Nov. 30, 1882] 
NATURE 
IoOl 
accident” as he confesses ; (4) that he regarded it as air contain- 
ing nitrous particles ; (c) that he remained in complete ignorance 
of its nature till March,1775, before which time Lavoisier was well 
acquainted with its principal properties, and had recognised many 
of its functions, 
to, ‘* Cavendish discovered hydrogen in 1784.”’. On the con- 
trary, he described it in his ‘‘ Experiments on Fictitious Air,” 
published in 1766, 
11. ‘* Davy abjured Lavoisier’s principe oxygene, and by his 
numerous discoveries gave the chemical edifice so rude a shake 
that it had to be taken down and rebuilt.” From our point of 
view, iz spite of the numerous discoveries of Davy, the edifice 
erected by Lavoisier,and which is still standing, had not to be taken 
down and rebuilt, except in one small part. The theory of 
acidification was a small part of Lavoisier’s labours, and it was 
Berthollet who‘called chlorine 0x) muriatic acid, and who thought 
that he had proved it to be a compourd of muriatic acid and 
oxygen. 
12. Mr. «Tomlinson after asserting that ‘chemistry has no 
nationality,” and ‘‘that discoverers are mutually dependent,” 
goes on to say with strange inconsistency that chemistry ‘‘ had no 
proper existence for us until Dalton discovered its laws.” Surely 
this is almost as if he slightly altered the ‘‘ complacent statement 
of Wurz,” and said, ‘‘Chemistry is an English science ; it was 
founded by Dalton of immortal memory.” We do not think that 
many will differ from us when we say that chemistry was a science 
long before the time of Dalton. 
Thus we have endeavoured to show that of the nine dogmatic 
assertions given above (numbered 4-12) :—ove, viz. 9, is correct ; 
three, viz. 7, 8, and 11, are open to grave question; while five, 
viz. 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, are altogether erroneous. 
There is no possible excuse for us to remain any longer in ig- 
norance of the mighty works done by Lavoisier. The fine quarto 
volumes, 1862-1868, published by the French government, are a 
fitting monument to the genius of the man. The petty jealousies 
which disfigure the history of science during the end of the last, 
and commencement of the present century, ought to find no place 
in our minds. The Republic of Science is large enough for every 
man to receive his due. G, F. RODWELL 
The Comet 
Ir would scarcely perhaps be civil to take no notice of Mr- 
Back house’s letter in NATURE, vol. xxvii. p. 52, the object of which 
seems to be principally to discredit my account of the disappear- 
ance of the comet ina moonlit sky. Still less, however, would it 
be reasonable to take offence at it—albeit, Mr. Backhouse is 
wrong. Indeed, a little more reflection might have shown him 
that ample time haying elapsed without any correction from me 
appearing in your columns, the presumption must have been 
strong that I had nothing to correct. I have in fact seen the 
comet frequently since—as well as many times before—and am 
moreover really experienced enough not to haye made quite so 
gross a blunder ; or at least to have found it out, if I did make 
it, when so many subsequent opportunities permitted. Besides 
that, I have fortunately the following testimony in corroboration. 
One of my sisters wrote, ‘‘ What you did not see of the comet 
agrees exactly with F.’s experience. She looked out at Court- 
Lodge: splendid night ; many, even small, stars, though moon 
shining bright ; but the comet wasn’t to be seen, thouzh she and 
Miss B, scanned the whole fine expanse of east and southeast 
sky.”? Another wrote about the same time that though visible 
two days later, it was so pale that she did not wake a nephew 
who wished to see it. My drawing of the 23rd October has 
two stars above the nucleus, with one of which it made the base 
of an isosceles triangle, the other being at the vertex. These two 
stars were plainly visible all the morning of the 3oth, hut not so 
high above the roof across the way, but what the motion of the 
comet since I last saw it (23rd) may have lewered it enough to 
conceal the nucleus. In fact, either I am wholly right as to the 
disappearance, nucleus and all, under moonlight, or at least the 
nucleus must have been concealed. There isno other alternative. 
As to the great sweep of tail—let us be reasonable in our guesses 
as to the fallibilty of others however improbable their evidence, 
May not something for instance be ascribed to the London 
atmosphere as likely to increase the amount of moonlight re- 
flected? It was for this that I wished the observation made 
public, viz. asa real phenomenon having a real cause; all the 
more interesting that it was so surprising—nay, as it seems, so 
ineredible. My only regret is that I have been now tempted 
into so Jong a reply. 
