294 



NATURE 



[July 29, 1S97 



been previously in a very bad pass indeed ; but, as far as I 

 know, there is very little that was new even then, except the 

 portion of the work dealing with the lymphatics. 



(2) Your reviewer appears not to have apprehended the pur- 

 pose for which the book was written, viz. to help the ordinary 

 student. To endeavour to teach him how to trace degenera- 

 tion of nerve fibres "by the invaluable method described by 

 Marchi " is laughingly abuird to any one who has had much 

 acquaintance with histological classes. 



(3) Staining in bulk is by no means omitted, the process 

 being carefully described in the chapter on methods, and re- 

 ferred to again and again in the directions for preparation of 

 sections given in the appendices. 



(4) I fear your reviewer will "look in vain" again in the 

 second edition of the book for " the methylene-blue method 

 of Ehrlich for showing nerve endings " ; for I shall not forsake 

 the principle I have clearly laid down, that it is useless and 

 inadvisable to preach to students what it is impossible, or at 

 least improbable, that they can practise. The work has no 

 ambition to be an up-to-date histologist's vade-mectiin. 



(5) To say that I state that the process of staining with silver 

 nitrate solution "requires from a few hours to a day or two " is 

 to give an entirely false impression. It is distinctly stated that 

 the tissue requires to be subjected to the reagent for from ten to 

 twenty minutes, and then exposed to daylight " for a few hours 

 to a day or two " — a totally different thing. This is quite 

 sufficient, I think, to demonstrate the unfairness of this part of 

 the review. 



(6) The statement in the concluding paragraph that the book 

 is "acknowledgedly compiled from other sources" is absolutely 

 untrue. The usual acknowledgment of indebtedness to current 

 literature is made, and the immediate source is given of some of 

 the formulre ; the latter, however, being as much public property 

 as the dates in English history. 



(7) Your reviewer is inconsistent in saying atone time that the 

 drawings are " sadly lacking in accuracy," and at another that 

 "they will rejoice the heart of the average student, who will 

 find them just like his specimens." To say that a student would 

 rejoice over a " gaudy " coloured, uninstructive drawing, lack- 

 ing in accuracy, and having only a superficial resemblance to his 

 specimen, is not only insulting to his intelligence, but is childish 

 in the extreme. 



In conclusion : your reviewer charges the book with inaccuracy 

 in the drawings, and also in the text. I take this to mean that 

 both the text and the drawings, as a whole, are inaccurate, be- 

 cause he does not qualify his hostility by one good word from 

 beginning to end. I deny that he can substantiate his charge. 

 I challenge him to do so as publicly as he has made it. 



I am glad to say that your review in its unfavourableness 

 stands alone. The rest of the press, both lay and scientific, has 

 spoken well of the work, and I am sure the editor of Nature 

 will not be under the impression that that valuable paper is the 

 only one enjoying the services of experts for scientific reviews. 



Arthur Clarkson, 



Marischal College, Aberdeen, June 29. 



In reply to the above, I beg to assure Dr. Clarkson that the 

 bias of which he complains is solely the result of a critical 

 examination of his book. I have no personal knowledge of him, 

 nor any previous reason for thinking ill of him. I will take his 

 paragraphs in succession: — 



(i) Comparison with Klein and Noble Smith's "Atlas of 

 Histology." Dr. Clarkson's temerity in endeavouring to put his 

 book on a par with this classical work, which teems with 

 original observations, and the illustrations to which are drawn 

 with the most minute attention to detail, will raise a smile on 

 the lips of every histologist. He is particularly unfortunate in 

 calling attention to his illustrations of the eye and cochlea, 

 which are vastly inferior to those in the " Atlas," although in 

 the sixteen years since that work was published there has been 

 an enormous advance in our knowledge of the structure of these 

 parts, and notably of the retina. I fail to find a sign of this 

 advance either in the text or illustrations. 



