y4ug. I, 1872] 



NATURE 



259 



course, by destruction here he can only mean the transfor- 

 mation of the matter into another form, which is exactly 

 what occurs in thousands of cases in non-living sources of 

 force — as when a steam-engine is moved by the combus- 

 tion of the coal in its furnace ; and instead of being a 

 difference between dead and liv'ing bodies, is a remarkable 

 instance of similarity, and one which, a few pages farther 

 on, Dr. Nicholson seems entirely to forget. Again, " Dead 

 matter is completely passive, unable to originate motion ; 

 living matter is the seat of energy, and can overcome 

 the primary law of the inertia of matter." This point of 

 difference is, to say the least, by no means proven. In a 

 certain sense dead matter cannot originate motion, it can 

 only convert some other form of force into it ; but there 

 are very good grounds for supposing that when an animal 

 moves its limb, and so originates motion, it does exactly 

 the same thing : at any rate, no one is justified in making 

 the express statement that it does not; if so, indeed, where 

 is the need for "that destruction of matter" which accom- 

 panies vital actions, or why should an animal or plant 

 need food at all ? 



Protoplasm, the author states, may be regarded as a gene- 

 ral term for all forms of albuminoid matter — an extension of 

 the meaning of the word which is certainly not justifi.able. 

 Few would be inclined to call the boiled white of an egg, 

 or coagulated fibrin, protoplasm. Vet upon this definition 

 of the word Dr. Nicholson bases an argument against the 

 theory of those who maintain that life is one of the pro- 

 perties of protoplasm. He represents them as asserting 

 th.at life is the " result of the combined properties of the 

 elements which form albuminous matter," and then brings 

 forward the fact that dead albuminous matter exists, as an 

 argument against the truth of this statement. What is 

 really asserted is that life is a property of protoplasm, and 

 that protoplasm is nitrogenous compound related in 

 chemical composition to albuminous bodies ; but it would 

 be as reasonable to call starch and dextrine by the same 

 name because one is readily converted into the other, and 

 because they have a similar chemical composition, as to 

 call all albuminous matters protoplasm. But even were 

 it admitted that protoplasm, as such, can exist in a dead 

 state, to deny that life, under other conditions, can be one of 

 its properties, is to deny altogether the possible existence of 

 allotropic states of any kind of matter whatsoever ; and 

 this is what Dr. Nicholson practically does. He says, 

 moreover, that as water is a definite chemical compound, 

 with universally the same properties, there is no need for 

 ascribing its properties to any assumed principle of aquo- 

 sity; but that, as living protoplasm has certain properties 

 different from those of dead albuminous matter, it is best 

 to regai'd vitality " as something superadded and foreign 

 to the matter by which vital phenomena are manifested." 

 But, admitting for the moment that albuminous matter 

 and protoplasm arc convertible terms, would the author 

 assume a principle of //;(«/'//(;/(W/7k to account for the 

 different properties of yellow and red phosphorus. 



The author falls into the very general error of stating 

 that plants can only build up protoplasm in the light ; but 

 certain fungi will flourish in Pasteur's solution, although 

 kept in total darkness. The difference as regards food 

 between animals and plants is stated in a manner calcu- 

 lated to mislead a beginner. It is hardly correct to say 

 that the food of plants consists of inorganic compounds ; 



plants have the power of building up food out of these 

 compounds, and it is this which distinguishes them from 

 animals ; the essential nutritive processes of each are the 

 same, and consist in the breaking up of the unstable com- 

 pounds thus formed ; and the nutrition of plants cannot, as 

 stated, be narrowed to the question of the modes and laws 

 by which these unstable organic compounds are built up. 



The chapters on Classification and Homology are 

 good ; in fact, throughout the book morphological ques- 

 tions are much more ably treated than physiological. 

 The account given of the chemistry of living beings is 

 very bare. Fats are the only non- nitrogenous compounds 

 mentioned as occurring in animals. Starch is rendered 

 conspicuous by having the only chemical formula in the 

 book attached to it, and that on the old system of nota- 

 tion. 



The next chapter is one on " The Elementary Structure 

 of Living Beings," and here the author closely follows 

 Dr. Beale, accepting his views as to " germinal matter " 

 and "formed material." In speaking again here of pro- 

 toplasm (or as he, following Beale, prefers to call it, bio- 

 plasm), the word " contractility," as applied to the cause 

 of amcEboid movements, is objected to on the curious 

 ground that it implies an identity in kind with the con- 

 tractions of a muscle, an identity which most physiolo- 

 gists, we think, would readily .admit. The accounts of 

 development and reproduction are much better than the 

 earlier parts of the book. In his account of the origin of 

 species, the author simply states the opposing views on 

 the subject, and the chief objections to them, but expresses 

 no opinion of his own ; in fact, for some reason, he seems 

 desirous to be regarded as having none, for in a fo^t-note 

 he asks it to be remembered that a statement of eai, h side 

 of the case commits him to neither. " Distribution in 

 Space " is the heading of an interesting chapter, but that 

 on " Distribution in Time " is very imperfect, at least in 

 a biological sense ; it contains an epitome of geology, but 

 such questions of great interest as the succession of life 

 on the globe, or the extraordinary persistence of certain 

 species, as Nautilus and Lingula, are entirely ignored. 



The book contains a considerable number of woodcuts, 

 some of them very good ; but on the whole it is not one to 

 be recommended as a safe guide to the acquirement of a 

 firm foundation of biological knowledge. 



OUR BOOK SHELF 



Natural History of the Year. By the late B. B. Wood- 

 ward, B.A. (London : S. W. Partridge.) 



It does not often fall to our lot to notice a book of this 

 description which we can so heartily commend. The de- 

 sign is to interest young people in the varied productions 

 of Nature, by taking them into the fields and woods from 

 month to month, and pointing out the numberless objects 

 of interest that will meet the observant eye at every turn. 

 This is all told in a pleasant manner, and withal with a 

 religious spirit. The author was himself a keen and accu- 

 rate observer of Nature ; and we do not meet with those 

 atrocious blunders with which books intended for the in- 

 struction of children too often abound in describing the 

 most familiar things. The book is illustrated with some 

 extremely tasteful illustrations, one for each month, and 



