c ae at oe Oe ae ane ee ON ie, es . 
i meee. Tes cy Re Nitta HS ‘Sir ye 
: 7S Pe ee Cw ge Rea: Ae ee 
26 ’ NATURE - —— [Noo. 14, 1872 
physiology himself as far as he goes. Occasionally he 
gives a useful illustration or a detailed explanation which 
is not to be found in the Elementary Lessons, and there 
are not many bad blunders. The account of a cell at p. 14 
is obsolete, though too often found in the minds of 
compilers of manuals and of examiners. Arteries are not 
lined with mucous membrane. The account of long and 
short sight is inexact. The corpora guadrigemina can 
be seen without removing the cerebellum, and do not con- 
sist of the olfactory and optic lobes, On the other hand 
the “fold of nervous system on the arteries” is a very 
happy expression, and the plasma of the blood exuding 
through the capillaries is well compared to “a stream lost 
in the sand.” The experimental illustrations at the end 
of the chapters are good, and it would have been well if 
this part of the plan had been more fully carried out, 
together with some practical hints as to dissection and 
microscopic observation. Unless these practical studies 
are undertaken, the study of physiology is a mere cram- 
ming of statements, and is quite unworthy of a place in 
any scheme of education. If it is to be generally taught, 
the most important thing is to show teachers how they 
must set about it, and for this purpose directions can 
scarcely be too minute. 
The questions in the appendix are excellent, though it 
was a pity to give only one specimen of an examination 
paper. They of course presuppose dissection of a sheep’s 
head and viscera, and acquaintance with some simple 
physiological experiments. The woodcuts are very rough, 
but most of them answer their purpose. 
On the whole it is not likely that any shorter or simpler 
manual than Huxley’s “ Lessons” can be written, that will 
be of use for the serious study of the elements of physi- 
ology by those who do not intend to go further. It would 
cost much more time and trouble to go through it than 
through the “popular” substitutes of which this is an 
example, but, for that very reason among others, the 
result would be far more valuable. E. 
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 
[ The Editor does not hold himself vesponsible for opinions expressed 
by his correspondents, No notice is taken of anonymous 
communications. | 
Our National Herbarium 
Tr is with as much pain as surprise that I notice in your im- 
pression of last Thursday a most unfair as well as ungenerous 
attack upon the botanical establishment at Kew under Dr. 
Hooker. it is not within my province to discuss the inaccura- 
cies upon which the insinuations of bad cultivation are founded, 
nor yet the extraordinary statement that the herbarium which 
the constant experience of a long life has proved to me to be an 
indispensable adjunct for the efficient working of a national bo- 
tanical garden—that this ‘‘collection of dead plants,” as your 
correspondent contemptuously terms it—has interfered with the 
proper care of the garden. There is, however, one of the facts 
mentioned which my long and intimate acquaintance with the 
herbarium of the British Museum and its successive keepers, Mr. 
Brown and Mr, Bennett, calls upon me to deny. 
Foremost amongst the ‘‘examples of scientific work at the 
London Herbarium” is given the ‘‘ Prodromus Flore Nova Hol- 
landic:,” That great work, which at once placed Robert Brown 
at the head of the botanists of the age, was published in 1810, 
many years before the so-called “London Herbarium” was in 
existence. 
I would add that the second of the works named as an ex- 
ample of scientific work at the London Herbarium was published 
in 1818, two years before the death of Sir Joseph Banks, the 
subsequent transference of whose herbarium formed the nucleus 
of the “ London” or ‘* Metropolitan Herbarium.” 
Nov. 11 GEORGE 
BENTHAM 
PERMIT me to correct some errors of detail into which Dr. 
Hooker has fallen in his reply to Prof, Owen, printed in a recent 
number of NATURE. 
