Analytical Outline of Contents, xiii 



Is IT TRUE ? 



" I know of no form of negation sufficiently explicit, 

 comprehensive, and emphatic, in which to reply 

 to this question." (Dr. Elam) 

 I. It is in no sense true that Protoplasm " breaks up," 



as Prof. Huxley says it does. 



II. (CO 2 ), (H 2 O), and (NH 3 ) cannot, by any combination, 

 be brought to represent 



C36H 26 N 4 O 10 , which is the equivalent of protein, 

 or protoplasm. 



III. It is not true that when carbonic acid, water, arid 



ammonia disappear, 



An " equivalent weight of the matter of life " 

 makes its appearance. 



IV. In the two processes which Mr. Huxley regards as 



identical 



(i.e., the formation of water and of protoplasm) 

 " There is no resemblance whatever." 

 V. The proposition that Life is a product of Protoplasm 



Is demonstrably untrue. 



VI. The proposition that life is a property of Protoplasm 

 Is equally untrue. 



(Contrast between " aquosity " and "vitality.") 

 VII. Martinus Scriblerus Redivivus. 



The "development" of meat-jacks. 

 VIII. The identity of Protoplasm, "living or dead," 

 Assumed by Mr. Huxley. 

 Denied by the Germans. 



Involves a whole train of Effects without a Cause. 

 IX. The fulcrum on which Mr. Huxley's Protoplasmic 



Materialism rests 

 Is a single inference 

 From a chemical analogy. 

 This analogy has two references, and fails in both 



of them. 



The relation of the organic [protoplasm] to the 



inorganic [water] 



Is not an analogy, but an antithesis. 

 The gulf between Death and Life. 



