Irish Academy Research Articles

Victims of crime with intellectual disabilities and Ireland’s adversarial trial: some ontological, procedural and attitudinal concerns

That the process of delivering evidence orally in court can prove stressful and intimidating is a point well established within mainstream victimological discourse.1 However, what is insufficiently acknowledged, particularly within the Irish academy’s literature on this topic, is the extent to which this sense of distress is heightened for victims of crime with an intellectual disability. In seeking to address this research lacuna, this paper will consider the degree to which the procedural norms of Ireland’s adversarial trial system, and the epistemic values which underpin those norms, pose certain exaggerated barriers to the realisation of justice for members of this vulnerable victim constituency. Owing to their limited cognitive and linguistic development, these victims face significant biomedical or ontological difficulties in responding to experiences of victimhood. Crucially, however, these ontological difficulties are compounded both procedurally and attitudinally by an adversarial system of trial which is predicated upon a ‘contest morphology’ and controlled by a legal community that is overwhelmingly preoccupied with mainstream accounts of victimhood.

Physiotherapy Education: A Global Perspective

As a physiotherapy educator and researcher now based in New Zealand, but who previously trained and worked in Ireland over a period of twenty years, I have been afforded the indulgence and particular perspective afforded by distance in sharing some views on global developments in physiotherapy education, and its relevance for the Irish profession. Physiotherapy education in Ireland is recognised as some of the best in the world, 1 based upon a history of academic innovation (e.g. the early move of programmes to degree status), internationally benchmarked four year baccalaureate and masters degrees, and – most importantly – the calibre of graduates from the Irish Schools. In more recent years, the rapid development of high quality research programmes within the Schools has served to bolster further the image of the Irish academy within the international profession. Those who were fortunate enough to be able to attend the education sessions at last year’s World Confederation of Physical Therapy (WCPT) meeting in Vancouver, or the more recent European Congress on Physiotherapy Education in Stockholm in September of this year, would have been struck by the rapid development and changes in professional education in recent years. The sheer range and scope of education papers presented at these meetings would have been unimaginable a decade ago; by any measure, physiotherapy education, and the wider profession, have come a long way in the relatively short interval since the days of hospital-based diploma-level training programmes. 1

In Retrospect: Charles Darwin and his Dublin critics: Samuel Haughton and William Henry Harvey

