Sept. 30, 1886 | 
NATURE 
521 
amount of information which has usually, and we think 
appropriately, been treated of by separate authorities. 
The book is, in fact, a sort of encyclopzdia of bread- 
making, and this being the case, it is open to the faults of 
such works. The design or scope is too large, and the 
matter introduced to our notice is often too remotely 
relevant to the immediate wants of the reader. A 
definition of chemistry, a table of atomic weights, 
an explanation of chemical equations, atoms and mole- 
cules, are scarcely necessary in this connection. Simi- 
larly, we cannot approve of lessons upon _polarisa- 
tion of light, the uses of the microscope, and the camera 
lucida being introduced zz extenso into a book specially 
treating of a technical subject like this. Such knowledge 
ought to be assumed as already possessed by the reader ; 
and as well might the author have given instruction upon 
the origin and uses of decimal fractions, or led up to his 
subject by several preliminary volumes dealing with the 
whole “circle of the sciences.” Certainly he lays him- 
self open to the charge of instructing either too much or 
too little. He deals with abstract scientific problems 
lying at the root of chemistry, and with the vulgar pro- 
cesses of the cook and the baker; and treats with equal 
facility of the microscope and the flour-mill. We had 
rather leave the minuter criticism of this voluminous 
work to the many experts whom it concerns, and who 
will no doubt be ready to detect any errors into which the 
indefatigable and talented author may have fallen. If 
Mr. Jago is ever tempted to bring out a second edi- 
tion, we may recommend the use of the pruning-knife, 
which, if judiciously and freely used, will leave a better 
proportioned but less bulky treatise in our hands, 
JOHN WRIGHTSON 
OUR BOOK SHELF 
American Fournal of Mathematics, vol. viii. No. 3. 
(Baltimore, July 1886.) 
IN her note on “the binomial equation x” — 1 = 0,” Miss 
Scott gives a somewhat simpler form of the equation for 
quartisection than that given by Prof. Cayley (Z.dZath. 
S.Proc., vol. xi. pp. 11-14), and works out the equation for 
quinquisection on apparently different lines from Mr. 
F. S. Carey’s solution (cf. Prof. Cayley, Z.Wath.S.Proc., 
vol. xii. and vol. xvi.). Mr. F. N. Cole furnishes “A 
Contribution to the Theory of the General Equation of 
the Sixth Degree,” which is interesting from the historical 
details which he gives. He acknowledges his great 
indebtedness to Klein, but there is a good deal of 
original work in the note. Mr. J. C. Fields gives a 
neat “proof of the elliptic-function addition-theorem.” 
The fzece de résistance of the number is, however, 
the long-looked-for notes of “Lectures on the Theory 
of Reciprocants,” by Prof. Sylvester. These are de- 
signed as “a practical introduction to an enlarged 
theory of algebraical forms, and, as such, are not con- 
structed with the rigorous adhesion to logical order which 
might be properly expected in a systematic treatise. The 
object of the lecturer was to rouse an interest in the sub- 
ject, and in pursuit of this end he has not hesitated to 
state many results, by way of anticipation, which might,’ 
with stricter regard to method, have followed at a later 
point in the course.” The lectures, which are ten in 
number, have been reported by Mr. J. Hammond. The 
subject, which, it will be remembered, was fully brought 
before our readers by Prof. Sylvester’s inaugural lecture, 
printed zz extenso in NATURE (vol. xxxiii. pp. 222-231), 
ak 
has already attracted many of our younger mathemati- 
cians, so that there is hope of the Professor’s closing 
aspiration of creating ‘such a school of mathematics as 
might go some way at least to revive the old scientific 
renown of Oxford ” being soon an accomplished fact. 
The Non-Euchidian Geometry Vindicated: a Reply to 
Mr. Skey. (Transactions of Wellington Philosophical 
Society.) 
A PAPER entitled “On the Simplest Continuous Mani- 
foldness of Two Dimensions and of Finite Extent,” by 
Mr. F. W. Frankland, was read before the London 
Mathematical Society, December 14, 1876 (Pvroc., vol. 
viii. pp. 57-64), and was subsequently published in our 
columns (vol. xv. p. 515) This same paper, or one of 
similar character with identical title, appears to have 
given rise to a paper by Mr. Skey, which took the form 
of notes on Mr, Frankland’s paper, and was read before 
the Wellington Philosophical Society on June 26, 1880 
(published in the thirteenth volume of the 7razsactions 
of the New Zealand Institute). The pamphlet before us 
is an abridgment of a series of letters in which Mr. 
Frankland convincingly replies sevza/zm to the main 
points raised by Mr. Skey, and maintains his former 
ground by additional arguments. 
LELLERS, LO) RHE 2 DITOR: 
[The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions ex- 
pressed by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake to 
return, or to correspond with the writers of, rejected manu- 
scripts. No notice ts taken of anonymous communications. 
[The Editor urgently requests correspondents to keep their letters 
as short as possible. The pressure on his space 1s so great 
that it is impossible otherwise to insure the appearance even 
of communications containing interesting and novel facts.) 
The Sense of Smell 
I KNow a person who has never been conscious of any odour 
from a bed of mignonette, and I know auother person who has 
never been conscious of any odour from a bean-field. Both of 
these persons have the sense of smell acute and discriminating as 
regards other odours. 
I know persons who cannot discover a difference between 
certain odours which are very different to ordinary persons. 
Then there are persons who are sickened by certain odours 
which usually give pleasure. A considerable number of persons 
seem to be altogether destitute of the sense of smell ; and onthe 
other hand there are a few who have the sense very strongly 
developed. 
I am at present investigating peculiarities of this sense, and 
I shall feel obliged to any one who will furnish me with illustra- 
tions or examples—whatever their character may be—with such 
fullness and precision as will enable me to use them in ascientific 
inquiry. ARTHUR MITCHELL 
34, Drummond Place, Edinburgh, September 24 
Paleolithic Implements in Cambridgeshire 
Few Paleolithic implements have, I believe, been discovered 
in Cambridgeshire, although they are abundant in the gravels 
of the neighbouring counties of Suffolk and Essex. It may 
therefore interest your readers to learn that three implements 
have lately been found near Kennet, on the surface of a field 
not far from the high-road from Newmarket to Thetford. Two 
of the implements are kite-shaped. One, of lustrous black 
flint, is acutely pointed, with sharp cutting edges, and has a part 
of the original crust of the flint left on one of the faces, which 
isless convex than the other. It has lost a portion of the butt- 
end, but is otherwise perfect. ‘The third is a sharp-rimmed 
ovate implement, the surface of which is stained a deep ochreous 
colour. Portions of the original crust remain on the faces and 
base. 
Two other implements of the pointed type have been found 
on the surface near Kennet, but are not in my possession. 
In the winter of 1884-85 several implements and flakes were 
