The “English Cyclopædia”

Abstract

YOUR issue of June 2 contains a long letter from “Nemo,” to which a short reply seems desirable. Most of his statements are incorrect, and, as an illustration of the trustworthiness of his facts, or supposed facts, allusion may be made to his remark that all he can find in the Cyclopædia about Arvicolæ, Crociduræ, Crossopi, Hypudæi, and Sorices is that Hypudæus is sometimes spelt Hipudæus is sometimes spelt Hipudæus; whereas all the species mentioned in the Close Time Report to which he refers are described or noticed in the Cyclopædia. The species of the sub-genera Crocidura and Crossopus are referred to under their generic heading Sorex in the article Sorecidæ, E. C. Some of the terms which he says are omitted properly belong to another division of the Cyclopædia. Thus Acclimatisation is noticed in the Arts and Sciences division, and something additional will probably be given in the supplement to that division. Again, Deep Sea Dredging had scarcely become a subject of general interest when the Natural History Supplement was being written, while the character of the principal results, and the probability of great additions to the subject, rendered it advisable, as was thought, to postpone its consideration until the Arts and Sciences division was supplemented. Some of the results are, however, given under Alcyonaria and elsewhere in the Natural History Supplement. As regards the other subjects said to be omitted, most of them do occur. Darwinism is noticed under Species, E. C. S., and also under Palæontology, Crustacea, &c. Dimorphism in Animals will be found under Annelida, Hydrozoa, Generations (Alternation of), Crustacea, &c., in E. C. S. Eophyton is noticed; and Eozoon is repeatedly mentioned, while its systematic position is described under Foraminifera. The article Entophyta in E. C. is devoted to the fungi connected with skin diseases, while those which are associated with ague and other diseases would be most appropriately noticed in connection with those diseases, which do not belong to the Natural History division. A whole column is given to Hyalonema under Alcyonaria, E. C. S., in which the contradictory views of Drs. Bowerbank, Gray, Wright, and others, are distinctly referred to. Something is said about Hybridity under Primula. Ornithoscelida is not in; the term was first proposed in a paper read Nov. 24, 1869, which paper was not published in the printed form until after the Supplement had been finished. The general views on Protoplasm are given under Cells, Amæba, and so far as it is identical with Sarcode under Actinophrys, Sarcode, and other headings in E.C.S. Rhizocrinus is referred to under London Clay, and its occurrence in the living state mentioned. Aerolites: The latest reference is said to be 1861, implying, as it seems, that none of the information is of later date. Falls subsequent to 1861 are mentioned, and many of the facts are of later date; as, for example, those relating to the Alais and Orgeuil aerolites; Sorby's conclusions published in 1865; and Daubrée's experiments, of which accounts were given in 1866 and 1868. The article itself appeared early in 1869. As to the bibliography, the principal authors are mentioned, and a list of the works consulted was written, but was inadvertently omitted. It is also said that the latest reference under Alca is 1861, but this again is not correct. The writer of the article Annelida was not aware of Claparède's strictures at the time he wrote it; but, after all, they do not seem to affect materially the general statements given in the supplementary volume. Prof. Huxley's views respecting the systematic position of Archæopteryx are given under Birds, E.C.S. No reference is made to Protagon under Blood, E.C.S., nor is mention made of Day's colour tests, nor Dr. Richardson's renunciation. Of the last, all that was found in the Reports of the British Association is the title of his paper, which runs thus, “On Coagulation of the Blood; a correction of the Ammonia theory,” and of which nothing more is said. Hence it was thought best to say nothing about the matter. Of the long string of terms which “Nemo” has culled from Prof. Huxley's last address to the Geological Society, and which are said to be omitted, the majority are given in the Supplement. For instance, to cite one or two cases: Anthracosaurus occurs under Carboniferous system, E.C.S.; Evolution under Palæontology; Micrslestes under Rhætic Beds; and so on. As to the other remarks which have not been specially alluded to, it may be admitted that some of the articles might have been improved. Foraminifera would have been all the better if Haeckel's volume had been consulted, only Haeckel's work could not be got. It would have been very desirable if subjects which have been omitted had been inserted, and if cross references had been more numerous; but there were restrictions as to space which rendered it necessary to make a selection. Thus, Meloe was inserted and Sphegidæ rejected, because there was no room for both. What a Cyclopædia ought or ought not to contain is an open question. It cannot give information upon everything; and probably very few persons not specially interested in the subject want to know about Hyænictis or Ictitherium. If regard was had to the theoretical view of the matter, and not to the cost and other practical drawbacks, a full, account of all that has been done in the last sixteen years would fill several volumes as large as the Supplement to the “Natural History Division of the English Cyclopædia.” I beg to sign myself