(2),(3),(4) Thatthebook is intended for the "ordinary student" 

 (I presume that by ordinary student "medical student" is in- 

 tended), and does not, therefore, require (to use the author's own 

 language) to be " up to date." Dr. Clarkson seems to be under 

 the impression that there is a special kind of scientific knowledge 

 desirable for medical students, and that it is therefore unfair to 



NO. 1448, VOL. 56] 



have judged his book by a rigid scientific standard. I, on the 

 other hand, hold that a book which is sent to a scientific journal 

 for review must be judged on its scientific merits, and must 

 stand or fall upon these. And if I find two of the most valuable 

 modern methods of investigating the structure of the nervous 

 system omitted, and venture to point out their omission. Dr. 

 Clarkson does not, in my judgment, improve his position by the 

 statement that he has purposely committed this blunder, and 

 that it is his intention to perpetuate it. 



There may be a "careful description of the process of 

 staining in bulk," but I have failed to find it. There is no 

 mention of Heidenhain's method, which is largely used in all 

 laboratories. 



(5) Dr. Clarkson convicts himself, in having misapprehended 

 my criticism. It is precisely the statement that after silver 

 nitrate a tissue " requires from a few hours to a day or two" 

 exposure in water to daylight that I animadverted upon. Every 

 histologist knows, or should know, the detrimental effect of 

 prolonged exposure to light of such preparations. 



(6) It is a sufficient answer to this to give Dr. Clarkson's own 

 words. He says in the preface : " The author would acknow- 

 ledge his indebtedness generally to the current standard works 

 on the subject ; and especially to Prof. Stirling's ' Outlines of 

 Histology' for many of the formul* of reagents." To this I 

 would, however, add that many points besides the formula; of 

 reagents have a singular resemblance to corresponding points in 

 Stirling, to say nothing of the other " current standard works" 

 to which no name is appended ; and, on the other hand, if there 

 is anything original either in the way of descriptions or methods, 

 I at least have been unable to find it. 



(7) I have not made merely a general and unsupported 

 accusation of inaccuracy, but I have given specific instances, 

 which might easily be multiplied were it worth the space they 

 would occupy. Since Dr. Clarkson has in his letter made no 

 attempt to explain these, I take it that he admits their justice, 

 and his public challenge becomes a vain piece of bombast. 



Finally, I would add that the fact that the rest of the press 

 has spoken favourably of Dr. Clarkson's work is simply an 

 indication that notices of such books are far too frequently drawn 

 up in a careless and perfunctory manner. The injurious effect 

 which such promiscuous eulogy may have upon an author is only 

 too evident from the tone of Dr. Clarkson's letter. 



The Reviewer. 



A Phenomenal Rainbow. 



A VERY beautiful rainbow was observed here on the evening 

 of May 26 last, just before sunset. A light easterly air pre- 

 vailed at the time ; but the thin bank of stratus cloud upon 

 which the bow was projected had drifted slowly across from the 

 south-west, and now hung in the eastern sky. The sun was 

 quite low at the time, and during the last two or three minutes 

 before setting was shining through a thin layer of stratus which 

 lay just above the horizon ; but there was no apparent diminu- 

 tion in the startling vividness of colour exhibited in the 

 arch. This extraordinary brightness, however, was not the 

 only noticeable feature ; immediately below the great arch, and 

 contiguous to it and to each other, were four narrow arches, in 

 which the vivid colours were repeated ; these did not reach the 

 horizon, but faded when about three parts of the way down. 

 There was also, some distance above the main arch, a secondary 

 bow, with the four narrow arches appearing again ; but here, 

 instead of being below, they were directly above the arch, and, 

 of course, not so bright as the primary set. The whole appear- 

 ance was curiously like some of the solar phenomena observed 

 in the Arctic sky, and was so beautiful as to attract the atten- 

 tion of several working bushmen, who are not prone to fall into 

 ecstacies over any natural wonders. 



The appearance lasted about five minutes, until the sun was 

 below the horizon ; a light shower fell at the time. For some 

 days previously the weather had been thundery and unsettled, 

 with variable winds. H. Stuart Dove. 



Table Cape, Tasmania, June i. 



Fire-fliy Light, 

 In reply to Prof. S. P. Thompson (p. 126), the insect called 

 in Q^xvazxi Johanniskiifer 01 Johanniswilrmchen is certainly the 

 Lampyris noctibica (glow-worm), of which only the female, which 

 has no wings, is luminous. 



