PROF. TAIT'S explanation itself shows that the word commonly applied to products, of imagination, was applicable to his statements; for the only justification he assigns is that he “assumed,” that is to say, imagined, that his substitution of “definition” for “formula” must have been the ground of offence. How inadequate a plea this is, will be seen on re-reading the questions I put, which were these:—

To obtain permission to re-use content from this article visit RightsLink.

Publication history

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/023144a0

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.