386 



NA TURE 



[February 27, 1896 



that passes, and one of the questions of method which 

 calls loudest for settlement is what particular plan should 

 be adopted for the preparation of such indexes. The 

 feeling of bibliographers now leans strongly towards the 

 general adoption of the ingenious system of decimal 

 notation devised by Mr. Melvil Dewey, the director of 

 the New York State library — a numerical system of 

 indicating and distinguishing the divisional sections and 

 sub-sections of a classification to any desired degree of 

 subdivision, the number affixed to an entry distinguishing 

 not only the particular ultimate subdivision of the general 

 subject, but at the same time indicating all the superior 

 divisions to which the work in question also belongs. 

 The merits of this principle of notation are independent 

 of those of the elaborate classification of all literature 

 which Mr. Dewey has laboriously prepared for use with 

 it. The latter may be open to criticism, but it must be 

 remembered that no classification is likely to satisfy every 

 one. Some sacrifices are inevitable, and we believe 

 that, even as it stands, Mr. Dewey's classification is a 

 workable scheme adequate for most practical purposes. 

 Indeed, American experience has tested this point for 

 some years now. Accordingly, the International Con- 

 ference of Bibliography, which met at Brussels last 

 autumn, recommende d the entire adoption of Mr. Dewey's 

 system, ^which has also been approved and adopted, 

 among others, and not to mention its American sup- 

 porters, by the Association Fran^aise, the International 

 Congress of Zoology, the recently-founded Institut Inter- 

 national de Bibliographie (Brussels), and our Paris con- 

 temporaries, the Revue Scientifique and the Revue 

 Gdndrale des Sciettces. 



Other questions which remain to be settled by general 

 agreement are the mode of preparing the material, the 

 extent to which cognisance should be taken of the con- 

 tents of papers as well as of their titles, the degree of 

 subdivision to which classification should be carried, 

 the terminology, and the language or languages to be 

 employed. These and other associated questions are all 

 ripe for settlement, and it cannot be said that any of them 

 are beyond the reach of general agreement when all are 

 convinced of the urgent need for their practical solution. 

 Meanwhile schemes are formulating and maturing. M. 

 Otlet, of Brussels, and his collaborators of the Institut 

 de Bibliographie have developed and are applying a 

 comprehensive system. The Faculty of Medicine of 

 Harvard University have appointed a special committee 

 to report on the question of a general bibliography of 

 science. The French Ministry of Public Instruction is 

 pubHshing a " Bibliographie des Travaux Scientifiques 

 publics par les Societds Savantes de la France." 



About the last-mentioned work, an undertaking present- 

 ing, on a smaller scale, many points of similarity to that of 

 the Royal Society, we may say a word or two. The idea 

 originated with M. Milne-Edwards, and the work is being 

 carried out by Dr. Deniker, the librarian of the Museum 

 d'Histoire Naturelle. It covers the long period from 

 1700 to 1888, and is to be divided into three sections. 

 The first section, which is now going through the press, 

 is an enumeration, volume by volume, of all the scientific 

 articles contained in every serial, the serials being taken 

 in alphabetical order of departments, and of the towns 

 in each department, in which the societies are domiciled. 

 NO. 1374, VOL. 53] 



The second section is to be the general " Index 

 Auctorum," each title bearing as reference the numero 

 d'ordre prefixed to it in the first section ; and the third 

 section is to be the " Index Rerum," each entry again 

 bearing its reference number as before. This plan may 

 be open to criticism, but the bibliography will be a fine 

 piece of work when completed, and, as we said, to some 

 extent parallel to the Royal Society's Catalogue, and 

 indeed duplicating a large fraction of its contents. 

 While admiring the industry and enthusiasm of its 

 compiler, we are bound to feel some degree of regret 

 when skill, labour and time are thus expended upon 

 isolated sporadic and unco-ordinated undertakings, while 

 they might be far more efficiently employed in co-operat- 

 ing upon one well-considered and carefully organised 

 international scheme. This is the direction which future 

 indexing work must inevitably take, and we look forward 

 with impatience to the realisation of this crowning 

 development of the Royal Society's long-sustained 

 labours. 



NATURAL SELECTION AND ITS CRITICS. 

 Nature v. Natural Selection. An Essay on Organic 

 Evolution. By Charles Clement Coe. Pp. 591. 

 (London : Swan Sonnenschein and Co., 1895.) 



THE author at the outset of this work tells us he 

 " believes that the process of organic evolution has 

 taken place, but he does not believe that natural selec- 

 tion has been the means by which that result has been 

 brought about." The object of his work is the attempt 

 to support the latter contention. He does not profess to 

 speak as an expert, or to bring forward any new observa- 

 tions, but chiefly occupies himself with the quotation 

 and criticism of isolated passages from previous writers. 

 He evidently feels a very sincere disbelief in the 

 adequacy of natural selection, and regards himself as 

 compelled by some sort of inspiration to communicate 

 this disbelief to the world. 



It is evident that the criticisms are intended to be 

 fair, and they are conceived in no unfriendly spirit, and 

 expressed with no want of respect to the great writers 

 on the subject ; but the method of minute verbal criticism 

 of single sentences and short passages is one which 

 almost invariably leads to unfairness, however uninten- 

 tional, and the work before us has certainly not escaped 

 from this very natural tendency. 



A few instances, upon all of which comment is super- 

 fluous, will sufficiently indicate the competence of the 

 author to deal with his subject, and the spirit in which 

 he approaches it. 



In speaking (p. 23) of the two phrases (he unaccount- 

 ably calls them " two contradictory theories "), " Natural 

 Selection" and "Survival of the Fittest," he says: "It 

 seems almost incredible that a great writer should have 

 rejected the more accurate in favour of the sometimes 

 more convenient phrase." He seems to forget that it was 

 too late to withdraw a phrase which was already world- 

 wide, and, furthermore, that convenience in such matters 

 is of very high importance. As the author inquires why 

 natural selection is more convenient, he may be referred 

 to Darwin's " Life and Letters," in which the subject is 



