52 



NA TURE 



[November 17, 1904 



stomata of the remaining leaves. The same thing is 

 true of the discussion (p. 8i) on the transpiration of 

 flowers as compared with leaves, where the reader is 

 left in ignorance of how far the facts are explicable 

 bv reference to the stomata. 



But it is not merely in relation to isolated problems 

 that we feel the want of more information with regard 

 to the stomata. We should expect to find a full 

 general discussion of their importance in regard to 

 transpiration. This would have included a reference 

 to Horace Brown's work on the static diffusion of gas 

 through these openings, and a consideration of the 

 question how far evaporation can be checked bj' the 

 closure of the stomata. Again, we should have liked 

 a discussion of the trustworthiness and general value 

 of the microscopic measurements of the stomata in 

 living plants. Burgerstein gives an interesting 

 account of the methods depending on the yield of 

 water-vapour, such as Stahl's cobalt test, &c., by which 

 it can be roughly determined that the stomata are 

 " widely open " or " nearly shut." But if we are to 

 •distinguish the stomatal factor from other factors in 

 experiments on transpiration, numerical statements as 

 to the condition of the stomata are wanted, and the 

 question whether such data are available might well 

 have been discussed. With regard to method, Burger- 

 stein seems to us a little hard on the various " poto- 

 meter " methods, by which a general idea of the tran- 

 spiration curve is obtained by measuring the intake of 

 water. He is justified in saying that these methods 

 •do not estimate transpiration but absorption ; but we 

 think he undervalues the fact that, with cut branches 

 and for not too extended periods of time, the intake 

 so closely corresponds to transpiration that the method 

 ■cannot be neglected, and is certainly of great value for 

 purposes of demonstration. 



Though we have criticised " Die Transpiration dcr 

 Pflanzen," we are far from meaning to condemn it; 

 we have, indeed, read it with interest and profit. x\n\-- 

 one intending to make a study of the subject cannot 

 do better than read it with care. He will thus be made 

 aware of many pitfalls, and will have a guide to the 

 chief points which need fresh investigation. 



F. D. 



OVR BOOK SHELF. 



House, Garden, and Field; a Collection of Short 

 Nature Studies. By L. C. Miall. Pp. x + 316; illus- 

 trated. (London : E. Arnold, 1904.) Price 6s. 

 This admirable little work appears to be by far the 

 best aid to the proper teaching of nature-study that has 

 hitherto come under our notice, the author having very 

 wisely refrained from furnishing the teacher with a 

 manual which would do away with all necessity for 

 original study and observation on his part, and enable 

 him to read the various lessons to his pupils without 

 effort or thought. The object of the writer is, indeed, 

 as much to educate the teacher as to enable the latter 

 to teach his pupils. For example, in the article on 

 bananas, Prof. Miall, when he asks the reason for the 

 peculiar shape of that popular fruit, under the guise 

 of leaving the reply to the pupil is really testing the 

 powers of observation and reasoning possessed by the 

 teacher himself. 



As the author observes in his introduction, teachers 



NO. 1829, VOL. 71] 



seem to expect a series of ready-made lessons on a 

 variety of nature subjects, basing their demand on the 

 ground that thev have no time (or is it that they have 

 no inclination ?) to make the necessary studies for 

 themselves. If this course were adopted, it would lead 

 to two evils. First, all the observations (if they could 

 be so called) would come from the teacher and not 

 from the pupils ; and, secondly, knowledge thus 

 acquired by the teacher could not possibly raise the 

 delights of genuine nature-study in the minds of his 

 scholars. Prof. Miall has therefore preferred to make 

 an effort to instil and encourage the habit of observ- 

 ation and inquiry in a few teachers (who will neces- 

 sarily be the best of their kind) by showing them what 

 may be learnt by careful observation of the common 

 natural objects to be met with among their daily 

 surroundings, rather than by pandering to the popular 

 clamour for cut and dried lessons — which are really 

 not nature-study at all. How he has succeeded re- 

 mains to be seen. If we may venture to predict, it will 

 be the clever and inquiring teachers who will praise 

 and take advantage of his efforts, and the dullards and 

 plodders who will condemn them and say that they are 

 unsuited to their purpose. 



.'Mthough the author modestly says that he gives 

 only a few lessons, his articles or essays are no less 

 than fifty-four in number, and cover a very wide range 

 of subjects, including cheese-grubs, glow-worms, 

 water-lilies, London pride, the human face and hand, 

 and museums and their teachings. As an example of 

 the large amount of information Prof. Miall manages 

 to give in a very small compass, we may refer to the 

 exceedingly interesting account of the ancestry and 

 evolution of insects in the chapter on the " cheese- 

 hopper. " An excellent work which should be in the 

 hands of all teachers is our verdict. R. L. 



Ideals of Science and Faith. Essays by Various 

 .\uthors, edited by the Rev. J. E. Hand. Pp. xix + 

 333. (London : George Allen, 1904.) Price 55. net. 

 " On all sides " (to quote the preface) " is a growing 

 recognition that the ideals common to both Religion 

 and Science are not only numerous but are indeed the 

 very ideals for which the nobler spirits on both sides 

 care most." Necessarily the treatment is varied, 

 perhaps too varied, but the editor gently deprecates 

 criticism of this feature. Prof. Patrick Geddes has 

 room to discourse on the excellence of teaching boj's 

 to make boxes; and the theologians, under "A 

 Presbyterian Approach," " .\ Church of England 

 Approach," and the like, hardly give one a definite 

 view of " A Christian .Approach." 



In the papers of the men of science and philosophers 

 the general position is that science does not deal with 

 the whole of life, and that it can no longer meet the 

 claims of faith with a " certainly not." Sir Oliver 

 Lodge defends the idea of continuous guidance on the 

 part of the Deity, seeks to reconcile Pantheism and the 

 belief in a personal God, and complains that religious 

 people seem to be losing some of their faith in prayer. 

 Prof. J. Arthur Thomson and Prof. Patrick Geddes lay 

 stress on the altruistic side of the struggle for exist- 

 ence. Prof. Muirhead maintains that we must limit 

 causation and the conservation of energy to the 

 material world, and must look for some other concep- 

 tion when we come to the action of the mind itself. 

 " We use a saw to make a fiddle; we throw it (sic) 

 aside when we come to play upon it (sic)." The Hon. 

 Bertrand Russell's paper — " .\n Ethical Approach " — 

 is the most eloquent; much of it is Lucretius, Book iii., 

 rewritten (could one be more complimentary?), with 

 the difference that Mr. Russell recognises more de- 

 finitely the need for religion and worship, albeit the 

 worship of a God who is not Force but " created by 

 our own love of the good." 



