302 
though this modification amounts to the difference be- 
tween Dr. Beale’s ‘ living ’ and ‘ formed ’ matter. Had 
even no such statement been made, it is impossible to 
see how Dr. Beale derives his conclusions from what he 
quotes, when Ave remember the circumstances under which 
the lecture Avas delivered. Again, it certainly does not appear 
to folloAv logically that Professor Huxley declares protoplasm 
and horn to be identical, from his statement that corpuscles 
essentially (that is, in their most important characters, as 
far as relates to the inquiry in hand) the same as Avhite 
blood-corpuscles are to be found in the skin, &c., Avhich, of 
course, Professor Huxley Avas Avell aAvare, is largely composed 
of horny scales, the result of the modification (which he 
recognises) of the protoplasm. 
It may here he noted that Haeckel has not included the 
simplest animated beings in the genus Moner, as stated by 
Dr. Beale, on page 282, but that his Monera is a group em- 
bracing many genera. 
On p. 284 Dr. Beale imputes a view to Mr. Herbert 
Spencer based on a single quotation from his grand work on 
‘ Biology,’ Avhich the Avhole Avork does not warrant, and 
Avhich even the sentence quoted does not seem really to 
imply : — “ The microscope has traced doAvn organisms to 
simpler and simpler forms, until, in the Protogenes of Pro- 
fessor Haeckel, there has been reached a type distinguishable 
from a fragment of albumen only by its finely granular cha- 
racter.” Distinguishable by the microscope, of course, and 
by chemical analysis, as Dr. Beale alloAvs, is Mr. Spencer’s 
meaning. Mr. Spencer sIioavs himself ahvays fully alive to 
the difference of other properties betAveen living and dead 
matter, and I cannot see Avhat erroneous implication exists 
in Mr. Spencer’s statement. 
Professor Huxley compares the chemical analysis of what 
was once living matter to the chemical analysis of a crystal 
of calcite, and says, as Ave call the crystalline form and pro- 
perty an attribute of carbonate of lime, so may Ave call living 
form and property an attribute of certain proportions of 
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, combined in a 
certain but undetermined manner. So in the case of Avater, 
Ave do not suppose an entity, ‘ aquosity,’ to enter into oxy- 
gen and hydrogen Avhen they become water : Avhy should 
Ave suppose an entity, ‘vitality,’ for the combination of 
the elements to form protoplasm ? Dr. Beale objects to 
this (p. 285), that crystalline force is not identical Avith vital 
force — an objection which he himself terms trivial, and 
Avhich does not seem to invalidate the utility or significance 