InRetrospect Charles DarwinandhisDublincritics: Samuel Haughton andWilliam Henry Harvey PeterJ.Bowler* SchoolofHistory andAnthropology, Queen'sUniversity Belfast This yearmarkstwo important anniversaries linkedto thelifeand workof Charles RobertDarwin (PL I). He was bornon 12 February1809, and his mostinfluential work,On theoriginofspecies, was publishedlate in 1859. Darwin was electedan HonoraryMember of the Royal IrishAcademy (RIA) at a statedmeetingon 16 March 1866.1By thistimethecontroversy sparkedby his book had begun to die down. The general idea of evolutionwas gainingwide acceptance, althoughfew scientists as yetregardedDarwin's theory ofnaturalselectionas thebestexplanation ofhow theprocessworked. Darwincertainly had supporters in theRIA, includingthegeologistJoseph Beete Jukes and the naturalistRobert McDonnell, both of whom were on the CommitteeofScience intheyearhe was elected. ButtwomembersoftheAcademy had been prominentcriticsof Darwin's theoryduringthe early 1860s: Samuel Haughton(PL II) and William HenryHarvey,professorsof geology and botany respectively at Trinity College Dublin. Both were deeplyreligiousmen (Haughton was ordaineda ChurchofIrelandpriestin 1847) andtheirsuspicionofnaturalselectiontypified thepositionofmanycriticswho foundithardtoacceptthetheory'stendencyto undermine theChristianview oftheworldas a productofDivine wisdom. Of thetwo,Haughtonwas themostvociferousin his oppositionand- in Darwin's eyes- themostunfair. His training inthephysicalsciences made itdifficult forhim to come to gripswiththesortof evidence thatDarwin deployed.Harveywas more sympathetic, and engaged in a lengthycorrespondencewith Darwin in which he triedto definetheconditionsunderwhichhe mightaccept a limitedformof evolution .Theirpositionsthushelp us to understand thescale of criticalopinionranged againstDarwin and thetacticsthathe adoptedto blunttheforceof thisopposition. This shortretrospect will exploretheinteractions betweenthem,focusingespecially on thereactionsto be foundin Darwin's correspondence. To puttheopinionsofHaughtonand Harveyintocontext, we need toappreciate thattherewere two pointson which Darwin's theorychallenged traditional Author's e-mail:p.bowler@qub.ac.uk doi: 10.3318/PRIAC.2009. 109.409 This retrospective piece relatesto correspondence betweentwo Royal IrishAcademy Members, SamuelHaughton andWilliam Henry Harvey, andCharlesDarwin, Hon.MRIA. 1 SeeProceedings ofthe Royal Irish Academy 9( 1864-6),389.Twoother Honorary Members wereelected atthesametime, Rudolph ClausiusandMichelChasles. ProceedingsoftheRoyalIrishAcademyVol. 109C, 409-^20 © 2009 Royal IrishAcademy PeterBowler Pl. I- PhotographofCharlesDarwin,c. 1880. beliefs.AlthoughtheOriginofspecies scarcelymentionedthequestionof human origins,everyoneknewthatthetheory would implyhumandescentfroman animal ancestryand hence challenge the unique spiritualstatusaccorded to humankind. More directly relevantto thebook's topicwas thequestionofdesign.Traditionally it was arguedthatthecomplex structures of livingthings,and theiradaptationto the organisms'lifestyles, were an indicationof Divine wisdom and benevolence. Naturalselectionexplainedadaptationas theresultofa processthatwas littlemore thantrialand error. Populationsexhibiteda rangeofapparently undirected variation; thosevariantswhichhappenedtohave some adaptiveadvantagesurvivedand bred, 410 CharlesDarwinandhisDublincritics: SamuelHaughton and William Henry Harvey Pl. II- Portrait ofReverend SamuelHaughton painted bySarahHenrietta Purser. Haughton waspresident oftheRoyalIrish Academy between 1886and1891.© RoyalIrish Academy. thosewhichwereharmful werekilledoffinthe'struggleforexistence'whichwas an inevitableconsequence ofthepressureofpopulationon limitedresources. For criticssteeped in the logic of the 'argumentfromdesign' it was hard to see how such a haphazardprocess could mimicthe effectsof Divine wisdom. Haughtonrepresents a conservativeposition,initiallyrejectingany formof evolutionas incompatiblewithdesign.But in thecase of Harveywe see a scientist who could appreciatetheevidencefavouring some formofevolutionand grappling with theproblemofhow to retaina roleforDivine purposewithinsucha system.Many latenineteenth-century thinkers - includingscientists - accepted evolutiononlyon 411 PeterBowler SamuelHaughton theunderstanding thatsomething morepurposeful thannatural selection was the maindriving force.2 Some,liketheAmerican botanist Asa Gray, modified theselectiontheory bysupposing that God hadsomehow programmed thelawsgoverning variation togenerate more adaptive than maladaptive characters. Harvey's arguments suggest that hetoowouldbe morewilling toacceptthetheory ifsomeelement of design couldbe retained. In 1851SamuelHaughton (1821-97) wasappointed professor ofgeology atTrinity CollegeDublinbuthe also hadmuchwiderscientific interests. He hada passion forcalculation, which heappliedtoestimations oftheage oftheearth, supporting, butlater opposing, thevery limited timescale suggested byWilliam Thomson, Lord Kelvin.3 Atthetime hewascoming togrips with Darwinism, hewasworking toward a medicaldegree(he qualified in 1862)to acquireskillinanatomy. He servedas registrar oftheDublinMedicalSchoolandpublished on medicaltopicsincluding theeffect ofpoisons.Usinghistraining inanatomy, hestudied themechanical principlesunderlying thefunctioning ofanimalbodies.WhenDarwinwas electedan Honorary Member oftheRIA in 1866,Haughton wasreading a seriesofpaperson thistopictotheAcademy, latercollected inhisPrinciples ofanimalmechanics of 1873.As an ordained clergyman he wouldnaturally havehadconcerns aboutthe implications ofDarwin's theory for both human origins andtheargument for design. In thelatter areahe clearly feltthat hisbiologicalinterests madehimqualified to comment onthescientific adequacyofDarwin'sexplanation ofhowadaptive structures wereformed. Haughton hasthedubioushonour ofbeingthefirst person tocomment on Darwin'stheory whenthejointpapersofDarwinandAlfred RüsselWallacewere readtotheLinnaean Society ofLondonin1858.Theywerepresented byDarwin's close allies,thegeologist CharlesLyelland thebotanist JosephDaltonHooker. Haughton presumably sawtheprinted version ofthepapersandattacked thetheory briefly inremarks madetotheGeologicalSocietyofDublinon 9 February 1859. Thesewerereported inthesociety's journal, anda clipping ofthisfound itswayinto Darwin's possession. Haughton wrote: Thisspeculation ofMess.DarwinandWallacewouldnotbeworthy ofnote wereitnotfor theweight ofauthority ofthenamesunder whoseauspicesit 2 Forgeneral accounts ofthereaction toDarwin'stheory seePeter J.Bowler, Theeclipseof Darwinism: anti-Darwinian evolution theories inthe decadesaround 1900(Baltimore, 1983) andThenon-Darwinian revolution: reinterpreting a historical myth (Baltimore, 1988).More generally Peter J.Bowler, Evolution: thehistory ofan idea(3rdedn.,Berkeley, 2003).Greta Jones discussesHaughton andHarvey briefly inher...