Before I leave: the comet, may I presume to express my sur- 
prise that the question as to this comet’s return is stil] sab judice, 
It is said that three well observed places are enough to determine 
the elements of a comet’s orbit. But this one has surely furnished 
more nearly a score since its peribelion, to say nothing of those 
before—which no doubt belong to a previous orbit, It is not 
without fear that I may be misunderstood, that I ask of those 
who are skilled in such things for an explanation, knowing that 
of al] men they are most deeply interested in the early solution 
of such a question, It may be said that the observations at and 
about the time of perihelion have scarcely yet reached this country ; 
but is not the fact that the comet was at one time, which I 
imagine is known with some certainty, behind the sun’s disc, 
equivalent to an observation of its place sufficiently exact to rank 
with others in calculating the orbit? I do not presume to say 
that itis so. I merely formulate a question which, inits general 
bearing, must surely be agitating the miads of many be-ides 
myself, after all we have read about the possible past history and 
future fate of this remarkable comet. It has now been under 
observation during two months, in which time it must have 
traversed nearly one quarter of its entire orbit, if an elliptical 
one of moderate exten-ion. Its present path in space must be 
so nearly straight that continued observation can hardly be 
expected to furnish improved data until, if ever, departure from 
that shal] settle the question decisively in favour of an elliptical 
path. But is it for this that we must wait? Ican hardly think 
so, for surely no comet has ever yet been seez in the neigbour- 
hocd of aphelion. J. HERSCHEL 
30, Sackville Street, November 18 
An Urgent Need in Anthropology 
BoTH zoology and geology possess a yearly ‘‘record” of the 
work achieved in their respective domains, but anthropology still 
remains without that aid to its proper advancement. All workers 
are of course cognisant of the current bibliography given in the 
German anthropolozical publications, and the supplemental in- 
formation on the same subject contributed by Dr, O, Mason in 
the American Naturalist, and are not unappreciative of the 
same ; but these lists are but partial, and necessarily incomplete, 
as must be evident when the peculiar nature and wide scope of 
the study of man is taken into consideration. 
Compared with anthropology, the record of zoological work is 
simple in the extreme. Zoology possesses its accredited organs and 
regular channels of publication, and with trifling exceptions, its 
yearly work can be gleaned from these sources, But what is 
anthropology? It may be described as the very Talmud of 
humanity with its ‘‘ Mivhnah” of ethnological facts, and its 
*¢Gemara” of anthropological conclusions. Scattered up and 
down the bye-ways of literature, here and there recorded by the 
traveller, illustrated by the historian or accentuated by the 
essayist, hidden in blue-books, and awaiting extraction from 
medical reports, existing in the papers of the missionary and the 
publications of the statisticians are the unaccumulated and un- 
recorded facts and observations which form the foundation on 
which to rear a complete science of man. Our own savages 
afford as excellent illustrations of the comparative in civilisation 
as do the primitive peoples of the jungle or the swamp, and 
hence a large fund of information is still to be supplied and 
tabulated from our city alleys, prisons, and lunatic asylums, To 
the question, Is such a record needed ? must be added, How is 
such a record possible ? 
It seems at once clearly impossible that such a work could be 
either intrusted to the care of one man, or to the men of one 
nationality. No individual can be expected to have perused the 
whole current literature of his country, and could such a pheno- 
menon be discovered, it is still more unlikely that he would 
combine in himself those qualities which are necessary to 
detect the varied data that make for anthropology. An alterna- 
tive course, however, is present, which is possible, and not too 
exhaustive as regards t me and labour. In each country where 
anthropology is cultivated as a science, a few of its votaries 
could form an association for the purpose of abstracting from 
its literature such facts, arguments, and observations as appertain 
to the study cf man, and these might, in a condensed and tabu- 
lated form, appear as a regular yearly contribution in the pages 
of the different publications of the varied ethnological and 
anthropological societies which now embrace so many nationali- 
ties. It is perhaps not presumptuous to say that these papers 
would not be the least valuable in the volumes in which they 
appeared. It seems work that anthropological societies might 
