March 21, 1889] 



NA TURE 



48, 



is seen that the sole object in view has here been that of 

 incorporating tall-talk about that modern bogey "ana- 

 bolism," ^ with its antithesis, and about other heresies, 

 which neither the pure physicist nor chemist would 

 tolerate. Much that has been written of late under these 

 and similar heads is now, by common consent, tabooed, 

 as a mere garbling with ill-defined terms. As originally 

 presented, it is, to say the least, over-reaching and often 

 childish in its ambiguity : as diluted in the work before 

 us, it bodes mischief whereby it becomes unendurable. 

 It cannot be denied that for many a raw student such 

 phantasies have an especial charm. In this work they 

 are so interwoven with the more solid portions of the 

 text as to bias and distort the intellect. 



The " conditions of the environment necessary for the 

 maintenance of life " and the " balance of Nature " are 

 discussed and dismissed before the student is made 

 familiar (in any but misleadingly general terms) with the 

 constitution of the living organism. This we regard as a 

 fatal error, revolting alike to common-sense and to 

 established precedent, and we can only surmise that the 

 adoption of so extraordinary a course has resulted from 

 the influence of a wrong-headedness, at work upon the 

 author's elementary training. 



It will be seen that the author has, in our opinion, 

 failed (and that, most probably, from faults not en- 

 tirely his own) in the mode of treatment of his lead- 

 ing novelty. When first we realized the extent to 

 which he had wandered into subjects not professionally 

 his own, our suspicions were aroused as to whether he 

 might not have erred proportionally within the limits of 

 his recognized domain. The volume abounds in in- 

 accuracies and misstatements. The methods of expres- 

 sion are frequently loose and contradictory : for example, 

 on p. 293 we read that, in the frog, " the air is sucked into 

 the interior of the body to the blood," and on p. 294 

 that the frog "forces the air into the lungs." On p. 145 

 a fair description is given of the bulb of the lily, 

 whilst on p. 174 the same plant is "termed an annual." 

 Things are too frequently declared to be " obviously," 

 '• naturally," or "clearly" so and so, and the author has 

 yet to realize that with elementary students nothing must 

 be taken for granted ; while he has, on most points 

 grossly violated the inductive method (cf. the statements 

 concerning the differentiation and structure of the nervous 

 system, as successively presented on pp. 231, 232, 245). 



The author's selection of types is unprecedentedly 

 capricious. On the animal side, the Arthropod and 

 Mollusk are omitted; while on the vegetable side, the 

 description (p. 78) of an imaginary apical cell in Spirogyra 

 implies complete ignorance of the type chosen for study. 

 Nor must we disguise the fact that while the author 

 tolerates those types now in vogue, he loses no oppor- 

 tunity of depreciating their educational value (pp. 219 

 233, 264). We would remind him that these have served 

 exceedingly well in the past, and that it is the manner of 

 their manipulation by a certain class of teachers, rather 

 than their constitution, which the unsuccessful student 

 has cause to lament. 



We deem detailed criticism superfluous, as there are no 

 six pages in this book free from error, and, for a long suc- 



Defined by the author (pp. 336-40) as consisting, in the animal, of ihe 

 processes of mastication, digestion, absorption, circulation, and assimilation. 



cession, no two without inaccuracy. The following extracts 

 will suffice. On pp. 265-66 we read that, in the frog, the 

 alimentary system has become differentiated into " a 

 buccal cavity, where the food is torn in pieces, or masti- 

 cated ; an oesophagus, or tube for the carriage of the 

 triturated food {sic)" &c. ; on p. 301 we are told that 

 the occipital region of the skull, in the same animal, 

 " consists of a floor and two side walls of bone (the basi- 

 and two ex-occipitals)-" ; on p. 327, the oviduct of the frog 

 is said to contain, when ready for oviposition, fertilized 

 ova. Now as to the botanical side. Pcnicillitwi is 

 selected as the type of Fungi, but the descriptions and 

 figures apply throughout to Eitrotitim. In describing 

 Polytrichum, his type of the Mosses, the author informs 

 us (p. 103) that the leaves are " composed of almost un- 

 differentiated parenchyma." A ridiculous attempt is made, 

 three pages further on, to show homology between the 

 archegonium of a moss and the conceptacle oiFucttsj and 

 the diagrammatic figure illustrative of the same can only 

 bewilder the student, and mislead him as to the real 

 structure and mode of development of the organs in 

 question. Under the head of " cell-fusions," the state- 

 ment is made (p. 149) that " the adjacent walls may have 

 become completely broken down, as in tracheides": no 

 well-tutored beginner needs to be reminded that this is 

 in direct contradiction to the usually accepted definition 

 of these structures. Finally, .on p. 152, the Duckweed is 

 referred to, and that in the most unfortunate manner con- 

 ceivable, as a Dicotyledon. Misstatements such as these 

 show the author to be ignorant of some of the most 

 elementary truths dealt with in the most didactic hand- 

 books in contemporary English literature. More the 

 pity that the author should parade his indebtedness to 

 the works of foreign writers. 



One of the most conspicuous features of the book 

 is the employment of a new nomenclature. The 

 author was struck, early in his career, with the short- 

 comin-TS of our conventional terminology ; and, bolder 

 than his fellows, he forthwith resolved to revolutionize 

 the same. Order appears to dawn with the correla- 

 tives " Protozoa and Protophyta," " Metazoa and Meta- 

 phyta," but, when examined in detail, most of the 

 author's substitutes are seen to be no better than their 

 predecessors, and they consequently only complicate 

 matters unnecessarily. We protest against this reck- 

 less use of new words. New and comprehensive 

 terms are only to be accepted as landmarks in general 

 advancement. Attempts to uproot a classical and 

 time-honoured nomenclature, which are, like those before 

 us, begotten only of youthful ambition, deserve no 

 encouragement. 



There would appear to be something seriously wrong 

 in connection with the system which repeatedly pro- 

 duces books like that before us. Catering, as it does, 

 for a prescribed curriculum, this one, the latest of its 

 kind, will be eagerly sought by the examinees ; and in 

 their interests, if in none higher, it is time that something 

 should be done to stem the; tide. Similar complaints 

 reach us from other sources, and it has been suggested in 

 the pages of this journal (vol. xxxvii. p. 268) that the diffi- 

 culty might be met by the establishment of " an Associa- 

 tion to prevent the further publication of elementary 

 works other than such as had been carefully revised and 



