1876.] Notices of Books. 10 7 
4 inch obj. ; having found an Amceba, examine with a higher 
power. Note — 
1. Size. 
2. Outline. 
3. Structure . 
a. Outer hyaline border ( ectosarc ) tolerably sharply marked 
off; granular layer ( enclosure ) inside this, gradually 
passing into a more fluid central part. 
b. Nucleus (absent in some specimens), a roundish, more 
solid looking particle which does not change its form. 
c. Contractile vesicle ; in the eCtosarc note a roundish clear 
space which disappears periodically and after a time 
reappears ; its slow diastole — rapid systole. Not 
present in all specimens. 
d. Foreign bodies (swallowed); diatom cases, Desmidice , &c. 
4. Movements. 
a. Watch the process of formation of a pseudopodium. 
b. Locomotion. 
c. If the opportunity presents itself watch the process of the 
ingestion of solid matters. 
d. Observe movements on hot stage ; as the temperature 
approaches 40° C. they cease. 
e. EffeCts of electrical shocks on the movements. 
5. Mechanical analysis. Crush. The whole collapses except 
the nucleus, and even that after a time disappears. 
6. Chemical analysis. Treat with magenta and iodine. The 
whole stains, leaving no unstained enveloping sac. Iodine, as 
a rule, produces no blue colouration ; if blue specks become 
visible it is probable that the starch they indicate has been 
swallowed. 
7. Look for encysted specimens, and for specimens which are 
undergoing fission. 
8. Another form of Amceba is sometimes found much less 
coarsely granular, having no well-defined eCtosarc and endosarc, 
and having much longer, more slender, and pointed pseudopodia.” 
It must be admitted that a systematic course of such work 
will not only fix the characteristics of an animal or plant much 
more clearly and enduringly in the memory of the student than 
any amount of mere reading, but will be an admirable mental 
di scipline. He who cannot thus learn the precious art of 
observation may dismiss the subjeCt as outside his capacity. 
It will be perceived that Professor Huxley regards the 
“ study of living bodies as really one discipline, which is divided 
into zoology and botany simply as a matter of convenience.” 
He holds that “ the scientific zoologist should no more be 
ignorant of the fundamental phenomena of vegetable life than 
the scientific botanist of those of animal existence.” This view 
can scarely be disputed. There is much that is essentially com- 
mon to plants and animals, and the tendency of modern research 
