304 
property or chemical constitution of the dead and living 
matter ; but, obviously for the purpose of carrying on the 
mind, and to enable the hearer or reader to follow the rapid 
description of the process of nutrition, the word protoplasm 
is used and qualified by adjectives, instead of a new and 
distinct term being employed. Dr. Beale would have had 
Professor Huxley substitute the expression “ converted into 
various sorts of formed material ” for the simple ‘ modified,’ 
and for “ dead protoplasm ” he would require the insertion 
of a list of the chemical compounds, albuminoids, &c., 
obtainable from roasted mutton dissolved in the alimentary 
canal, and ready for absorption. 
The method of drawing a conclusion exhibited in this para- 
graph from Dr. Beale (p. 286) is hardly admissible : — “ Mr. 
Huxley says, ‘ all protoplasm is proteinaceous ; or, as the 
white or albumen of an egg is one of the commonest 
examples of a nearly pure protein matter, we may say that 
all living matter is more or less albuminoid.’ If the white 
of an egg is living matter, why should not its shell be so 
considered?” Now, surely no one will agree with Dr. 
Beale in imputing to Professor Huxley the assertion that ‘ the 
white of an egg is living matter.’ Dr. Beale’s logic runs 
thus: — 1. All protoplasm is proteinaceous (Huxley); 2. 
"White of egg is proteinaceous (Huxley) ; therefore, accord- 
ing to Huxley, 3. White of egg is protoplasm. This cer- 
tainly is not what Professor Huxley concludes himself, but 
merely — therefore we may speak of protoplasm and white of 
egg as albuminoid, substituting this term for proteinaceous. 
P. 287 : — “ He (Professor Huxley) also went so far (in 
1853) as to remark that ‘ vitality is a property inherent in cer- 
tain kinds of matter.’ ” This he has consistently — and there 
is no great virtue in consistency — continued to do in 1869, 
though Dr. Beale does not seem to think so. Such seems 
to me to be the very text of the Edinburgh lecture — 
understanding by vitality what is more simply called life. 
The foregoing observations are made with the utmost defer- 
ence to Dr. Beale. I have thought it right to reply to an 
interpretation of statements which, no doubt, is a genuine 
impression derived from the study of Professor Huxley’s 
lecture, but which I, in common with many others, have not 
been led in any way to admit as a correct one. — E. Ray 
Lankester, B.A., Ch. Ch., Oxon. 
Microscopical Societies in America.— The Academy of Natu- 
ral Sciences of Philadelphia has organized a section to he 
called the Biological and Microscopical Department, which 
has been meeting now for more than a year, and has proved 
