430 
Analyses of Books. 
[July, 
“ soul-stuff,” and defines it as spirit in combination with the 
minimum of matter necessary to its manifestation 
Hence it would seem, according to the. speaker, P 
strange views 
We Mr b Doo S h. t tle° Sained that in biology, just as in chemistry, 
in physics, and in astronomy, we must have what we . stlll ^ k 
a measure. He asks, “ Is there more life in two mice than^. 
one mouse ? In a horse than in a mouse . f^ecirm of 
- matic,” as used by Mr. Coues, he considers a confession of 
biological ignorance.” . rm 1P e 
Mr" Powell pointed out that in the reasoning of Dr. Coues 
there was a fundamental and fatal error, “the ax ^ tha t th 
whole equals the sum of all its parts had been assumed to be 
true qualitatively as well as quantitatively. He himself aQ 
mitted neither force nor a vital principle, but merely ^matter 
motion. Three relations were always to be borne in mind, viz., 
quantity, quality, and succession, whereas the physicist falls into 
error by considering only the quantitative relation. 
Mr. Gill thought there was a tendency on the part of biologis 
ignorant of philosophy, and philosophers ignorant of biology, to 
make a distinaion between organic and inorganic matter, and 
^Mr. C. S. Buseyread a memoir on “ The Influence of the Use 
of High-heeled Shoes upon the Health and Form of the Female, 
and upon the Relations of the Pelvic Organs ” The author 
contends that, in addition to the distortion of the * foot, .there is 
danger of increased obliquity of the pelvis, which may be an 
important faaor in the causation of certain disorders of the 
f 6 1 Mr. 6 1 p^' o ^ s e s ° a^ o d i fi c a t i o n in the arrangement of the 
inseaivorous mammals. He unites the typical Inseaivora an 
theDermaptera in one order, but regards them as sub-orders. 
He distributes the true or typical Inseaivora into two groups 
charaaerised chiefly by the molars. „ , M w -o 
The volume closes with an “ Annual Address, b> Mr. W. ^ 
Taylor, who takes for his subjea “ Physics and Occult Qualities. 
We have here a destruaive criticism of kinematic theories. 1 he 
kinematist tells us that aaion at a distance is a metaphysical 
impossibility, whilst the dynamist assures us quite as positively 
that aaion at no distance is a demonstrated physical impossi- 
bility. Is there, then, no motion at all ? We are reminded of 
Newton’s diaum that aaion at a distance is a manifest ab- 
surdity ; but we hear less frequently that, in his Optics, the 
same philosopher subsequently asked “ Have not the small par- 
tides of bodies certain powers, virtues, or forces, by which they 
a a at a distance?” Not unjustly does the author remark, 
“ There is no mystery in the world of mind that is no u y 
