2J.^ 



NATURE 



[October 14, 1920 



\ 



and Projjress in Prehistoric Times. Much of what 

 he has to say has a metaphysical or an ethical 

 import, and much is in the way of kindly comment 

 upon fellow anthropologists. If, however, we 

 search for the psychology, we find absolutely no 

 new principle discovered, no new method of 

 analysis proposed, nothing that definitely " sticks 

 in the mind " as marking a clear advance. We 

 are told in many graceful ways that the folk-lorist 

 is to account for his materials "in terms of a 

 self-active, self-unfolding soul " ; we learn that 

 man's emotional nature remains relatively stable, 

 though historical conditions constantly change ; 

 that religion is a way of life, and not a set of 

 propositions offering themselves to belief ; and that 

 suggestibility is peculiarly effective in the primi- 

 tive community. In many ways the most inter- 

 esting paper is the brief one on "The Transvalua- 

 tion of Culture." Here a real attempt is made to 

 analyse, the iforms of transference of folk materials 

 which commonly occur as a result of the interplay 

 of cultures. The analysis is extremely interest- 

 ing, but not sufficiently developed, and this 

 criticism applies to the whole book. 



In the final paper on "Anthropology and Uni- 

 versity Education " Dr. Marett says many good 

 things well. 



The book is most pleasing to read throughout, 

 for it could scarcely be better written. Yet it is 

 disappointing. It is too vague and too general. 

 Modern psychology can do more for folk-lore 

 than Dr. Marett makes clear, and at the same 

 time it has everything to gain and nothing to lose 

 by a clear recognition of the equal value and 

 necessity of an objective, sociological method of 

 approach. F. C. Bartlett. 



Elementary Chemistry. 



(i) Intermediate Text-book of Chemistry. By 

 .Alexander Smith. Pp. vi-F520. (London: 

 G. Bell and Sons, Ltd., 1920.) Price 8s. 6d. net. 



(2) College Text-book of Chemistry. By 

 William A. Noyes. Pp. viii -1-370. (New York': 

 Henry Holt and Co., igig.) 



THE above titles may be misleading to 

 English readers, the ground covered by 

 each book being practically of Matriculation 

 standard. The authors havt, however, conveyed 

 in addition interesting information not usually 

 found in English text-books of similar character. 

 The chemistry of common life and of industry 

 receives brief treatment, and these elementary 

 books should prove interesting to the advanced 

 English student who, in preparing for examina- 

 tions, has attained detailed knowledge of such 

 NO. 2659, VOL. 106] 



matters as the syntheses of alkaloids and other 

 things he is never likely to see, but has been left 

 in ignorance of chemical proces.ses in the body, 

 the growth of plants, the manufacture of such 

 things as glue, ink, bread, candles, and soap, and 

 most of the applications of chemistry to daily life. 

 (1) The fundamentals of chemical theory receive 

 careful consideration in both books ; that of Prof. 

 Smith treats in detail of the theory of electrolytic 

 dissociation and its applications. Exception might 

 be taken to the treatment of Avogadro's law and 

 its relation to atomic weights. This is dealt with 

 in the same way by both authors. The molecular 

 weight is defined as the weight of a gaseous sub- 

 stance filling a volume of 2240 litres at S.T.P., 

 and the atomic weight of an element as the least 

 weight found in this volume of any one of 

 its gaseous compounds. No reason is given 

 when the definitions are stated as to why 22-40 

 litres has been chosen, and it is only in the case 

 of ideal gases that the definitions are valid. This 

 method leads Prof. Smith to say, for instance, 

 when describing hydrogen chloride (p. 123) : "The 

 density of the gas (weight of i c.c.) is 0001628. 

 Of more interest to the chemist is the weight of 

 22,400 c.c. or 224 liters (the gram-molecular 

 volume), namely, 36468 grams. This is the 

 molecular weight of the substance. As we have 

 .seen (p. 77), it is made up of 1008 g. of 

 hydrogen combined with 3546 g. of chlorine." 

 This statement, if taken literally, is incorrect. If 

 it is not to be taken literally, why should three 

 places of decimals be given? 



Although Scheele was the first to discover 

 oxygen, the claims of Priestley as an independent 

 discoverer have not so far been questioned. We 

 now learn from Prof. Smith that Priestley is 

 " incorrectly credited with the ' discovery ' of the 

 element," and that he described the gas as "un- 

 breathable and noxious (poisonous)." In reality, 

 Priestley breathed the gas himself, and recom- 

 mended its use in pneumonia. The statement on 

 the same page that oxygen was discovered by 

 Bayen in April, 1774, is another piece of historical 

 inaccuracy. The memoir of Bayen to which refer- 

 ence is doubtless made (c/. "Opuscules," voL i., 

 1798) contains no indication that this experimenter 

 knew that the "air" given off on heating mer- 

 curic oxide differs from common air (ibid. , pp. 252, 

 312, and the editor's introduction), which is the 

 real point at issue. Equally unfortunate is the 

 statement that the law of conservation of energy 

 is due to "J. R. Mayer (1842), Colding (1843), 

 and Helmholtz (1847}," without a mention of 

 Joule ! 



It seems a pity that such spelling as "woolen," 

 "mantel," "ladeled," "marvelous," and "sulfur"" 



