303 
of the comparison made by Professor Huxley. With regard 
to ‘ aquosity,’ he says, “ Of water there is but one kind, of 
protoplasm there are kinds innumerable.” It maybe replied 
that there is dirty water and clean water, pure water and 
water holding matter in solution ; if these are not kinds of 
water in the same sense as the ‘ kinds of protoplasm,’ per- 
haps it is a distinction of living properties to which Dr. 
Beale alludes as, e. g. between animal and plant protoplasm. 
There is no reason to suppose that such a difference is nof 
due to a difference of molecular structure, paralleled by 
allotropy. “ The constituent elements of water may be 
separated and recombined again and again as many times as 
we please ; but the elements of protoplasm, once separated 
from one another, can never be combined again to form any 
kind of matter” (p. 286). Much less than one hundred years 
ago water could not be formed from its elements, as to-day 
protoplasm cannot in the laboratory ; but protoplasm is 
continually being formed from mineral matters in plants. 
Dr. Beale asks, “ Are the properties of the elements of 
dog so different from those of the elements of man as to 
account for the differences between dog and man?” He 
seems to imply that Professor Huxley ought to answer 
“Yes” to this, in accordance with his teaching, and that 
such a response is very ludicrous. But it is difficult to see 
what there is incongruous with the scientific knowledge of 
the day in the supposition that a chemical compound should 
exhibit a diversity of properties in diverse cases. Returning 
to the person of his criticism. Dr. Beale says, “Mr. Huxley 
seems to maintain that protoplasm may be killed and dried, 
roasted and boiled, or otherwise altered, and yet remain 
protoplasm.” Mr. Huxley did not seem to me to maintain 
this at all, though, because special and technical words were 
not used by Professor Huxley, there is an opening for 
criticism. Professor Huxley is very careful to speak of 
mutton, lobster, &c., when eaten, as ‘ dead protoplasm,’ 
and to ignore the fact that he makes this distinction is 
hardly just. By overlooking important qualifying adjectives 
— such as modified (see above) and dead — an author’s mean- 
ing can very readily be misapprehended. What Professor 
Huxley really says and means is seen in this passage : — “ Now, 
this mutton was once the living protoplasm, more or less 
modified, of another animal, a sheep. As I shall eat it, it is 
the same matter altered, not only by death, but by exposure 
to sundry artificial operations in the process of cooking.” 
Again: — Convert the e?ea</protoplasm into living protoplasm.” 
There is no deliberate assertion here of any community of 
