32 LIVERPOOL BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 
of the contents of the cells some of which are not living, 
as has been done. This restriction would obviate several 
sources of confusion and incorrect nomenclature. The 
expression ‘“‘living protoplasm”’ would be seen to be useless 
and tautological; and at the same time that of dead proto- 
plasm becomes incorrect and contradictory. This reveals 
a practical want, viz. a word to describe the product of the 
rapid death of protoplasm.* For want of precision on these 
points, Mr. Huxley fell into error, and mystified the public, 
in his “‘ Physical Basis of Life,” published in 1869, by 
speaking of mutton, bread, lobster, and other things, as 
ready-made protoplasm. In consequence of this, Beale, in 
1870, invented the word “ bioplasm,”’ to designate the ideal 
living matter, as involving no theory of living matter, but 
simply distinguishing it as living. In 1874, Dr. Beale 
adds, ‘‘ This I think possible, that after some years have 
passed, protoplasm may be restricted to living matter 
only. The term will then be synonymous with bioplasm 
or living matter, in which case the latter words may 
be given up.” Well, some years have passed—nearly 
eighteen—and the word bioplasm has been adopted by 
only a few English biologists, while the word protoplasm 
has been more and more restricted to the ideal living 
matter by biologists all over the world, so the time has 
probably come when the word bioplasm may be withdrawn. 
Hanstein suggests the word ‘“‘ protoplastin,” to denote 
the ideal living matter. But if we examine in detail his 
reasons for the separation of protoplasm from the other 
contents of vegetable cells, we perceive that his use of the 
word protoplasm corresponds in all respects with his 
* The space for such a word was left blank by me when this paper was 
read. Afterwards Professor Herdman suggested the word ‘‘ Necroplasm.” 
I think the suggestion admirable, and have at once adopted it in the glossary 
at the end of this paper. 
———————— eee 
a a 
