THE ANALYST. 273 REVIEW. MICROSCOPIC MOUNTING.” AFTER a careful perusal of Mr. Martin’s manual of microscopic mounting we find therein points for both praise and disapprobation. As it is always most pleasant to be able to approve of any portion of a work, we do the praising first. It is an excellent gathering together of useful mounting formuh, and gives a good description of manipulation, but there the praise must end, as the matter imported into the work on adulteration, &c., and the drawings illustrative thereof, do not partake of the useful nature of the portion already alluded to.Had the book been published simply as a collection of well-established formuh for mounting liquids, with the directions for use, it would have been a most convenient work, but the l C padding” in which the autho seems to sometimes get out of his depth, spoils the book in its present form.On page 2, et seq., we are git-en a list of apparatus required, and are told that “the student must also add, buy, or make, 8s convenient to him, the following articles”: Then follows a list, extending over two pages, of no less than 95 distinct articles (including chemicals), commencing with “ an air pump,” and ending with “ pill-boxee, small pins, cardboard, &c., &c.,” although what on earth the &c., &c., can stand for, we are at a loss to conceive, seeing that we find such sundries as “old knives” and ‘ l Liebig’s extract of Eeat jars” already enumerated.We fear that if an ordinary knowledge of the microscope could not be got without procuring all this formidable list of articles, students would be much alarmed at the prospect. Again, on page 51, we have a drawing which is supposed to represent the method of making a bottle in which insects can be killed by the exhalation from laurel leaves, but the artist cannot have carried out the author’s intention, as the quantity of leaves are so, ridiculously minute that tbey would be quite inoperative.On page 27 we have an illustration of a retort with a flask-receiver, in a basin, presented as a specimen of ‘‘ apparatus for making gaaes, distillation, &c.,” but as there is no appliance for keeping the receiver cool, the latter process would be somewhat difficult. On page 161, we find that some granules, (‘ by their globular character, are known t o be wheat starch.” Now, any microscopist knows that the special feature of the wheat granule is its flatness and want of globularity.Again, on page 175, when the author drops into chemistry, me find that the method of examining cayenne for the presence of vermilion and red lead, is to ignite it to ash on Let us justify these remarks by shortly glancing at a few matters.platinum foil, and test what remains on thought that vermilion was volatile by organic matter, suffered reduction when the foil, but perhaps it is the residue on the author meant to indicate. the foil for the metals. Now, we have always heat, and that an oxide of lead, mixed with heated, and then generally went right through the ceiling of the room, or on the table, that It is, however, when we come to the drawings of food adulteration that the worst point of the book appears, becauae they are really 80 out of proportion that comparison is simply impossible.In plate 10 we have pepper, with the particles representing the starch drawn as an almost imperceptible powder, while in plate 11 rice starch is figured with a diameter of nearly a quarter of.an inch in some * A Manual of Microscopic Mounting, by J. H. Martin. London : Churchill & Co.274 THE ANALYST. granules, the former being stated to be magnified 50, and the latter 450 diameters. Now, rice starch being simply twice the size of pepper, it follows that the relation of the drawings should be as 1 to 10, whereas here they are as 1 to 50 nearly. When we say that, as t o the rest of the drawings, they are made under such a low magnification as to be practically useless, even with the author’s direction to examine them by a lens, and that wheat starch is shown in plate 11 covered with highly-marked perfect rings, while in plate 10 it appear8 exactly like oil drops, we have said enough.I n conclusion, me say, let Mr. Martin, in his next edition, cut out all his ‘( adulteration ” and ‘‘ chemistry,” and pnblish simply his really good collection of recipes and directions for mounting, and all mill be well. We should also, in the interests of professional dignity, advise him to cut out the advertisement page in which he announces that “ h e has a great and varied experience, both in microscopy and. chemistry, and can be consulted, &c.” However great and varied Mr. Martin’s experience may be, he should not be the one to announce it in this way.