In Retrospect: Charles Darwin and his Dublin critics: Samuel Haughton and William Henry Harvey

InRetrospect Charles DarwinandhisDublincritics: Samuel Haughton andWilliam Henry Harvey PeterJ.Bowler* SchoolofHistory andAnthropology, Queen'sUniversity Belfast This yearmarkstwo important anniversaries linkedto thelifeand workof Charles RobertDarwin (PL I). He was bornon 12 February1809, and his mostinfluential work,On theoriginofspecies, was publishedlate in 1859. Darwin was electedan HonoraryMember of the Royal IrishAcademy (RIA) at a statedmeetingon 16 March 1866.1By thistimethecontroversy sparkedby his book had begun to die down. The general idea of evolutionwas gainingwide acceptance, althoughfew scientists as yetregardedDarwin's theory ofnaturalselectionas thebestexplanation ofhow theprocessworked. Darwincertainly had supporters in theRIA, includingthegeologistJoseph Beete Jukes and the naturalistRobert McDonnell, both of whom were on the CommitteeofScience intheyearhe was elected. ButtwomembersoftheAcademy had been prominentcriticsof Darwin's theoryduringthe early 1860s: Samuel Haughton(PL II) and William HenryHarvey,professorsof geology and botany respectively at Trinity College Dublin. Both were deeplyreligiousmen (Haughton was ordaineda ChurchofIrelandpriestin 1847) andtheirsuspicionofnaturalselectiontypified thepositionofmanycriticswho foundithardtoacceptthetheory'stendencyto undermine theChristianview oftheworldas a productofDivine wisdom. Of thetwo,Haughtonwas themostvociferousin his oppositionand- in Darwin's eyes- themostunfair. His training inthephysicalsciences made itdifficult forhim to come to gripswiththesortof evidence thatDarwin deployed.Harveywas more sympathetic, and engaged in a lengthycorrespondencewith Darwin in which he triedto definetheconditionsunderwhichhe mightaccept a limitedformof evolution .Theirpositionsthushelp us to understand thescale of criticalopinionranged againstDarwin and thetacticsthathe adoptedto blunttheforceof thisopposition. This shortretrospect will exploretheinteractions betweenthem,focusingespecially on thereactionsto be foundin Darwin's correspondence. To puttheopinionsofHaughtonand Harveyintocontext, we need toappreciate thattherewere two pointson which Darwin's theorychallenged traditional Author's e-mail:p.bowler@qub.ac.uk doi: 10.3318/PRIAC.2009. 109.409 This retrospective piece relatesto correspondence betweentwo Royal IrishAcademy Members, SamuelHaughton andWilliam Henry Harvey, andCharlesDarwin, Hon.MRIA. 1 SeeProceedings ofthe Royal Irish Academy 9( 1864-6),389.Twoother Honorary Members wereelected atthesametime, Rudolph ClausiusandMichelChasles. ProceedingsoftheRoyalIrishAcademyVol. 109C, 409-^20 © 2009 Royal IrishAcademy PeterBowler Pl. I- PhotographofCharlesDarwin,c. 1880. beliefs.AlthoughtheOriginofspecies scarcelymentionedthequestionof human origins,everyoneknewthatthetheory would implyhumandescentfroman animal ancestryand hence challenge the unique spiritualstatusaccorded to humankind. More directly relevantto thebook's topicwas thequestionofdesign.Traditionally it was arguedthatthecomplex structures of livingthings,and theiradaptationto the organisms'lifestyles, were an indicationof Divine wisdom and benevolence. Naturalselectionexplainedadaptationas theresultofa processthatwas littlemore thantrialand error. Populationsexhibiteda rangeofapparently undirected variation; thosevariantswhichhappenedtohave some adaptiveadvantagesurvivedand bred, 410 CharlesDarwinandhisDublincritics: SamuelHaughton and William Henry Harvey Pl. II- Portrait ofReverend SamuelHaughton painted bySarahHenrietta Purser. Haughton waspresident oftheRoyalIrish Academy between 1886and1891.