April 26, 1900] 



NA TURE 



609 



tlescription of this shell as ordinarily understood in 

 standard literature. Mr. Schuchert's translation, on the 

 other hand, has : — " Terebratula, Klein, 1753 (f^'g- 550- 

 {.enus not well known. Mesozoic or Tertiary." He 

 merely gives a list of ill-defined generic names of no 

 \,ilue whatever, except as an index to certain special 

 memoirs which he happens to approve. 



In the Mollusca Pelecypoda, Dr. Dall must have 

 devoted great labour to his exhaustive revision ; but, 

 from the student's point of view, it would have been 

 much better if he had bestowed it on the correction of 

 mistakes. In the description of Pseudomonotis, for ex- 

 ample, " left valve " is copied from the original German, 

 although even the accompanying figure must have 

 shown the translator that it was a mistake for "right 

 valve." 



Finally, every student must know something of the 

 common Nautilus. If he looks at Prof. Hyatt's de- 

 scription (p. 526), he will learn that it is a recent genus, 

 and may perhaps range backwards to the Tertiary ; but 

 if he turns to Figs. 1075 and 1076, he will read that 

 species of the genus occur in the Middle Lias and the 

 Tithonian. Which of these two contradictory statements 

 does Prof. Hyatt intend the unfortunate student to accept ? 

 We presume he intended to re-name the illustrations 

 Cenoceras, and, like Dr. Dall, was too much occupied 

 with the greater rearrangements to take note of the 

 minute points on which the real value of a text-book 

 depends. In fact, not only in this instance, but through- 

 out Prof. Hyatt's section on Cephalopoda, the student 

 will find hopeless confusion and receive practically no 

 aid in plodding through the current literature of geology 

 and pal.'Eontology. Nearly a hundred new generic 

 names, introduced without definition, add in no small 

 degree to the difficulties. 



While, however, the elementary student, for whom the 

 "Grundziige" was written, will meet with disappointment 

 when he attempts to use its English counterpart, the 

 more advanced student engaged in original research will 

 welcome the handsome volume which Dr. Eastman has 

 produced. It is a valuable work of reference, which ought 

 to find a place in every geological and biological library. 

 We hope it will soon be followed by the second volume, 

 containing the Vertebrata, which will make the English 

 " Zittel " the most exhaustive and valuable treatise on 

 palaeontology in our language. 



INADEQUACY OF THE CELL-THEORY. 



Les &ires Vivants. Organisation — Evolution. By Paul 

 Busquet. Pp. 181 ; 141 figures. (Paris: Carr^ and 

 Naud, 1899.) 



WHAT the particular secret of this volume is, we 

 have been unable to discover, except that it is 

 intended as an argument for a franker recognition of the 

 unity of the organism, and as an argument against the 

 view which regards the multicellular creature as a " cell- 

 state" or as a colony. To discuss these difficult matters 

 profitably requires great competence, and we do not 

 think that this is shown by the author, who, for instance, 

 cites the old report that the ectoderm of a Hydra turned 

 inside out becomes endoderm, and so on, and uses this 

 NO. 1591, VOL. 61] 



as an argument against the originaj distinctiveness of the 

 two germinal layers. Furthermore, while an attack on a 

 position often means progress, one must master the 

 previous moves, and we see no evidence that Dr. Busquet 

 has done so. Has he seriously considered, for instance, 

 Whitman's notable essay on " The Inadequacy of the 

 Cell-Theory of Development " ? 



A pleasing feature of the book is the author's grateful 

 tribute to his master. Prof. Kunstler, whose views he 

 expounds and elaborates. Thus he begins with a defence 

 of Kunstler's conclusion that protoplasm is composed of 

 series of minute elements, more or less globular, either 

 placed in apposition or separated by fluid. This alveolar 

 or "spherular" structure of protoplasm was described 

 by Kunstler in 1881, and has been familiarised by the 

 researches of Biitschli (not Butschli, as the author per- 

 sistently calls him, just as he calls Kolliker — Kolliker, 

 which is absurd). We do not notice any mention of 

 Flemming, though his lifelong observations on reticular 

 structure, and his criticism of the demonstrations of 

 alveolar structure, must be taken account of if one wishes 

 to be treated seriously in discussing such matters. 



The author points out that just as Dutrochet (1824) 

 and Turpin (1826) may be said to have priority over 

 Schwann and Schleiden in formulatmg the " Cell- 

 Theory," so Kunstler must be credited with priority over 

 Sedgwick, Whitman and Delage in denionstrating its 

 inadequacy. For Kunstler maintained long ago that the 

 cell is no primitive morphological unit, but an acquired 

 mode of organisation, and that the cellular structure of 

 the Metazoa is a secondary result adaptive to functional 

 convenience. The frequent vagueness of cell-limits, the 

 abundant illustrations of intercellular bridges, and the 

 occurrence of indisputable syncytia are forcibly indicated 

 by the author. 



It is argued that to think of a Metazoon as derivable 

 from a colony of Protozoa is misleading ; and that al- 

 though there are some true colonies among Metazoa, e.g. 

 in Coelenterates and Tunicates, the colonial or polyzoic 

 hypothesis, especially elaborated by Perrier, is a specious 

 fallacy. We are asked to choose between two alterna- 

 tives—the Metazoa are colonies of individualities of a 

 lower order, or they are individualised irreducible unities. 

 But it is not made plain why we may not suppose that 

 the ancestral forms of various stocks passed through an 

 imperfectly integrated colonial or polyzoic stage. 



The author takes a survey of the animal kingdom, 

 and seeks to substantiate a number of general conclu- 

 sions, which we shall try to summarise. Living matter 

 shows "a general and universal tendency to prolifera- 

 tion or repetition of similar parts." " These phenomena 

 of repetition appear at first in the adult, where they con- 

 stitute an acquired character ; in the embryo they are 

 but the reproduction more or less modified, by coenogeny, 

 of what exists in the perfect individual." But in certain 

 circumstances the repeated parts may coalesce, exhibiting 

 a secondary and acquired simplification, and bringing 

 about a recondensation of the organism, preparatory to a 

 recommencement of the evolutionary process on some 

 new line. Types do not arise by a slow and direct 

 transformation of preexisting forms, but each is a new 



