Analyses' of Books. 363 
the origin of species, and that he has recently protested against 
being set down as an anti-Darwinist ; St. George Mivart, though 
not a Darwinian, is a decided Evolutionist; that the intellect of 
Agassiz is, on American authorities, supposed to have been in 
its decay before his rejection of Darwinism, and that Sir R. Owen 
gives on the question of Evolution a very uncertain sound. 
To find Thomas Carlyle, the essentially unscientific or, rather, 
anti-scientific word-monger, classed among English scientists may 
make us blush. As to Frank Buckland, though a good observer 
of faifts, he was nothing more. Among “ foreign scientists ” 
hostile to Evolution we find mention of Humboldt. Now, 
Humboldt detested Cuvier, and as far as we can judge was favour- 
able to Evolution. 
But if Mr. Saville thinks that the question is to be 
decided by authority, why does he make no mention of the long 
and brilliant series of savants, Continental, British, and American, 
who accept Evolution, — men specially qualified as naturalists ? 
Candour certainly diaates that the reader should hear of these 
men also. In faa, there is in our day scarcely a zoologist or 
botanist of mark who is not working on Evolutionist lines. It 
is greatly to be lamented that the subjea has not been left to 
these men, who if they find the theory coming in collision with 
faas will not keep silent. The intrusion of novelists, divines, 
lawyers, newspaper writers, &c., merely “ darkens counsel.” 
Bacillary Phthisis of the Lungs. By Germain See. Translated 
and Edited for English Praaitioners by W. H. Weddell, 
M.R.C.S., Eng. London : Kegan Paul, Trench, and Co. 
This work, as may appear from its very title, is distinaiy pro- 
fessional in its objeas. The author begins with the history and 
tradition of his subjea. Here, as it seems to us, he is guilty of 
an act of injustice in omitting all mention of Dr. William 
Thompson, of Melbourne, who most distinaiy anticipated Dr. 
Koch in tracing phthisis to the aaion of a microbion. There 
are no grounds indeed for supposing that Dr. Koch was aware 
of the researches of his predecessor ; he made his discovery 
subsequently, but independently. It is curious to note that 
whilst Koch has received for his discovery honours and more 
tangible rewards, Thompson has incurred no little obloquy ; and 
for showing that the Australian climate is no specific for pul- 
monary consumption he has undergone something very like boy- 
cotting. 
2 C 2 
