7a 
Oct. 9, 1873 | 
has been misapplied to this specimen, which, as far as can be 
judged from the drawing, appears to be either Ventriculites quin- 
cuncialis, or one of the Cephadites, both quitedifferent in outward 
appearance from the plain simg/ex. I know that it is often not 
_ so easy to distinguish the species of those preserved in’ flint as of 
_ those in chalk, but in this instance it is quite evident that it is 
not simplex. 
My object in writing the above has been to vindicaté my father’s 
_ scientific accuracy, and to recall the facts he worked out. With 
_ regard to another point : it is stated by Prof. Thomson that some 
of the beautiful sponges discovered in the late deep-sea dredgings, 
especially the Ho/tenza and its allies, and the Ventriculites, ‘‘ be- 
long to the same family, in some cases to very nearly allied 
genera,” or, as Dr. Carpenter puts it (‘‘Good Words,” October 
1872, p. 703) :—‘‘ Here we found the type of the old Ventriculites, 
which were supposed to be extinct, still living on in the deep 
sea.” Much as my father would have delighted in the exquisite 
beauty of these new forms (the Zuflectella he had examined in 
1848), I do not think that he could have acknowledged the /o/- 
tenia as belonging to the ancient Ventriculide ; nor, if the use of 
the word ‘‘type” depend for its force upon the character of 
structure, can it be truly said to be a type of that family. True, 
it possesses a silicious skeleton, but so does the Euplectella ; and 
neither from Prof. Thomson’s description (“‘ Depths,” pp. 70-72), 
nor my own examination, can I discover in the Holtenia any 
trace of or resemblance to the delicate structure and folded 
membrane of the Ventriculide. With great deference, therefore, 
to the opinion of these investigators (if I am wrong I will gladly 
learn), it appears to me that the modern type of the old Ventri- 
culite is yet to be found. 
I will add that the series of specimens figured in my father’s 
book is in the Britith Museum, open to examination by students, 
together with a large portion of hi collection of the Ventri- 
culidze. 
Highgate, Sept. 27 
Lucy TouLMIN SMITH 
**Deidamia” 
IT NOTICE in Prof. Wyville Thomson’s extremely interesting 
papers the name Deidamia v. Willemoes-Suhm, used for a crus- 
tacean genus. This name must be changed, inasmuch as it is 
preoccupied in Articulata by Dr. Clemens in 1859. Dr. Clemens 
has used the title for a valid genus of North American Sphingide. 
I propose, therefore, for the genus in Crustacea, the name W7l/e- 
moesia, in honour of its discoverer, with the two species /epiodactyla 
and crucifer, the former the type. 
Auc. R. GROTE, 
Curator of Articulata, B.S.N.S. 
Buffalo, U. S., Sept. 15. 
Dr. Sanderson’s Experiments and Archebiosis 
In a communication made to the British Association during its 
recent meeting at Bradford, Dr. Sanderson criticises the experi- 
ments of Prof. Huizinga, and also throws doubt upon the validity 
of the conclusions which I havedrawn from experiments of my own. 
The “‘ Note” appears in your columns this week ; and seeing the 
nature of the conclusion drawn by Dr. Sanderson from his 
experiments, I am not a little surprised to find no mention 
in it of one most important point, viz., the temperature at which 
Bacteria are killed when immersed in fluids. 
It must be obvious to all who understand the real nature of 
the question at issue, that no valid conclusion can be drawn by 
Dr. Sanderson from his experiments, unless he is able to argue 
from a definite conviction as to the temperature at which Bacteria 
are killed in fluids. 
Now a study of Dr. Sanderson’s writings would show the 
reader that up to the time of their publication he had every 
reason to believe that Bacteria were uniformly killed in fluids at 
a temperature of 100°C. If he still believes this to be true, he 
cannot (in the light of facts which he has learned concerning the 
productivity of previously boiled fluids in closed flasks) refuse 
his assent to my main proposition, viz., that Bacteria are capable 
of arising in fluids independently of living reproductive or germi- 
nal particles. 
But the conclusion which Dr. Sanderson does draw from his 
experiments, and his imputation that facts do not warrant the 
conclusion of Prof. Huizinga and myself, would seem to imply 
that he is in possession of some new evidence subversive of his 
previous opinion, and tending to contradict views which I have 
recently published concerning the death-point of Bacteria in 
Fey SS 
. 