© RoyalIrish Academy. thosewhichwereharmful werekilledoffinthe'struggleforexistence'whichwas an inevitableconsequence ofthepressureofpopulationon limitedresources. For criticssteeped in the logic of the 'argumentfromdesign' it was hard to see how such a haphazardprocess could mimicthe effectsof Divine wisdom. Haughtonrepresents a conservativeposition,initiallyrejectingany formof evolutionas incompatiblewithdesign.But in thecase of Harveywe see a scientist who could appreciatetheevidencefavouring some formofevolutionand grappling with theproblemofhow to retaina roleforDivine purposewithinsucha system.Many latenineteenth-century thinkers - includingscientists - accepted evolutiononlyon 411 PeterBowler SamuelHaughton theunderstanding thatsomething morepurposeful thannatural selection was the maindriving force.2 Some,liketheAmerican botanist Asa Gray, modified theselectiontheory bysupposing that God hadsomehow programmed thelawsgoverning variation togenerate more adaptive than maladaptive characters. Harvey's arguments suggest that hetoowouldbe morewilling toacceptthetheory ifsomeelement of design couldbe retained. In 1851SamuelHaughton (1821-97) wasappointed professor ofgeology atTrinity CollegeDublinbuthe also hadmuchwiderscientific interests. He hada passion forcalculation, which heappliedtoestimations oftheage oftheearth, supporting, butlater opposing, thevery limited timescale suggested byWilliam Thomson, Lord Kelvin.3 Atthetime hewascoming togrips with Darwinism, hewasworking toward a medicaldegree(he qualified in 1862)to acquireskillinanatomy. He servedas registrar oftheDublinMedicalSchoolandpublished on medicaltopicsincluding theeffect ofpoisons.Usinghistraining inanatomy, hestudied themechanical principlesunderlying thefunctioning ofanimalbodies.WhenDarwinwas electedan Honorary Member oftheRIA in 1866,Haughton wasreading a seriesofpaperson thistopictotheAcademy, latercollected inhisPrinciples ofanimalmechanics of 1873.As an ordained clergyman he wouldnaturally havehadconcerns aboutthe implications ofDarwin's theory for both human origins andtheargument for design. In thelatter areahe clearly feltthat hisbiologicalinterests madehimqualified to comment onthescientific adequacyofDarwin'sexplanation ofhowadaptive structures wereformed. Haughton hasthedubioushonour ofbeingthefirst person tocomment on Darwin'stheory whenthejointpapersofDarwinandAlfred RüsselWallacewere readtotheLinnaean Society ofLondonin1858.Theywerepresented byDarwin's close allies,thegeologist CharlesLyelland thebotanist JosephDaltonHooker. Haughton presumably sawtheprinted version ofthepapersandattacked thetheory briefly inremarks madetotheGeologicalSocietyofDublinon 9 February 1859. Thesewerereported inthesociety's journal, anda clipping ofthisfound itswayinto Darwin's possession. Haughton wrote: Thisspeculation ofMess.DarwinandWallacewouldnotbeworthy ofnote wereitnotfor theweight ofauthority ofthenamesunder whoseauspicesit 2 Forgeneral accounts ofthereaction toDarwin'stheory seePeter J.Bowler, Theeclipseof Darwinism: anti-Darwinian evolution theories inthe decadesaround 1900(Baltimore, 1983) andThenon-Darwinian revolution: reinterpreting a historical myth (Baltimore, 1988).More generally Peter J.Bowler, Evolution: thehistory ofan idea(3rdedn.,Berkeley, 2003).Greta Jones discussesHaughton andHarvey briefly inher...

