Jan. I o, 1889] 



NATURE 



253 



certain restricted lines of thought. We meet with indica- 

 tions of cliquism and faction, and it would not be difficult 

 to show that, in respect to this and some other matters, 

 such journals at times compare unfavourably with that of 

 the Society, which is kept in check by freedom of dis- 

 cussion and by criticism at the hands of referees. 

 Instances are not wanting to show that the elementary 

 student, starting research, is at times turned adrift in the 

 labyrinths of a highly-involved problem, before he knows 

 with what he is dealing ; and if, as has occasionally 

 happened, he be working under the influence of a precon- 

 ceived bias, mischievous results must accrue. Although, 

 in the pages before us, no such instance as this is actually 

 forthcoming, we are of opinion that, in respect to certain 

 matters referred to below, consultation with specialists 

 prior to publication, would have resulted in the with- 

 drawal of heresies which constitute the only jarring 

 element in this beautiful work. 



The authors of the papers thus far published are, for 

 the most part, men of established repute. For many of 

 them we entertain a personal regard, and there are among 

 their leading productions monographs that are continua- 

 tions of those with which, under the old regime, they 

 have honoured our national journals. Others there are 

 with the preUminaries to which we claim a proud fami- 

 liarity, and many of us look back with pleasure upon the 

 fact that one of the original communications on the sub- 

 ject of the opening paper was made in our midst (cf. 

 P.Z.S., 1886, p. 343). The journal makes its debut under 

 auspicious circumstances, and the above and other similar 

 considerations show it to be the outcome of a growing 

 want, in the unfolding of which we have ourselves had a 

 stake ; it is manifestly our duty, therefore, to support it. 



The papers, when considered individually, must be 

 declared of excellent merit, and, detailed criticism being 

 here impossible, we pass to a brief comment upon those 

 most conspicuous or most likely to raise discussion. 

 Chief among all are the contributions of the senior editor. 

 We defer mention of the more philosophic of these till 

 the end of our notice ; his " Contribution to the History 

 of the Germ-Layers in Clepsine'" (78 pages) is a mar- 

 vellously-wrought piece of work ; and, if his leading 

 deductions concerning the fate of his "macromeres" be 

 capable of support, he may well lay claim to a masterly 

 stroke in advance. With his "teioblasts" there is ini- 

 tiated an entirely new line of inquiry, in itself refreshing 

 after the ceaseless quibbles as to the fate of the ' ' blasto- 

 pore," while it gives promise of a direct and important 

 bearing upon some of the most revolutionary of recent 

 embryological discoveries {e.g. that concerning the part 

 played by the ectoblast in the development of the ex- 

 cretory system). The author marshals his facts in fault- 

 less sequence : his monograph is a model of its kind, the 

 more contemplated the more to be admired ; and it fully 

 establishes his reputation as a leader among American 

 embryologists. 



Four of the papers offered us pertain to the eye, with 

 a total of 171 pages. The authors of these are Messrs. 

 Patten and Kingsley, and the first of the series, by the 

 former, is a condensation of his larger contribution to the 

 Naples Mittheilungen. This paper has obtained a noto- 

 riety on account of the heated discussion which it evoked, 

 and, setting personalities aside, we admit that the author's 

 ill-conceived " dynamophagous organs" received, together 

 with his more flagrant heresies, a well-deserved refuta- 

 tion. Many of this investigator's suggestions and aspira- 

 tions are neither better nor worse than those of his critics 

 and predecessors ; he has, like many more enthusiasts, 

 aimed at high game with a resolve to be sensational at 

 all hazards. It must be admitted, however, on careful 

 perusal of his work, that he erred in an over-enthusiasm, 

 and that there underlies his remarkable production a sub- 

 stratum of solid fact. Excessive theorizers, like excessive 

 controversialists, stand in a fair way of being shelved, if 



only by virtue of their verboseness. On examination of the 

 later contributions of this author, we observe that he has 

 profited by his hard-earned experience, and that he has, 

 under the influence of his able editor, chosen the wise, 

 though very obvious, path. The other writer on this 

 subject produces a paper of an altogether more modest 

 cast. In his 16 pages there are embodied a series of 

 very useful observations and suggestions which, if uUi- 

 mately accepted, will simplify our conceptions of the 

 complex visual organ in the Arthropods. He differs from 

 his contemporary on points of primary importance. We 

 welcome this as a healthy sign (cf. ante), and the reader 

 will find that in these papers, and others proffered in this 

 journal, differences of opinion are asserted in inoffensive 

 language, in a spirit as free of both animus and bias as it 

 is becoming the dignity of the subject in hand. 



Prof. Osborne contributes two most interesting papers : 

 one, on the internal structure of the Amphibian brain, 

 is the completion of a series of beautiful studies, largely 

 inspired by our greatest living master (cf. Morph. Jahrb.y 

 vol. xii. p. 247) ; the other, on the foetal membranes of 

 the Marsupials, is also a continuation of earlier studies, 

 and we watch the growth of them with intense interest, 

 in view of those so long looked for at the hands of a 

 countryman of our own, upon the same in the Australian 

 forms. 



One of the most ambitious communications is that 

 bearing the title, " On the Phylogenetic Arrangement of 

 the Sauropsida." The author has elsewhere expressed 

 many of his views on the subject ; his enthusiasm and 

 daring admitted, we cannot pass unnoticed the super- 

 ficiality of his essay ; in respect to this, it does not even 

 come within the conditions imposed by the founders of 

 the journal. More than that, however. Reference is 

 made by the author to his order Progatiosauria ; if his 

 primary diagnosis of the same {Zoolog. Anseiger, 1886, 

 p. 189) be compared with the original drawing (Proc. 

 Amer. Phil. Soc, vol. xxiii. No. 121) and with the replicas 

 in our national collection, it will be found that the exist- 

 ence of his leading structural peculiarity (we refer to the 

 presence of five distinct tarsalia) is at least doubtful. 

 Even if it did exist, the exaltation of such a character to 

 a position of ordinal value would be unwarrantable, and, 

 as employed by the author, meaningless, inasmuch as a 

 fifth tarsale is present in the Chelonia. This he admits 

 (cf. Zoolog. Anzeiger, 1888, p. 597), and in doing so he 

 lands himself in a contradiction. We cannot but regret 

 the hasty introduction of generalizations so sweeping into 

 papers of a provisional nature, and we take this oppor- 

 tunity of entering a protest against this abuse of the 

 ^'- vorldufige Mitthetlung" : as a means of establishing a 

 claim of priority in the discovery of a sound fact it is of 

 the utmost utility, but as converted into a medium for 

 contradiction it becomes intolerable. The over-cultiva- 

 tion of this unfortunate habit bids fair to involve its 

 devotees in difficulties irrecoverable ; the best work 

 always has been, and always will be, done, as wrote 

 Goethe, " ohne Hast, ohne Rast." The waste which 

 accrues from the abuse here deplored will ultimately 

 find its own level, but its accumulation is none the less 

 to be regretted. 



In matters of technique this journal is not deficient. 

 Its general " get-up " is most admirable, and full atten- 

 tion has been paid to minute detail : the type is excellent. 

 The plates are faultless, and admirably arranged in relation 

 to their accompanying explanations, and the eye is never 

 offended by the unpardonable intrusion of a woodcut upon 

 the margin of the page. One or two minor modifications 

 might be suggested, but they are so trivial that we prefer 

 not to burden this notice with them. We observe, with 

 extreme satisfaction, that in leading papers care has been 

 taken to discriminate between the more important repre- 

 sentations of fact and the less important diagrams, the 

 latter being interspersed among the text, in woodcut. The 