1. Prof. Owen has no official relation to the Botanical Depart- 
ment, and, consequently, is not acquainted with the particular — 
arrangements between the Trustees and the officers of thatde 
partment. an 
2. This department is open in summer from 9 to 6, and in 
winter from 9 to 4. oem 
3. The officers are required to be in attendance for six hours — 
daily, but as this does not include an hour for dinner, the official — 
hours are the same as at Kew, . : 
$ WM. CARRUTHERS, ; 
: Keeper of the Botanical Department 
British Museum, Nov. 4 ; 
The Beginnings of Life 
ON reading a review of my recently-published work, “The 
Beginnings of Life,” in the last number of the Academy, written 
by Mr. H. N. Moseley, I could uot help feeling considerable 
surprise at many of the statements which it contained. That — 
such apparent ignorance of the facts should have been shown, 
and that such an inadequate statement of the case should have 
been made by a distinguished pupil of Prof, Rolleston,I was — 
not prepared to expect. My first resolution was to pay as little 
attention to the statements of the reviewer as they seemed to de- _ 
serve. It has, however, been strongly represented to me by 
friends whose opinion I value that some of the statements ought — 
not to be allowed to pass without comment or contradiction. ( 
Referring for a moment to the reviewer’s opinion that known 
facts seem to warrant the notion that organic matter can only be — 
formed “ by a series of gradations brought about by a succession 
of complex conditions” (the process referred to in my work at — 
vol. i. p. 94), I may remark that many facts bearing against this — 
being the only possible mode of formation of organic matter are - 
stated in vol, li, pp. 27-33, and 36. Protoplasm (existing as 
Bacteria) is capable of growing indefinitely in a solution of — 
ammonic tartrate ; and, to say the least, we at present know — 
nothing concerning the existence of any long series of intermediate 
conditions between the ingredients of the saline solution and the 
protoplasm which rapidly grows therein. As I have said (vol. ii, — 
p. 28), ‘The most simple not-living or mineral constituents 
coming into relation with one another in the presence of pre- 
existing protoplasm, appear, for aught we know to the contrary, 
to fall at once into those subtle combinations which constitute the - 
basis of living protoplasm, The rapidity of the process mocks 
and defies all theoretical explanation. Bete at all events there 
seems to be no laborious process of synthesis—no long 
chain of substitution compounds before the final product 
is evolved.” It has been commonly assumed that the pro- 
cess of ‘‘ origination” is intrinsically different from the process 
of ‘ growth,” so far as living matter is concerned. One of the 
principal objects of my investigation, however, was to endeavour 
to ascertain whether this assumption was warranted by the facts. 
If experimental evidence seemed to show that an independent — 
elemental origin of living matter was possible, we should have 
a very! fair right to assume that the process of “ origination” 
was not much more gradual or protracted than the process of 
“ growth.” i 
Turning now to the question of the nature of the evidence 
concerning the origin of living matter, it appears that the re« — 
viewer is content to admit what I have so frequently stated, 
(NaTuRE, No. 35, p. 171, and No. 47, p.412; “‘ModesofOrigin 
of Lowest Organisms,” p. 32), viz. that Bacteria develop in ~ 
solutions, or parts of solutions, in which no particles can be — 
observed with the microscope. It is true that the reviewer even 
says nothing about my having ascertained such a fact ; he assents 
to it (notwithstanding the objections previously urged by Prof. — 
Huxley), apparently because my friend and colleague, Dr. Burdon 
Sanderson, has since been compelled to come to a similar con- — 
clusion (Zhirteenth Report of the Med. Off. of Privy Council), 
Bacteria appearing in such a manner in a solution, must — 
either be the developed representatives of invisible germs thrown 
off from some pre-existing form of life, or they must be deyeloped — 
representatives of invisible germs on nuclei which had been 
engendered de novo (vol. i. p. 297). Experimental evidence 
alone can enable us tojdecide whether the latter of these equally 
legitimate though rival hypotheses is atall tenable. Fortunately, — 
however, the experiments to which we are compelled to resort 
may be of the simplest description (vol. i. pp. 311, 337, and — 
350). Suitable fluids require to be boiled fora time in a glass — 
vessel, the neck of which, if not many times bent or plugged 
with cotton wool, must be hermetically sealed in the flame of 
the blowpipe before the process of ebullition has entirely ceased, 
