May 7, 1885] 
plished in the year 1883, and that many of the lacunz in 
our knowledge are being steadily filled in. The Mollusc- 
oidea seem to have had more than ordinary attention 
paid to them, and the record of this group by Prof. E. 
von Martin appears to be extremely well done. As usual, 
Messrs. W. H. Kirby and R. McLachlan record the 
enormous section of Insecta, the lion’s share falling to 
the former, the latter confining his attention to the 
Neuroptera and Orthoptera. In his treatment of the 
general subject (Insecta) the recorder frequently quotes 
memoirs relating to the structure, &c., of the groups re- 
corded by Mr. McLachlan, and it is not without interest 
to note that, while some of these are the subjects of a 
double record, others are not. One interesting fact, show- 
ing the importance which a “Zoological Record,” when 
complete, is to the working naturalist, is alluded to by 
Mr. McLachlan in his remarks introducing us to H. de 
Saussure (“ Mémoires pour servir 4 |’Histoire naturelle 
du Mxeque des Antilles, et des Etats-Unis. Ortho- 
ptéres de Amérique moyenne: Famille des Blattides.” 
Genéve, 1864):—“ This very important memoir is 
noticed at the request of the author. It escaped 
notice in the early volumes of this ‘ Record’ (which com- | 
menced with the year 1864), and also in the German 
Bericht. t would also appear to have escaped the notice 
of workers on Blattidz generally, for none of the new 
terms employed therein for generic, &c., division are in- 
cluded in Scudder’s just-published laborious ‘ Universal 
Index’ which extends down to 1879.” Scudder’s New 
Index is, however, far from being a full record of generic | 
names in any one group. 
The new names proposed for genera or sub-genera, as 
recorded in this volume, amount, the editor informs us, 
to 1079, as against 1015 of last volume, and this without 
including any of the Arachnidz. Of these, no less than 
II5 require re-naming, having been already in use. This 
number affords no clue to the amount of new species 
described, which is considerably larger, thus indicating 
for the present no lack of work for the systematic 
zoologist. 
The British Association for the Advancement of Science 
still continues its grant of 100/, and the Government 
Grant Committee of the Royal Society renewed its vote 
of 150/., while the Zoological Record Association itself 
keeps up both the number of its members and subscribers. 
A Treatise on Practical Chemistry and Qualitative 
LInorganic Analysis. By Frank Clowes, D.Sc. Lond. 
Pp. xv., 376. Fourth Edition. (London: J. and A. 
Churchill, 1885.) 
Tus well-known manual has reached a fourth edition. 
It very thoroughly fulfils the aim which is set forth in the 
preface, viz. to place trustworthy and practical methods 
of qualitative analysis in the hands of the student. If the 
chemical student must still devote a large amount of his 
time to qualitative testing, then he certainly could not do 
better than follow the directions of this book. But the 
very excellence of the tables and methods of the book 
before us makes us more than ever doubt the wisdom of 
attempting to teach the science of chemistry by a course 
of “test-tubing.” The art can be learnt by rules and 
formulz, but the science comes not by such as these. 
This book only includes what “directly bears on the 
ordinary requirements of the laboratory student”; its 
directions are those of a man who knows what he is 
writing about, and who has learnt what he teaches by 
good honest work in the laboratory. It contains many 
of those results of laboratory experience which are 
usually preserved in the private note-books of the 
teacher, and which may almost be regarded as trade 
secrets. The only fault we have to find is that the book 
tends too much in the direction of recipes. Were a 
student to work conscientiously through the book he 
would certainly be an accomplished analyst, but we are 
NATURE 
2 
J 
afraid he might have ceased to be a chemist. However 
excellent rules and tables may be in their own way, it is 
possible to have too much of them. In fact, the better 
they are the less one wants to be bound by them. The 
“tables of differences” given in the book are excellent ; 
in the hands of a good teacher they might be made the 
basis of a really scientific training. But the ordinary 
student will not trouble to develope methods from the facts 
set before him in these tables; he will pass on to the 
systematic examination of simple salts, and be caught in 
the fatal whirlpool of “experiment,” “ observation,” 
“inference.” M. M. P. M. 
Original Researches in Mineralogy and Chemisiry. By 
J. Lawrence Smith. Edited by J. B. Marvin. (Louis- 
ville, 1884.) 
IN a recent number (vol. xxxi. p. 220) we gave a statement 
of the life and work of the late Prof. J. Lawrence Smith 
condensed from a memoir prepared at the request of the 
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, by Prof. B. 
Silliman, who was so soon to follow his friend to his long 
rest. The papers containing the original investigations 
of Prof. L. Smith have now been collected together and 
reprinted as a memorial volume intended for presentation 
to his friends. Three memoirs prepared by Mr. Marvin, 
Mr. Michel, and Prof. Silliman respectively, form an 
appropriate introduction, and give one a good glimpse 
into his life and character. The work is clearly printed 
on good paper, and will be highly appreciated by his 
numerous friends, to each of whom a copy has been pre- 
sented by his widow. 
Von Dr. Gustav Tschermak. 
Lehrbuch der Mineralogie. 
(Wien : Alfred Holder, 
Zweite, verbesserte Auflage. 
1885.) 
WE are glad to find that a second edition of this work is 
already called for, although the latter part of the first 
edition appeared so lately as 1884. In our notice of the 
first part of that edition (vol. xxiv. p. 355) we directed 
attention to the excellent character of the work, and gave 
a brief statement of its contents ; we now need only remind 
our readers that the author is a thorough master of his sub- 
ject, who has donea large amount of original and valuable 
work, and further, has had a long teaching experience as 
Professor of Mineralogy in the University of Vienna. 
| The work is but slightly changed in the present edition ; 
the length is increased by a few pages through the incor- 
poration of the results of investigations made since the 
first part left the press in 1881; the contents are well up 
to date. If some University Professor would provide us 
with an equivalent work written in our own tongue the 
study of mineralogy in this country would begin to revive. 
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 
[The Editor doesnot hold himself responsible for opinions expressed 
by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake te return, 
or to correspond with the writers of, rejected manuscripts. 
No notice is taken of anonymous communications, 
[The Editor urgently requests correspondents to keep their letters 
as short as possible. The pressure on his space is so great 
that it is impossible otherwise to insure the appearance even 
of communications containing interesting and novel facts.) 
Mr. Lowne on the Morphology of Insects’ Eyes 
I DESIRE to give an unqualified denial to the imputation made 
by Mr. Lowne in his letter to NATURE of April 9 (p. 528), that 
my opinion with regard to his paper on the structure of the eye 
in Arthropods was formed under the influence of my colleague, 
Prof. Lankester, or that any consultation upon the paper took 
place between us. References of papers for the Royal Society 
are strictly confidential, and I did not know the name of the 
second referee until after I had come to a conclusion upon the 
subject—a conclusion which was only arrived at as the result of 
along and patient investigation of Mr. Lowne’s preparations, 
