~ Oct. 20, 1870| NATURE 
49t 
Professor Rolleston’s introductory chapters of his 
“Forms.” It required, however, a man of considerable 
knowledge of the subject to write such a book worthily, 
and we doubt whether Dr. Nicholson, though he deserves 
credit for enterprise, was quite the man to undertake it. 
He excuses himself for shortcomings in plan and execution 
in his preface, on the score of leading a busy life. Now 
is it, we would ask, for men who lead lives devoted to other 
objects than the pursuit of zoology, to bring out educa- 
tional works on that branch of science? 
Having once determined not to aim at originality, 
Dr. Nicholson has really performed a service in re- 
producing so much of Professor Huxley’s lectures, 
both the later ones and those published in the Wedica/ 
Times and Gazette in 1856-7, as he has here, with 
due acknowledgment, done ; for it is not everyone who 
can now get at those lectures for themselves. Most of 
the illustrations in this book appear to come from these lec- 
tures also, but this is not acknowledged. Other figures of 
Turbellarians we recognise as copied from an article in 
the Popular Science Review. All figures not original 
should be acknowledged in a work of this kind, and if it 
were done in this case we should find that Dr. Nicholson 
has seldom gone to an original. source —but has copied the 
copies of other people. We may make exception, how- 
ever, in respect of the figure of A/zzocrznus on page 134 
and a few others which have not before made their 
appearance in any handbook or manual of our acquaint- 
ance ; figs. 47, 67, 68, 73, which we pick out at random, 
are as old as the hills. It is not only as to figures that 
we have to regret that the author does not quote at first- 
hand. On page 4 the student is told that Professor 
Huxley has applied the name of “protoplasm” to the 
physical basis of life. No one would resent more 
than Professor Huxley this statement, seeing that Mohl’s 
term for vegetable “Schleim” was extended to animal 
“Schleim,” and adopted in the broad sense of the proto- 
plasm theory by Max Schultze and Kuhne more than seven 
years since. Dr. Bastian’s name is quoted (p. 154) in con- 
nection with the remarkable history of Ascaris nigrovenosa, 
which we really owe to Leukart and Mecznikow. The 
history of a science is really of sufficient importance to 
render it desirable to keep to it as truly as possible, and 
the compiler of such a work as this should not so 
entirely confine himself to appropriating the gleanings 
of others, but should shift for himself, and give us the 
result of inquiries among the original writers. 
The account of the Annelida is not very full, nor is it 
‘accurate. The leeches are made to form an order of the 
group, and the common horse leech and medicinal leech 
are the only members of it mentioned. Oligochzta is 
given as a synonym for Terricola, and is divided into 
Lumbricidee and Naidide. The latter group is said to 
include 7#ézfex, and then it is said that nonsexual repro- 
duction characterises it. The fact is that Oligocheta 
includes Terricola=Lumbricidee and Enchytreida, and 
Limicola=Szenuridee and Naidide; Zwdifex belong- 
ing to Sznuride and not to Naidide, and exhibit- 
ing no reproduction by budding, which is confined to the 
genera WVais, Chetogaster,and 4olosoma. The fluid of the 
pseudo-hemal system in Aphrodite and Polynoé is stated 
to be yellow, but Claparéde’s researches show these worms 
to be anangian, with the doubtful exception of Aphrodite 
aculeata, so that they have not this fluid at all, either yellow 
or of any other colour. Whilst no mention is made of 
Haeckel’s proposal to connect sponges with Coelenterata— 
perhaps a judicious omission at present—we find them 
actually classed as Rhizopoda, which is to us a new step 
in the opposite direction, and not a justifiable extension of 
Dujardin’s class. In defining the Annuloida, Professor 
Allman’s words, relative to the Echinodermata, only are 
quoted as though applying to both Echinodermata and 
Scolecida, into which two groups Dr. Nicholson follows 
Professor Huxley in dividing the sub-kingdom. 
The Mollusca are treated by the aid of the late Dr. 
Woodward’s manual, due prominence being given to the 
homological views of Professors Huxley and Allman, Mr. 
Hancock is not, however, mentioned, nor are Duthier’s 
views on Dentalium, nor again are the exceedingly impor- 
tant facts of the resemblance of development of the nervous 
system and chorda dorsalis of the Tunicate larve and of 
Vertebrata, established by Kowalewsky and Kupffer, 
alluded to. 
Perhaps a greater omission is that of all reference to the 
Monera of Haeckel. Whatever he thinks fit to do with 
them, the genera Protameba, Protogenes, Protomyxa, 
Myxastrum, Protomonas, and Vampyrella, deserve recog- 
nition on Dr. Nicholson’s part ; so also do the Labyrinth- 
uleze of Cienkowski. Another omission is that of the 
fresh-water forms of Radiolaria, described of late years by 
Archer, Focke, and Greef; whilst under Myriapoda, we 
find no mention of Sir John Lubbock’s curious aberrant 
form Pauropus ; no mention of Cecédomyza larvee under In- 
sects ; no mention of Ahaddopleura under Polyzoa, though 
it is alluded to in connection with Graptolites, the solid 
axis of the latter being supposed to resemble the chitinous 
rod of Prof. Allman’s new order of Polyzoa (Quarterly 
Fournal of Microscopical Science, January 1869)—a_re- 
semblance, if admissible, not confirmatory of Sertularian 
affinities, by the way. Interesting transition forms, such 
as Echinoderes, Rhabdosoma, Myzostomum, are not spoken 
of. The curious low forms of Arachnida, belonging to the 
genus Pentastomum, are said to occur in some verte- 
brates. It should be stated definitely that a species infests 
man, and that one body out of every five has been said 
to contain specimens. 
It is not an agreeable task to point out so many deficien- 
cies ; at the same time a book destined for educational 
purposes can least of all be excused in these matters. 
For all that it contains of reference to recent zoological 
literature, this manual might be dated ten years back, 
when the same condensing process applied to the same 
educational books would have produced much the same 
result. 
There is a glossary to this book which should be useful ; 
we have only looked at its first page, and did not venture 
further into what promised to be a new series of mistakes, 
There is no Greek word “aktin,” a ray—though Dr, Nichol- 
son says there is. 
As a rule, the definitions of both large and small groups 
are well given by Dr. Nicholson, and the most original 
part of his manual appears to be in those paragraphs 
which give the geological range of the various groups ; 
these are well and carefully done, though there are ex- 
ceptions—the geographical distribution is not given with 
equal care, E. R. LANKESTER 
