660 Analyses of Books . [October, 
ravages to maize, the tomato, peas, beans, vegetable marrow, 
hemp, tobacco, and lucerne. 
An interesting essay is appended on the necftar of plants and 
its uses. The author remarks — “ Necftar is secreted apparently 
to attracft insecfts to a plant, and some of the insecfts so attracted 
oviposit on the plant, on the foliage, flowers, and fruit of which 
their larvae feed. How could this secretion have been acquired 
by natural selection ? It looks as if such an acquisition must 
imply the survival of the unfittest. ... It appears that the 
secretion of these glands first attracfts the worst enemies of the 
plant, and then attracfts their enemies, which afford it partial 
relief from the misfortune that it has brought upon itself.” 
This essay will well repay thoughtful study, and must be pro- 
nounced as interesting in a theoretical light, as are the former 
portions of the book from a practical point of view. 
What constitutes Discovery in Science ? By George M. Beard, 
A.M., M.D. New York. 
In this thoughtful and eloquent pamphlet the author contends 
that the first honour in Science belongs to him who organises. 
“ To organise a science, to vitalise it, so that it may live and 
grow, is to make oneself expert in it, and to point out the way 
for others also to become experts.” Dr. Beard holds that all 
new ideas before their full and final reception pass through three 
stages of evolution. In the first they are simply ignored ; in 
the second they are denied ; and in the third strenuous efforts 
are made to show that the facft or theory is old as the hills — 
“ that Newton and Faraday, Hunter and Harvey, Fulton and 
Morse, were but feeble and conscienceless imitators, and that 
Edison is one of the few Americans who never invented any- 
thing.” Every discovery dates from the time when it is made a 
part of the organised knowledge of men. That somebody may 
have dreamt of the thing long ago, or suggested it as one among 
many guesses, detracts nothing from the honour due to the man 
who first brings it out into full daylight. In all this we are tho- 
roughly at one with the author. But when he says that those 
who are active in contesting the priority of discoveries, and who 
“ drink the past to its dregs for proofs that the world’s work has 
not been done by its workers ” become themselves original in 
their search, we entertain strong doubts. 
