FOOTNOTES:
[56] Contemporary Review for July, 1879, p. 678.
[57] Loc. cit., p. 704.
[58] Contemporary Review for July, 1879, p. 703.
[59] Ibid. for September, 1879, p. 27.
[60] Contemporary Review, September, 1879, pp. 33 and 43.
[61] One of the Melanospermeæ; Ibid. p. 36.
[62] Creatures belonging to the class Lammellibranchiata; see Contemporary Review, September, 1879, pp. 30 and 43.
[63] The truffle may be generally regarded rather as the fruit of a plant than as an entire plant, and yet in some of the group the rest of the plant (which is called the Mycelium) is quite rudimentary, or even absent.
[64] There are climbers in Brazil, the roots of which, descending around the trunk of the tree supporting them, clasp the latter with such a deadly embrace that it dies and decays. In the meantime, the descending roots (having become fixed in the ground) swell and meet so as to form a new and irregularly-shaped trunk of solid wood, which has thus (by an inverted process) grown downwards instead of upwards. There are other such creepers in the East which have a wide-spreading downward growth (see Wallace’s “Malay Archipelago,” vol. i. p. 131).
[65] Creatures belonging to the group Rhizopoda; see Contemporary Review for September, 1879, pp. 35 and 43.
[66] One of the lowest of the Rhizopoda; Ibid. p. 36.
[67] A class of Hypozoa; see Contemporary Review for September, 1879, pp. 35 and 43.
[68] Ibid. pp. 31 and 43.
[69] Ibid. p. 35, and Archiv für Mikroskop. Anatomie, vol. xv. Heft 3, plate xx.
[70] See Contemporary Review, September, 1879, p. 31.
[71] One of the Copepoda; see loc. cit., p. 31.
[72] See loc. cit., p. 31.
[73] Of the class Cestoidea; see loc. cit., pp. 34 and 43.
[74] Loc. cit., p. 36.
[75] Loc. cit., p. 37.
[76] Loc. cit., p. 36.
[77] All these three plants belong to the Dicotyledonous order Sesameæ, which would come between the Lobiatæ and the Orobanchaceæ of the list given on p. 42 in the Contemporary Review for September, 1879. This order contains the Sesamum orientale, the seeds of which yield sesamum or gingilie oil, principally used in the manufacture of soap. 58,940 tons of these seeds were imported into France in 1855.
[78] This and the tics belong to the class Arachnida; see Contemporary Review, September, 1879, pp. 32 and 43.
[79] For the Typhlopsidæ, see Contemporary Review, September, 1879, p. 26.
[80] Loc. cit., p. 24.
[81] Belonging to the class Ophiomorpha; see loc. cit., pp. 27 and 43.
[82] See Contemporary Review, September, 1879, p. 25.
[83] Valisneria spiralis: these are distinct male and female flowers. The male flowers are on short stalks, which break and allow their flowers to rise to the surface and there float, scattering their pollen. The female flowers grow on long coiled stalks, which uncoil and allow them to rise to the surface to be fertilized, after which the stalks recoil and withdraw them again below. This is a monocotyledonous plant of the order Hydrocharideæ.
[84] See Contemporary Review, September, 1879, p. 37.
[85] Loc. cit., p. 37.
[86] Loc. cit., p. 36.
[87] There is an ambiguity in the use of the word “cell.” By some writers it is only used to denote a particle of protoplasm with a nucleus (whether or not it is enclosed in a “cell-wall”), while such a particle without a nucleus is called by them a Cytod. By others it is used to denote any particle of protoplasm enclosed in a cell-wall, and by others, again, as denoting any distinct particle of protoplasm with or without a nucleus, and with or without a cell-wall. It is in this widest sense that it is here proposed to use the term “cell,” distinguishing, where needful, those with a nucleus or envelope as “a nucleated” or “a walled” cell.
As yet the two natures and functions of the nucleus and nucleolus are by no means cleared up. The nucleus often appears to contain a complexity of fibrils, transitory aggregations of which have been supposed to cause the appearance of nucleoli. The apparently simplest protoplasm is probably of really very complex, most minute structure.
[88] Contemporary Review, September, 1879, p. 37.
[89] Here reference may be made to the name Bathybius, which was given by Professor Huxley to a material found at the sea bottom, of great extent and indefinite shape, and which was supposed by him to be the remains of a mass of once living protoplasm, but which there is much reason now to suppose was really but inorganic material. Reference is here made to this, because some persons seem to imagine that if Bathybius were a lowly animal some important speculative consequences would follow. But this is an utter mistake. It is generally admitted already that there are living structureless protoplasmic organisms of no definite shape, and of which detached particles can live and grow. It would make no real difference whatever to the known facts of life if a creature of the kind should be found as large as the Pacific Ocean, with its portions exceptionally detachable and its shape irregular in the extreme.
[90] Contemporary Review, September, 1879, p. 37.
[91] Contemporary Review, September, 1879, p. 36.
[92] Loc. cit., pp. 37 and 43.
[93] Loc. cit., p. 34.
[94] Contemporary Review, September, 1879, pp. 35 and 43.
[95] For explanation of this application of this term see loc. cit., p. 38.
[96] Loc. cit., p. 35.
[97] A kind of leaf the nature of which as well as of spathes, florets, and flowers, will be explained in the next Essay.
[98] Contemporary Review, loc. cit., pp. 37 and 43.
[99] Teleostean fishes are generally bony, but the bones are represented by cartilages in Leptocephalus. As to teleosteans, see Contemporary Review, September, 1879, p. 27.
[100] Ibid., loc. cit., p. 30.
[101] Ibid., loc. cit., pp. 31 and 43.
[102] Ibid., loc. cit., pp. 33 and 43.
[103] Ibid., loc. cit., p. 34. As examples of transparent sea anemones, Nautactis and its allies, belonging to the Actinozoa, may be mentioned.
[104] See Moseley’s “Challenger,” p. 592.