Occasions of Faith: An Anthropology of Irish Catholics

Due to the tenacity of disciplinary boundaries in the Irish academy, only a small number of anthropologists seek to integrate past and present in their analyses. The book Occasions of faith: An anthropology of Irish Catholics makes a valuable contribution to such interdisciplinary methodologies, while it examines the beliefs and practices of residents in Southwest Donegal. Throughout the book, Taylor masterfully weaves past and present together using data gathered from intensive fieldwork, archives and from what he calls the physical archive, meaning ruins and natural features of the Donegal landscape which create a spiritual sense of place. Rejecting methodologies that deductively proceed from an a priori definition of religion and its relationship to human social life, Taylor prefers a processual ethnographic approach focusing on the interstices or creative space between religious regimes and the individual and on the differentiation in content and experience. Despite the long tradition of ethnography in Ireland, for fifty years the dominant theoretical paradign was Durkheimian structural functionalism with research narrowly focusing on social life in rural communities. Although a revised conception of culture as process has generated alliances between social science and history elsewhere for several decades, such approaches have only just begun to emerge in Irish studies during the last decade. Taylor is among a handful of scholars grappling with the unique perspective that anthropology brings to the historicity of social and cultural life in Ireland. Each discipline sees the evidence differently, thereby posing different questions. Contemporary fieldwork underlies Taylor's approach to the past, leading him to the importance of particular historical texts and to questions exploring connections between these and the contemporary of faith analyzed in the book. Taylor points out that although Catholicism is perhaps the most salient feature of Irish culture, it has received slight, simplistic, and reductive treatment from anthropologists. The organizing concept of occasions allows him to integrate interdisciplinary material and perspectives and to focus on the connections between religion as power and meaning. Taylor repeatedly highlights human agency in the expressions of Catholicism. He offers such concepts as interactive play and creative space to identify distinctive forms of experience at holy wells, in accounts of drunken priests, at missions, prayer meetings, and pilgrimages to Lough Derg, Knock, Lourdes in France and Medjugorje in Bosnia. Historical ethnographers have emphasized the linkages between particular places and people and larger processes at the world historical level. This requires command of a variety of sources and Taylor's ability to synthesize these is evident in every chapter. For example, his treatment of a nineteenthcentury event, the eviction of an assertive priest by the local Protestant landlord, is contextualized within exploitative relations between the landowning Protestant ascendancy and their poor Catholic tenants. Taylor is not, however, content with political economy as an explanation since the agency of real people can be submerged. He insists that the real question is one of competing discourses - the genre of the tale (p. …

