766 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXX. No. 778 



esis and from restitutions do not appear to 

 compel us to go beyond vitalism in sense (1) 

 — a sense whicli he would evidently regard as 

 tantamount to mechanism. 



The vitalistic negation may, however, (B) 

 refer to the large processes of phyletic evolu- 

 tion, or to the adaptations which have been 

 realized in the course of that evolution, rather 

 than to the peculiarities of the behavior of the 

 material elements in individual living bodies. 

 Some vitalists (Bergson and Pauly, for ex- 

 ample) make much of considerations of this 

 type. But this is only a superficially distinct 

 form of the negative side of vitalism. For all 

 these large aspects or consequences of evolu- 

 tion must be due primarily to processes of 

 form-building taking place in the development 

 of individual organisms. The vitalist must, 

 then, in any case, maintain that these separate 

 processes in the individual are not capable of 

 " mechanistic " explanation ; and his doctrine 

 will, therefore, in the last analysis reduce to 

 one of the three negations mentioned in the 

 preceding paragraph. It remains possible that 

 important evidence for one or another of these 

 contentions may be found by the examination 

 of the lines of direction and the broad results 

 of racial evolution — of such phenomena, for 

 example, as orthogenesis. 



This review seemed most likely to be useful 

 if it were made a species of historical and 

 systematic introduction to the vitalistic con- 

 troversy. In the discharge of the usual duties 

 of a reviewer, however, it should be added 

 that Driesch's book, though an important and 

 valuable contribution to the discussion over 

 vitalism, is not very successful as a work of 

 popularization. It is ill planned and awk- 

 wardly executed, diffuse, involved, and written 

 in a tongue far removed from idiomatic Eng- 

 lish. If designed to appeal to biologists and 

 philosophers, on the other hand, the book would 

 have been more eifective if the author could 

 have brought himself to let the entelechies 

 alone, to omit many of his excursions into 

 Kantian epistemology, and to content himself 

 with expounding and interpreting (as he is 

 eminently qualified to do) all those distinctive 

 peculiarities and " discontinuities " in the 



action of living matter, which have been defi- 

 nitely established by the past twenty years' 

 progress in the study of Entwichlungs- 

 mechanih. A. O. Lovejoy 



The Univeesity of Missouri 



A Treatise on Zoology. By Sir Eay Lan- 

 KESTER. Crustacea, W. T. Calman. Part 

 VII. Appendiculata. Third fascicle. Lon- 

 don, Adam & Charles Black. 1909. Price, 

 twelve shillings and sixpence, net. 

 This is an excellent account of the class of 

 the Crustacea from a purely zoological stand- 

 point. The most important and striking fea- 

 ture of the book is the systematic arrangement 

 of this highly diversified group of creatures, 

 and the zoologist who is acquainted with the 

 older systems of the crustaceans will be aston- 

 ished, at the first glance, that certain sys- 

 tematic groups, which are familiar, have en- 

 tirely disappeared. So, for instance, there are 

 no " Entomostraca," no " Edriophthalma " and 

 " Podophthalma," no " Schizopoda." Yet the 

 new system used by Caiman is entirely 

 founded upon the most recent investigations, 

 to which he himself has contributed a good 

 deal. 



In the present book, the class of Crustacea 

 is divided into five subclasses: Branchiopoda, 

 Ostracoda, Copepoda, Cirripedia, Malaeostraca. 

 The latter subclass consists of two " series " : 

 Leptostraca (order: Nebaliacea) and Eumala- 

 costraca, with four " divisions " : Synearida, 

 Peracarida, Eucarida and Hoplocarida. The 

 Synearida consist of the order Anaspidacea 

 (the remarkable, recently discovered genera 

 Anaspides, Paranaspides, Koonunga and pos- 

 sibly Bathynella, the affinities of which have 

 been worked out chiefly by Caiman himself) ; 

 the Peracarida contain the orders Mysidacea, 

 Cumacea, Tanaidacea, Isopoda, Amphipoda; 

 the Eucarida possess the orders Euphausiacea 

 and Decapoda, and the Hoplocarida the order 

 Stomatopoda. This arrangement surely repre- 

 sents the natural affinities better than any of 

 the older systems. Of course, it is impossible, 

 in a review, to give a full account of the 

 morphological facts, which substantiate the 

 views of the author, but these facts are prop- 



