NATURE 



THURSDAY, FEBRUARY i, 1900. 



A YEAR OF BIOLOGY. 

 LAnnie Biologique. • Comptes rendus annuels des 

 Travaux de Biologic generale, publids sous la direction 

 de Yves Delage, professeur a la Sorbonne, avec la col- 

 laboration d'un comitc de redacteurs, Secrdtaire de la 

 redaction Georges Poirault, directeur du Laboratoire 

 d'enseignement superieur de la villa Thuret, a Antibes. 

 Troisi&me annee, 1897. Pp. xxxv + 842. (Paris: 

 Librairie C. Reinwald, Schleicher Fr^res, editeurs. 



THIS biological annual has improved with each year 

 of its life, and its third volume, which deals with 

 the literature for 1897, commands our admiration and 

 gratitude. There is no denying that the bibliographic 

 lists are fairly full, and that the summaries give the gist of 

 the books and papers reported It fills what was otherwise 

 more or less of a gap in our bibliographic resources, and 

 every biological laboratory throughout the world should 

 make it a point of honour to Have the volumes upon the 

 shelves for reference. Furthermore, the work is being 

 so well done that all those who are busy over the general 

 problems of biology should see to it, in their own in- 

 terest, as well as in that of science, that copies and 

 abstracts of their papers are sent to the editors. 



Believing that criticism is the sincerest form of flattery, 

 we would use this opportunity to make a few suggestions. 

 The ''Annual" has not only improved every year, but it 

 has grown steadily bigger, and it is now a most incon- 

 veniently heavy handful. Can it not be kept within more 

 moderate compass? On this point we have three criti- 

 cisms : (i) That over 160 pages are given to mental 

 functions, which seems going a long way, seeing that we 

 have LAn/it'e psychologique as well ; (2) that some of 

 the reports are outrageously long, especially when the 

 conclusion hinted at is that the paper is not worth very 

 much after all ; and (3) that the classification adopted 

 favours overlapping and repetition. The last point seems 

 to us so important that we venture to enlarge upon it. 



As they stand at present the chapters are : — the cell ; 

 sex-elements and fertilisation ; parthenogenesis ; asexual 

 reproduction ; ontogeny ; teratogeny ; regeneration ; 

 grafting ; sex, secondary sex-characters, and " ergato- 

 genetic polymorphism " ; metagenetic polymorphism, 

 metamorphosis, and alternation of generations ; latent 

 characters ; correlation ;' death, immortality, and the 

 germ-plasm ; general morphology and physiology ; here- 

 dity ; variation ; origin of species ; geographical dis- 

 tribution ; nervous system and mental functions ; general 

 theories and generalities. Now, as each of these twenty 

 chapters has its bibliography and introduction and sum- 

 maries, there is bound to be needless printing and over- 

 lapping. Can the committee not invent something 

 simpler and more logical ? It is too soon to stereotype 

 the arrangement. 



Teratogeny and variation overlap ; variation and the 

 origin of species overlap ; ontogeny and general physio- 

 logy overlap ; latent characters and heredity overlap ; 

 and so on. In short, there is a great lack of lucidity in 

 the classification adopted. 



NO. 1579. VOL. 61] 



Would it not be better to have a more general scheme ? 

 e.g. (i) morphological analyis :— cell-structure, tissue- 

 structure, &c. ; (2) physiological analysis :— cell-function, 

 growth, correlation, death, &c. ; (3) reproduction and 

 sex— including chapters 2, 3, 4, 9, and perhaps others ; 

 and so on. There is room for much difference of 

 opinion, but twenty chapters are twice too many. 



It may be answered that the numerous divisions facili- 

 tate reference, but the separately designated subjects 

 would not be less accessible if they were sub-divisions 

 of larger categories. We would press this point on the 

 consideration of the editorial committee the more urgently, 

 since it seems to us that the elaborate classification has 

 sometimes proved a snare. Thus we should like to know 

 why papers by Karl Pearson and others dealing with 

 " spurious correlation," &c., are included in the chapter 

 on physiological correlation. Is not this a misappre- 

 hension ? 



In the same connection we may refer to the editorial 

 note on polymorphism, which we regret our inability to 

 appreciate. Three kinds of polymorphism are dis- 

 tinguished (which arc treated of in three different 

 chapters)- ((^t) ergatogenic polymorphism which depends 

 upon division of labour (which should include not only 

 the polymorphic adaptations of an ant hill, but functional 

 "modifications" as well); (^) metagenic polymorphism, 

 associated with alternation of generations ; and {c) oeco- 

 genic polymorphism which results from the action of 

 the environment (a particular case, surely, of environ- 

 mental " modification "). But why not also add varia- 

 tional polymorphism, which would be a reductio ad 

 absurduin of the extended usage of the term ? 



Many of the chapters present some striking feature of 

 interest, giving a charm of individuality to the workman- 

 ship. Thus the chapter on the cell includes an account 

 by A. Labbe of the artificial cells which Ascherson made 

 in the memorable year 1838. With his artificial emul- 

 sions he was a pioneer on a path which Biitschli and 

 others have followed up, " and if he sought for homo- 

 logies where there were but analogies, some moderns are 

 open to the same reproach." The second chapter con- 

 tains an essay of twenty pages by L. Guignard on chro- 

 matic reduction, which is very welcome ; but the bulk 

 of it has been printed elsewhere, and it seems far too. 

 long to be consistent with the precise scope of this 

 annual. We are ungrateful enough to object also to 

 Pruvot's fine essay on fresh-water faunas as too long and 

 independent for the present publication. The thirteenth 

 chapter is made conspicuous by the essay of Elie 

 Metchnikov on senile degeneration, showing up the 

 organism's seamy side^its imperfect integration, its 

 anarchy, its struggle of parts — of which senility is the 

 ddbdcle. Needless to say, the essay is original and 

 charming ; but to our thinking, it should have been pub- 

 lished in the Revue des deux A/ondes,a.nd not here. It is 

 magnificent, but it is not a "compte-rendu." We fear, 

 indeed, lest these introductory essays, if not kept more 

 sternly within bounds, will harm the annual instead of 

 helping it. 



As for criticisms of technique, they are not much to 

 our liking, especially since the volume represents a por- 

 tentous amount of disinterested labour, the results of 

 which are of great value to all biological workers. There 



P 



