74 
POPULAR SCIENCE REVIEW. 
author — one is a matter of fact, the other is one of opinion. Perhaps 
we are too critical, hut it appears to us that the author’s classification of 
animals is singularly faulty. Mr. Hogg gives an arrangement of the animal 
kingdom, which he says is Mr. Huxley’s, hut which we douht not the School 
of Mines Professor would he the first to repudiate. In this scheme, 
animals are divided into four classes — Padiata, Articulata, Mollusca, and 
Vertehrata; of which the first is made to include the Scolecida and Echino- 
dermata, and the second to embrace not only the true Aunulosa, hut also the 
Hydrozoa, Actinozoa, and Polyzoa ! How Mr. Hogg arrived at this extra- 
ordinary mode of arranging the several animal classes we can only explain 
in this way : — In his Elements of Comparative Anatomy,” Professor Huxley 
has tabulated the classes of the animal kingdom ; and in the table in which 
he groups them he contrives, by a plan not unusual among zoologists, to 
show at a glance the distinction between what our present knowledge defines 
to be the affinities of the classes, and what their affinities appeared to 
Cuvier’s mind. Whoever Mr. Hogg employed to transcribe this scheme — it is 
creditable to Mr. Hogg that he should have desired to bring his book up to 
the time by consulting the highest and most recent authorities — fell into the 
error of confounding the two methods of classification, and so has produced 
a table which is neither Baron Cuvier’s nor Mr. Huxley’s, but a perfectly 
arbitrary, and most heterogeneous combination of the two. This we hope 
to see altered in the next edition. The second point refers to the author’s 
views as to the nature of cancer. These we cannot discuss here ; but we 
by no means admit their demonstration. Now that, as conscientious 
reviewers, we have said all the hard things we could of the work before us, 
let us add a word or two in its favour. It is, without exception, the most 
comprehensive book on the microscope in any language ; it is filled to 
overflowing with illustrations — nearly every page displays a woodcut — and 
there are, in addition, seven or eight coloured page plates, drawn by one of our 
ablest scientific artists — himself an accomplished microscopist — Mr. Tuffen 
West. Mr. Hoggdoes not cater for the higher class of students, for he quotes 
frequently from the works of Drs. Carpenter and Beale. His book is exclu- 
sively for the amateur ; and we have no doubt that as it has already developed 
and popularised a taste for microscopic pursuits, it will continue to be the 
amatem*’s handbook and companion to the microscope. 
DARWINISM DEMOLISHED.*= 
W E will not do Cambridge the injustice of regarding the author of the 
work before us as a type of its modern philosophers. Anything shal- 
lower or more pitiful than this feeble counterblast it has not fallen to our 
lot to be compelled to read. Not only does it display a most perfect ignorance 
of the evidence which has already been discussed by Darwinians and their 
opponents, but it lacks the ingenuity of the intelligent special pleader, 
and it is devoid of even the fascination of a scholarly style. Barren of argu- 
* The Darwinian Theory of the Transmutation of Species, examined by a 
Graduate of the University of Cambridge. London : Nisbet, 1867. 