NATURE 
485 
heated fluids. 
145, 1873.) 
As Dr. Sanderson is entirely silent upon this point, I venture 
to ask, both for my own information and for that of your readers, 
whether he still believes that Bacteria are killed by a temperature 
of 100°C. in fluids; and if not, upon what grounds he has 
changed his opinion ? 
In the face of his expressed intention (not a little contradicted, 
as I venture to think, by his public action) of taking no part in 
the ‘* spontaneous generation’ controversy, I ask Dr. Sanderson 
this question, because I cannot suppose that he would publicly 
throw doubt upon the validity of the conclusion which Prof. 
Huizinga and I have drawn from our experiments, in the absence 
of fresh evidence of his own upon the thermal death-point of 
Bacteria. 
At present he has publicly expressed the opinion that we are 
not warranted in our conclusions, whilst he has given no suffi- 
cient information either to the world of science or to ourselves 
by which to test the correctness of his own conclusion. This 
seems neither just to us nor to himself. 
H. CHARLTON BASTIAN 
(** Proceedings of Royal Society,” Nos. 143 and 
University College, Oct. 3 
_———_ 
Mr. D. Forbes’s Criticism of Mr. R. Mallet’s Volcanic 
Theory 
AFTER the lapse of half a year Mr. D. Forbes has recurred 
in NATURE for Sept. 4, 1873, to my remarks published in NATURE 
of March 20 last, to his remarks upon my Theory of Volcanic 
Energy and Heat contained in his review of my translation of 
Palmieri’s ‘‘ Incendio Vesuviano,” which appeared in NATURE 
of February 6 preceding. 
I pray your permission to make some remarks upon Mr. 
Forbes’s last production. They are the last by which I shall 
prolong this unpleasant controversy. 
Mr. Forbes affirmed that if anything was certain, it was that 
the ejecta of volcanoes in all ages and all over the world are 
identical chemically or mineralogically, and upon this assumption 
passes a summary condemnation upon my theory, which he 
predicts will never receive acceptance from anyone—chemist, 
or mineralogist, or geologist. This rash and I will now say 
discourteous prediction I at once disposed of by giving the 
names of two authorities, whose competence even Mr. Forbes 
could not question, who had already accepted my views. 
To this Mr. Forbes now says, that, as these gentlemen pos- 
sessed for their guidance in assenting to the bare statement of my 
views, no better information than that upon which he dissented 
from them, so they may have been mistaken and not he. How 
is Mr. Forbes sure they had no better information, and can it be 
possible that he is so dull in weighing the force of evidence as to 
see no difference in probability of error between two assumed 
equally competent men—one of whom can assent to a proposition 
upon his prior knowledge and without waiting for proof ; and 
another, who dissents, before he has heard what can be advanced 
in favour of the proposition and against his own previous know- 
ledge or supposed knowledge? This, however, is now immate- 
rial except as an indication of Mr. Forbes’s capacity for weighing 
evidence. 
To Mr. Forbes’s grand objection I replied that it is based upon 
error as to fact—that it is not true that all volcanic solid ejecta 
are identical at all times and everywhere. 
While I denied, and do again deny, that identity, chemical or 
mineralogical, exists in those bodies, I admitted that they do pre- 
sent a great general resemblance—which is just what we should 
expect. 
t added a very important remark, namely that whether it were 
true or false that all volcanic ejecta were identical, chemically 
or mineralogically—the fact, whether one way or the other, did 
not apply to or affect my theoretic views as to the nature and 
origin of volcanic energy and heat; one way or the other, the 
identity or dissimilarity between the ejecta as found at the sur- 
face must be the same, whether they be derived from materials 
already and constantly in fusion, or be fused by elevation of tem- 
perature locally and temporarily produced ; the materials fused 
being the same in both cases. 
This last objection, which is fatal to Mr. Forbes’s criticism, 
whether the foundation on which he has rested it be true or false, 
he either has not noticed or finds it convenient now to ignore. 
T illustrated the want of identity, chemical or mineralogical, 
and yet the great general similarity at all times and places of 
