190 
POPULAR SCIENCE REVIEW. 
Figuier should rather have said : u Beyond this point we are unable to> 
explain the process of life in plants \ we may hope that further research will 
remove a great deal of our present ignorance, but meantime we must wait ?” 
Does M. Figuier mean that life is the only power wielded by the Creator ? 
if not, then which does he especially instance, vital force as something which. 
“ God only bestows.” Where do the other forces come from P 
We have done with the author, and come now to the translator, who 
modestly announces himself as W. S. 0. He has no doubt had a 
difficult task to perform, and one which none but a translator is able 
thoroughly to appreciate ; he has had to preserve the author’s style, while 
rendering his meaning clearly intelligible 5 and, in addition, he has had 
to convert the Gallic scientific technicalities into English ones — a process 
utterly impossible for one unfamiliar with the subject treated upon in the 
original. In all cases, therefore, the impartial critic must lean toward the 
translator, and our sympathies extend too in this direction. But, making all 
allowances, we cannot award very high praise to W. S. 0. for his exertions. 
He has certainly given us a good translation of the work of a writer addicted 
to occasional indulgence in the u grandiloquent ” and “ ornate,” but he has 
many errors to account for, and these we hope to see removed in that second 
edition which the book is certain to go through. We need only allude to a 
few passages in which we find the rules of composition strangely violated. 
They are not special samples, but are typical of a general carelessness of 
style which pervades the volume. Thus, u They bear the name of sto mates 
from the Greek word oro/jur, ‘ mouth.’ A stomates of Cycas under the 
microscope is seen in fig. 126.” “ It must be added, however, that at the 
same time that leaves transpire they also reciprocrate and absorb water by 
their own surface.” a In every case hitherto mentioned the number of flowers- 
of the same generation are indeterminate in each group.” We would ask 
the translator also to revise his scientific terms, names of writers, &c. ; many 
of them are incorrect, as in the following instances: Uuger, Scaleform,. 
Destrin, D. purpusia, tracheii. The objections that we have raised are not 
serious ones 5 and when we consider the comprehensiveness, beauty of illus- 
tration, typography, and general accuracy of M. Figuier’s work, we are bound 
to say of it, that it is a book admirably adapted to the class for which it i& 
intended. 
ASTRONOMY.* . 
TT7E are sorry to be compelled to admit the truth of Mr. Chambers’s asser- 
T t tion, that astronomy is not cultivated in this country either as a study 
or as a recreation to the extent that it is on the continent of Europe and in 
America. We are not, however, prepared quite to consent to his explanation 
of the reason. There is no doubt something in the fact that astronomy has 
not been correctly popularized as a study, but still this hardly explains the 
circumstance. It is true that till of late we have not had a treatise 
which might be placed in the hands of those ignorant of mathematics — at 
* u Descriptive Astronomy,” by George F. Chambers, F.R.A.S., of the 
Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Oxford : at the Clarendon Press. 1867. 