A NOTE ON TAXUS POLLEN IN THE HOXNIAN INTERGLAGIAL

New PhytologistVolume 61, Issue 2 p. 189-190 Free Access A NOTE ON TAXUS POLLEN IN THE HOXNIAN INTERGLAGIAL R. G. WEST, R. G. WEST Botany School, CambridgeSearch for more papers by this author R. G. WEST, R. G. WEST Botany School, CambridgeSearch for more papers by this author First published: August 1962 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1962.tb06287.xCitations: 9AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat REFERENCES Jessen, K., Andersen, S. T. & Farrington, A. (1959). The interglacial deposit near Gort, Co. Galway, Ireland. Proc. R. Irish Academy, 60B, No. 1, 1. Reid, C. (1896). The relation of Palaeolithic man to the Glacial Epoch. Rep. Brit. Ass., 400. Watts, W. A. (1959). Interglacial deposits at Kilbeg and Newtown, Co. Waterford. Proc. R. Irish Academy, 60B, No. 2, 79. West, R. G. (1956). The Quaternary deposits at Hoxne, Suffolk. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London, B, 239, 265. West, R. G. (1958). The Pleistocene Epoch in East Anglia. J. Glaciology, 3, 211. Citing Literature Volume61, Issue2August 1962Pages 189-190 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Dr. Arthur A. Rambaut, F.R.S

ARTHUR ALCOCK RAMBAUT, Radcliffe Observer at Oxford, who died at a nursing home on October 14, after a prolonged illness, was born at Waterford on September 21, 1859, and was a son of the Rev. E. F. Rambaut. At Trinity College, Dublin, he won a first science scholarship in 1880 and took his degree the ^following year as senior moderator and gold medallist in mathematics and mathematical physics. Having spent some time as senior science master at the Royal School, Armagh (where he had been educated himself), he was-in 1882 appointed assistant at the Dublin University Observatory at Dunsink under Sir Robert Ball. He had charge of the transit circle and observed regularly with it for about eight years, the results being published in Parts VI. and VII. of the “Astronomical Observations and Researches made at Dunsink.” This work was laid aside when Mr. Isaac Roberts presented the observatory with a 15-inch reflector, with which some of his earliest work in astronomical photography had been made. Rambaut commenced work with this instrument as soon as the clockwork had been somewhat improved, and a photo graphic survey was made of the great star cluster in Perseus and published in a paper by Ball and Rambaut in the Trans. R. Irish Academy. Soon after, in the autumn of 1892, Ball left for Cambridge and Rambaut was appointed to succeed him as Andrews professor of astronomy and Royal Astronomer of Ireland. During the next five years he continued his photographic work, but under great difficulties and with long interruptions, as the mounting, clockwork, and the dome under which the instrument was housed were all found to be useless and had to be replaced by others.

Species in Foraminifera

ATTENTION should have been directed sooner than now to an interesting paper by Messrs. E. Heron-Allen and E. Earland on the species of Verneuilina polystropha and some other Foraminifera (Proc. Roy. Irish Academy, vol. 35, Section B, No. 8, pp. 153–77, 3 pis.). It is in part a contribution to the study of variation in the Foraminifera, and in part an account of certain experiments which, to say the least, are very suggestive to those interested in the problem of species. Variation in Foraminifera may affect the size of the primordial chamber, the plan or arrangement of the chambers, and the external form. The authors also discuss the occurrence of gigantism and nanism, the predominance of the chitinous membrane over the calcareous shell, and the changes involved in a free or adherent mode of life within the same species. The facts seem to the authors to prove the futility of all classifications of Foraminifera based on the external shell, but the difficulty is to find any other basis.

