i88 3 J 
Analyses of Books. 
685 
is being carried on. Almost every town of any standing has its 
N aturforschende Gesellschaft , whilst every University, every 
Real-Schule, and nearly every Gymnasium sends out its bands 
of explorers during vacation. We are far from saying that every- 
thing, even in Central Europe, is fully explored ; but in the 
most promising districts a cycle of any kind would be found 
decidedly de trop. 
Nor can we forget that the cyclicts as a body are not trained 
observers, and would, perhaps, not readily become such. The 
habit of skimming along level roads at a rapid rate, thinking of 
little but how many miles can be got over in the day, is a poor 
preparation for seeing Everything and into everything. 
Altogether we are inclined to think Dr. Richardson’s suggestion 
as lacking in the praftical element. 
“ Toads, Past and Present,” by Mr. E. Kay Robinson, is a 
curious summary of the traditional notions concerning toads. 
He writes : — “ For many years the semi-scientific public had 
learned to regard the toad as a perfectly harmless reptile. Real 
Science, however, in the guise of the ‘ Lancet,’ has come more or 
less to Shakespeare’s rescue ; for that journal last year discovered, 
more suo, that the venom [secretion of the cutaneous glands] of 
a toad injedted beneath the skin of a dog produces convulsions.” 
Now that the toad, like certain other Batrachians, has a poisonous 
secretion was known a good many years before this alleged dis- 
covery. Still, as the reptile has no means of introducing this 
venom into the bodies of other animals, it is pradtically harm- 
less, and the semi-scientific public is in the right. We can, from 
our own superabundant experience, deny that there is any danger 
in handling toads. 
The Popular Science Monthly. October, 1883. 
We find in this issue much matter deserving a careful consider- 
ation. Foremost stands a reply by Paul R. Shipman to the 
paper recently read by Dr. Lionel Beale before the Victoria In- 
stitute, and republished by that body in -the form of a pamphlet. 
Dr. Beale, we are told, admits by implication that known causes 
have not yet been proved inadequate to explain the phenomena 
of life. His cautious statement is that they are inadequate “ in 
the present state of scientific knowledge .” Hence his assumption 
of a special power to account for the phenomena peculiar to 
living beings is declared a violation of the principle known ir 
older philosophical literature as “ Occam’s razor,” but now more 
generally known 'as the “ law of parsimony.” This law forbids 
the assumption of an unknown cause before the inadequacy of 
