299 
REVIEWS. 
A DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE.* 
T WO years ago the first issue of Dr. Brande’s Dictionary was commenced. 
The work is now completed, and we only wish we could add complete 
also. The general reader who looks at the long list of contributors to the 
Dictionary must feel satisfied that all that could he done to render the work 
perfect has been effected. When he finds that the various departments 
have been presided over by such distinguished authorities as Professor 
Owen, Dr. Frankland, Dr. Bindley, and Professor Hirst, he feels confident 
that no pains have been spared to meet the wants of those who consult a 
scientific dictionary. But when one conversant with the progress of modern 
science casts his eye over the pages of Brande’s Dictionary he detects many 
objectionable features which a careful revision ought to have obliterated. As 
we stated when noticing the first few numbers of this work, we are not at 
all satisfied with the manner in which the department of Natural History has 
been dealt with. This branch is in point of merit far below all others 
except that of microscopy (if we may use the term), which has practically 
received no attention whatever. Professor Owen and Mr. Carter Blake are 
the writers responsible for this division of the Dictionary, and of the labour 
of these gentlemen we regret to be obliged to speak in anything but com- 
mendable terms. Whether Professor Owen’s services have been merely 
nominal, or whether Mr. Blake’s have been executive, it is not for us to offer 
any opinion. But this we must state injustice to our readers, the natural 
history sections of the work by no means represent the views of modern 
zoologists. 
That our opinion is well founded the zoological reader may at once see 
for himself, by turning over the leaves of the Dictionary and reading the 
definitions of those terms which have reference to general Natural History 
and Physiology. Let us see for example what is stated under the heading 
of Animal. It is doubtless a very difficult matter to give an unimpeachable 
definition of an animal, and as this difficulty is appreciated by the zoologist, 
we should have expected nothing more from a writer than a very general 
and outlinear expression of the characters which serve to separate the animal 
from the plant. The writer of the article, however, does not experience 
the obstacles which most physiologists encounter \ his views, we must con- 
* “A Dictionary of Science, Literature, and Art.” Edited by W. T. 
Brande, D.C.L. F.R.S., and the Rev. G. W. Cox, M.A. In 3 vols. London: 
Longmans, 1867. 
