994 
and less positive method of presentation would 
have increased the value of the work. 
On the whole, the descriptive portions of the 
work, covering the morphology, biology, classi- 
fication, nomenclature and species of parasitic 
ameebe, are excellently executed and well 
illustrated. 
A firm belief in the stability of the parasitic 
species Hntameba histolytica, H. coli and E. 
tetragena and the ease with which they may 
be differentiated on morphological grounds, 
provided one has studied them long enough, is 
made evident by the author. In the historical 
review it is said that Councilman and Lafleur 
gave “a most excellent description of the 
parasite now known as HEntameba histolytica.” 
This is done in spite of the admission that 
comparatively recent researches have shown 
that species determination must rest mainly 
upon a knowledge of the reproductive cycle. 
Again, the author is not very consistent in 
including in his list of unquestionable species 
half a dozen organisms the life cycles of which 
have been only incompletely studied. 
No adequate discussion is made of the pos- 
sible adaptability of amebe to a parasitic 
existence, although on @ priori grounds one 
would suspect that some such process might 
still be taking place in nature. The answer 
to this question is evidently of the greatest 
importance from the standpoint of the pro- 
phylaxis of amebiasis. The only extensive 
experiments made to adapt amcebe to a para- 
sitic existence have been performed by Mus- 
grave and Clegg in Manila. In criticizing 
the experiments performed by these investiga- 
tors the author is rather indefinite and dis- 
misses the importance of their work from the 
reader’s mind by stating that “ while lesions 
were undoubtedly produced by the mixed cul- 
tures of amcbe and bacteria, the authors could 
not, with their methods, be sure of excluding 
the spores of H. histolytica or the encysted 
forms of other amcebe pathogenic to the ani- 
mals used in their experiments” (p. 63). 
Later (p. 66) he lays stress upon the feeding 
of “pathogenic bacteria” along with the cul- 
tivated amcebe—in spite of the fact that it is 
well known that the typhoid bacillus and 
SCIENCE 
[N.S. Vou. XXXV. No. 912 
cholera spirillum are not pathogenic when fed 
to the species of monkey used (Macacus cyno- 
molgus). Certainly one can not criticize the 
cultures of amcebe used by Musgrave and 
Clegg, for these were the descendants of a 
single ameba growing in “pure mixed cul- 
ture” with a single species of bacterium. If 
it is argued that their animals were infected: 
naturally either before or after the experi- 
mental feedings, then it must be shown that. 
spontaneous amebiasis is of such frequent 
occurrence in monkeys in Manila as to render. 
these animals worthless for experimental pur- 
poses. 
Again this state of mind is exhibited in dis- 
cussing the cultivability of the parasitic 
amebe: “ What I have always believed and 
stated, 7. e., that the parasitic amcbe of man 
have not been cultivated” as Craig says, he 
believes to be supported by the recent work of 
Whitmore, who took cultures he obtained in 
Manila to Hartmann’s laboratory and found 
them all to be free living species. Yet he 
makes no mention of the work of Fantham, 
whose article is quoted in his bibliography, to 
the effect that, by special cultural methods, he: 
was able to identify two cultures obtained 
from Manila and kept on Musgrave and 
Clege’s medium, as Entameba coli. 
Wu. B. WHERRY 
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI 
BOTANICAL NOTES 
BOTANY BY THE EXPERIMENTAL METHOD 
A GooD many years ago some of us intro- 
duced to American colleges the laboratory 
method of learning about plants and this: 
brought about a revolution in botanical teach- 
ing mostly for the better, but not wholly with- 
out some distinct losses. It is doubtful, for 
example, whether the pioneers in the labora- 
tory method in this country ever contemplated: 
the total abandonment of field work which fol- 
lowed in some places. It is pretty certain that: 
they intended to add the laboratory method to 
the existing methods of study, which included’ 
the textbook, the field and the herbarium. 
Certain it is, however, that many teachers: 
supposed that the adoption of the laboratory 
