writes the words of one of the languages which he 

 ■quotes, that is to say Hebrew, we are convinced that 

 his knowledge of it is of an elementary character. An 

 •example or two will show what we mean. On p. 115 

 he speaks of Sanchouniathan, meaning Sanchon-yathan 

 {we leave out the vowel quantities because they are not 

 necessary) ; this spelling shows that Mr. Brown took the 

 name from a non-English book, and did not know that 

 Sanchon was the form of the god's name. The spelling 

 Aschtharth (pp. 115 and 182) is another example of the 

 •same thing. On p. 116 {bis) he prints Qarnaim for 

 Qamaytm, which shows that he does not know how to 

 transcribe the dual ending in Hebrew ; the a cannot be 

 long here unless it carries the accent. On p. 133 he gives 

 dayon as the Hebrew for the word "judge" ; as a matter 

 •of fact it is day y an; on p. 149 he writes Ai lenu for 

 i Idnu ; on p. 181, Qastu for Qashtu ; on p. 182, Dagim 

 for Ddgimj on p. 142, Kiyian for Kiyyiht; on p. 133, 

 anoshim for dndshim; and so on in many places. These 

 are not mere misprints, and they show the want of 

 knowledge of elementary principles of Hebrew grammar. 

 He often vocalises Phoenician words in defiance of all the 

 laws which governed the Masoretes in their deliber- 

 ations, and yet when he has good authority for adding 

 the lengths of the vowels he fails to do so ; see on p. 182 

 where he writes Kimah for Kimdh. We cannot attempt 

 to follow Mr. Brown in his Accadian, and " Hittite," and 

 •other little-known» dialects, but the general impression 

 ^vhich we gather from his book is that he is little more 

 ■of a genuine expert in linguistic mythology than is Mr. 

 Lang; and Mr. Lang is a brilliant, amusing writer, 

 whilst Mr. Brown is not. The silly remarks on p. 85 

 are in very bad taste. The scholars of Oxford, Cam- 

 bridge and London are only too glad to help on learning 

 in any shape or form, and no honest worker is pushed 

 aside at any of these places because he does not live 

 there, or is not a graduate of the University. When 

 (professors of the Aryan and Semitic languages are con- 

 vinced that Mr. Brown has a competent knowledge of 

 these tongues, they will be prepared to believe that he 

 knows accurately Accadian and " Hittite," and to accept 

 his conclusions ; meanwhile Mr. Brown's present work 

 will delay that result. 



DEVELOPMENTAL MECHANICS. 

 Programm und Forschungsmethodefi der Entwicklungs- 

 mechanik der Organtsmen, leichverstdndlich dargestellt. 

 Von Wilhelm Roux, 0.0. Professor der Anatomie und 

 Direktordes anatomischen Instituts zu Halle. Zugleich 

 •eine Erwiderung auf O. Hertwig's Schrift Biologie und 

 Mechanik. Pp. 203. (Leipzig : Verlag von Wilhelm 

 Engelmann, 1897.) 



IT is questionable whether Dr. Wilhelm Roux does 

 not do more harm than good to the cause which he 

 has at heart by his excessive fondness for programmes. 

 The work which lies before us is at least the fourth of a 

 «eries of expositions of the nature, ainis and methods of I 

 NO. 1484. VOL. 57] 



the subject of developmental mechanics, and it differs but 

 little from its predecessors (consisting as it largely does 

 of extracts and quotations from them, with explanatory 

 and justificatory additions) in the complacent, not to 

 say assertive, manner in which its author extols his own 

 methods and aims at the expense of those which have 

 hitherto been in use among zoologists. To our thinking 

 Dr. Roux's weakness lies not in his aims, which are legiti- 

 mate and praiseworthy, nor in his methods, which are 

 carefully considered, but in the persistence with which 

 he lectures his colleagues on their shortcomings and 

 on his own rectitude. Different persons are differently 

 affected by oft-repeated homilies : some will acquiesce, 

 the greater number will escape by indifference, and others 

 will be goaded into active hostility to what they regard 

 as the pretensions of the author. To the last category 

 belongs Dr. Oscar Hertwig, who has recently attacked 

 Roux in an unsparing manner, asserting that his pro- 

 gramme is obscure and wanting in novelty ; that since it 

 is not new the very name of developmental mechanics is 

 superfluous and, moreover, incorrect ; that the method, 

 in so far as it is new, cannot lead to any progress in 

 biology; that it is inapplicable to the subject ; and finally, 

 that in so far as it has been applied by Roux, it has been 

 applied in so faulty and slovenly a manner as to have 

 produced error instead of enlightenment. 



The issue between the new method and the old is very 

 clearly raised, and the present work is chiefly concerned 

 in repelling Hertwig's attack. It would take far too much 

 space to attempt to describe the numerous questions 

 which enter into the dispute, questions which involve 

 discussions on the laws of causation, on the theory of 

 mechanics, on nomenclature, and on numerous matters 

 of fact. 



Our general impression after reading Roux's article, is 

 that he has come out of the contest with credit, and that 

 in some particulars he has successfully overthrown 

 Hertwig's attack. It must be remembered that Roux is 

 by no means an empty theorist : he has preached, as we 

 think, over-much, but he has also practised largely and 

 with great success, and whatever a priori objections may 

 be taken to the methods which he inculcates, he has been 

 able to show us, by the results which he has himself 

 achieved, that the method of experiment may be applied 

 with great advantage to the elucidation of embryological 

 phenomena. His contention in this and earlier essays 

 is, that the biological methods lately in vogue are purely 

 descriptive and based upon simple observation, and that 

 therefore they do not, and cannot, give a causal account 

 of biological phenomena. To obtain a knowledge of 

 causal relations, one must, says Roux, have recourse to 

 experiment, ajid further than this, to "causal analytical 

 experiment." 



It is not quite easy to understand the antithesis 

 between simple experiment and causal analytical ex- 

 periment, though our author evidently attaches special 

 value to the latter term,ifor he repeats it again and again. 

 Seemingly it means nothing more than that every ex- 

 periment should be conducted with strict attention to the 

 particular question to be solved and with due regard to 

 secondary and disturbing influences, conditions which, 

 to the ordinary uninstructed person, would seem to be 

 necessary to every experiment worthy of the nanie. This, 



