THR 



PREFACE. 



plasm of Algae and Fungi," he tells us, " exhibits 

 of its whole mass." Further still, he asserts of these phenomena 

 that, " so far as they have been studied," " they are the same 

 for the animal as for the plant." He says also of the white 

 corpuscles of the blood, " The substance which is thus active is 

 a mass of protoplasm, and its activity differs in detail, rather 

 than in principle, from that of the protoplasm of the nettle." 

 Then, "beast and fowl, reptile and fish, mollusc, worm, and 

 polype, are all composed of structural units of the same character, 

 namely, masses of protoplasm with a nucleus." Lastly, read 

 this : " The nettle arises, as the man does, in a mass of nucleated 

 protoplasm ! " After such enormous extension of the analogy 

 of the nettle hair on* the part of Mr Huxley, I really do not 

 think I have any reason to apologise to him for regarding his 

 description of nettle protoplasm as applicable to protoplasm in 

 general, and for opposing to his expressions in that reference, 

 Strieker's in the same. Mr Huxley, then, must consent to be 

 self-convicted, not only of incautious word-catching here, but 

 of being his own " most amusing example," for, as we have 

 already seen, he appeals to authorities, when he might have used 

 his oiun eyes. 



Mr Huxley's next stroke of the knife, so far as attempt goes, 

 is : 



" Dr Stirling has not taken the trouble to refer to the original 

 authorities for his history, which is consequently a travesty." 



One sees how much the "history" sticks in Mr Huxley's 

 gorge ! The authorities I specially name, however, are Rind- 

 fleisch, Kiihne, and Strieker ; these, surely, are original autho- 

 rities (though necessarily not all the original authorities in 

 existence), for they have all contributed something (Kiihne is 

 about the greatest living name) to the actual march of the 

 science in question ; and, surely also, they are, historically, the 

 very strongest authorities that it is possible to mention. These 

 three names I have used as vouchers for the correctness of my 

 narrative ; are we to understand that Mr Huxley impugns 

 them? Strieker's "Handbuch," to which I "especially" refer, 

 is now in English ; and all, or all but all, the testimony I can 

 possibly need will be found there. There indeed, substantially, 

 is the same history that I have given ; shall we understand Mr 

 Huxley to call this " history " a " travesty," on the part of 

 " his valued friend, Professor Strieker ? " " Substantially " I say, 



