338 



NATURE 



[November ii, 1920 



acaceae, lUecebraceae, Dianthaceae (more generally 

 known as Caryophyllaceae), Nymphaeaceae, 

 Ceratophyllaceae, Ranunculacese, Actaeaceae (com- 

 prising the single genus Actaea), Berberidaceae, 

 Paeoniaceae (limited to Paeonia), Papaveraceae, and 

 Fumariaceae. The genera Montia and Cerastium 

 have been elaborated by Dr. G. C. Druce, several 

 genera of Dianthaceae by Prof. R. H. Compton, 

 and the genus Fumaria by Mr. H. W. Pugsley. 

 In view of unavoidable delay in publication, it 

 would be an advantage if the dates of completion 

 of the monographs of the various families and 

 genera were given ; this would avoid the necessity 

 for explanation in such cases, for instance, as 

 Mr. Pugsley 's account of Fumaria, which is ante- 

 dated in publication by his recent complete mono- 

 graph of the genus in the Linnean Society's 

 journal, but was probably completed before the 

 more important work was undertaken. 



Dr. Moss has intercalated in the text notes on 

 systematic arrangement, limitations of orders and 

 families, and discussions of points of nomencla- 

 ture, many of which are of considerable interest, 

 though sometimes difficult of appreciation by the 

 ordinary student of British botany, who may, 

 perhaps, consider the elevation of Actaea and 

 Paeonia to the rank of distinct families as puzzling 

 and unnecessary. On the other hand, the student 

 of the British flora will welcome the careful and 

 critical treatment of the genera, species, and 

 varieties of his plants, and appreciate the notes on 

 their respective distribution in Great Britain and 

 Europe, and the discussions as to their indigen- 

 ousness in doubtful cases. The outline maps indi- 

 cating distribution are a useful feature, and the 

 information conveyed therein may be supplemented 

 should occasion arise. 



It is to be regretted that personal matters 

 should have been introduced into a work of this 

 kind. "The Cambridge British Flora" will, pre- 

 sumably, take rank as a standard work, a presen- 

 tation of the knowledge and views of eminent 

 British botanists at a certain period in the history 

 of botany, and to perpetuate the differences of 

 opinion which have arisen on matters of very 

 secondary importance detracts from the dignity 

 which such a work should possess. The syndics 

 of the Cambridge University Press would have 

 been well advised if they had exercised a fatherly 

 censorship on several paragraphs in the introduc- 

 tion to the present volume. In conclusion, we 

 would express the hope that the two succeeding 

 volumes, which will carry the work to the end of 

 the family Rosaceae, will be published with as little 

 delay as possible. 



A. B. R. 

 NO. 2663, VOL. 106] 



Man and Matter. 



Religion and Science : From Galileo to Bergsan. 

 By J. C. Hardwick. Pp. ix-H48. (London: 

 S.P.C.K. ;New York: The Macmillan Co.> 

 1920.) Price 85. net. 



BECAUSE we wish to give a very favourable im- 

 pression of this little book, we propose to state 

 our criticisms at once, leaving no "but" to the 

 end which might suggest a reservation on the part 

 of the reviewer. Mr. Hardwick has written a very 

 clear account of some of the chief movements of 

 philosophic thought since the Renaissance, in so 

 far as these bear on the concepts of science and of 

 religion, though he modestly disclaims so large a 

 plan. We doubt if the title is well chosen, in spite' 

 of its excellent simplicity. " Religion and Science " 

 suggests apologetic, possibly ill-balanced and ig- 

 norant, and this the book emphatically is not. 

 Further, the author's definition of science is unduly 

 wide in scope. " Systematic and accurate know- 

 ledge about everything there is to be known" 

 (p. 2) really covers the whole of philosophy : 

 science, as the term is commonly understood, deals 

 with the facts of the physical universe alone. Thus 

 the statement that " religion and science r^ard 

 reality from different angles, but it is the same 

 reality that is . . . the goal of their search " 

 (p. 6), though true for the author's definition, is 

 not true for Prof. Karl Pearson's (which he quotes)^ 

 or for that of the ordinary man. The statements 

 about radium on p. 126 are condensed to the verge 

 of inaccuracy. Radium is not the only element 

 which breaks down ; it does not evaporate ; nor are 

 all the particles into which it disintegrates elec- 

 trons, as the phrasing suggests. The statement 

 that " electricity is a species of energy which can 

 be expressed in terms of Will " (p. 128) conveys 

 absolutely no meaning as it stands, and suggests 

 that the author has not wholly escaped the 

 plausible but dangerous idea that the dematerial- 

 isation of matter to which scientific investigation 

 is tending necessarily brings matter nearer in 

 nature to mind, thus confirming the idealist 

 position. 



Philosophers may here and there disagree with, 

 the author's emphasis. For example, the contri- 

 bution of Hegel is generally held to be more im- 

 portant than is here allowed, or at least than is 

 brought out; while the statement of the influence 

 of Kant gives more finality to his work than is 

 perhaps justifiable. But these are all minor 

 blemishes — for the most part verbal — in a valuable 

 book. Though it is far from faultless, we do not 

 remember to have seen so clear, simple, and 

 balanced a summary of the main trends of human. 