Scientific Serial

Bulletin of the American Mathemalical Sociely, April, 1901. —Prof. F. N. Cole opens with an account of the proceedings at the February meeting of the Society in New York City, and, in addition to the titles of the nineteen papers communicated, gives an abstract of several of them. Three of the papers are ptinted. Their titles are: (i) Green's functions in space of one dimension, by, Prof. M. B´cher. The results arrived at are given, but the proofs and further developments are reserved (2) Possible triply asymptotic systems of surfaces, by Dr. L. P. Eisenhart. This supplements a note by the author, in the January Bulletin, entitled, “A demonstration of the impossibility of a triply asymptotic system of surfaces.” Instead of the general negation previously given, the author now gives the qualified one: The only triple systems of surfaces cutting mutually in the real asymptotic lines of these surfaces are composed of properly associated families of hyperboloids of one sheet and hyperbolic paraboloids; (3) Note on Hamilton's determination of irrational numbers, by Dr. H. E. Hawkes. The purpose of the note is to call attention to Hamilton's use of the partition (Schnitt) in his definition of certain irrational numbers (Trans. of the R. Irish Academy, vol. xvii. 1837, p. 293)—On a system of plane curves having factorable parallels, by Dr. V. Snyder, was read before the December meeting of the Society. The type of scrolls contained in a linear congruence, and having factorable asymptotic lines, gives rise to a class of plane curves whose parallels have a similar property (cf. a paper by the author, in the American Jonrnal of Mathematics, vol. xxiii., on a special form of annular surface). Mr. Bromwich gives a very uselul analysis of Dr. P. Muth's “Theorie und Anwendung der Elementartheiler” (1899, xvi. and 236 pp.), and hopesthat the book may induce its readers to take up the special part of invariant theory treated in it. Mr. Bromwich has done good work in this direction (see Proc. of London Math. Soc. vol. xxxii. 1900, p. 98), where he gives a list of papers on the subject—Short notices follow of Dr. R. Fricke's “Kurzgefasste Vorlesungen üer Verschiedene Gebiete der höheren Mathematik, mit Berüchsichtigung der Anwendungen” (1900), and Dr. R. Böger's “Ebene Geometrie der Lage”(1900), both by Prof. H. S. White.—The notes are very copious and interesting, giving account of the courses of lectures in the Continental and home Universities, and the usual new publications close the number.

III. On the means of increasing the quantity of electricity given by induction-machines

Among the remarkable results obtained by studying the spectra of electric discharges, is the change exhibited by certain substances when the nature of the discharge is varied. In general the mere spark shows fewer and fainter lines than when a Leyden jar is in connexion, though the amount of electricity supplied by the machine is the same. In the latter case, however, the discharge passes almost instantaneously, and therefore its concentrated action will be more powerful. But, as far as I know, much has not been attempted towards increasing the power of the jar: this can­not he done by increasing its surface (unless indeed that be too small to condense all the electricity supplied); the supply itself must be increased. This may be done in three ways :— First, the power of the exciting battery may be increased. This, how­ever, is limited by the risk of destroying the acting surfaces of the rheotome; and by the decreasing rate at which the magnetism of the iron core increases with the primary current. In some investigations on the electromagnet (Trans. Irish Academy, vol. xxiii. p. 529) I have shown that its lifting power L is approximately given by the equation L = AΨ/B+Ψ, in which Ψ is the product of the current and number of spires, A the maximum lift of the magnet, and B the Ψ which would excite it to half A. The rate of change d L/ d Ψ is therefore inversely as (B+Ψ) 2 . The results obtained with two of the magnets which I used will illustrate this. Their A’s are 781 lbs. and 278. The first 1000 of Ψ make their lifts 576 and 235 ; the second 1000 adds to these 87 and 19 ; the third 35 and 8 ; and the fourth only 19 and 3. With a primary of 180 spires, Ψ=4000 im­plies a current which can evolve in a voltameter 34·7 cubic inches of gases per minute, and of course has great deflagrating power. There is there­ fore not much to be gained in this direction.