Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

Henderson’s Dictionary of Biological Terms edited by Eleanor Lawrence,
Henderson, pp 637, Pounds sterling 17.95

Chambers Biological Dictionary Cambridge University Press, pp 324, Pounds
sterling 8.95 pbk

Dictionary of Biology by W. G. Hale and J. P. Margham, Collins, pp 565,
Pounds sterling 4.95 pbk

HENDERSON’S 10th edition lists only nine of the 10 ‘essential’ amino-acids
as such, omitting isoleucine. It also gets the formula of arginine badly
wrong in the appendix devoted precisely to the side-chains (R) of these
protein building blocks. In listing cholinergic neurones, it omits the post-ganglionic
parasympathetics, as it does the gastrointestinal tract as an important
site of muscarinic receptors of acetylcholine. The outlines of the plant
and ani mal kingdoms that appear as other appendices are a partic ularly
useful feature.

The Chambers, alone of this trio, is new. Its major feature is over
a hundred well written special articles, including one on AIDS that certainly
gives considerably more information than the other two dictionaries. Under
‘choline’ it states: ‘. . . its acetyl ester is an important neurotransmitter.
See acetyl-choline’; but there is no such entry. It also lists the Calvin
cycle, but Krebs doesn’t get a mention, even under the tricarboxylic acid
cycle entry.

The Collins alone declares whom its authors have in mind as prospective
users: A-level and undergraduate students. Descriptions and definitions
are concise and read well, and the authors provide numerous sketches and
diagrams that are clear and helpful. Its three one-page appendices include
a diagram of relative sizes ‘from atoms to eggs’, involving a factor of
10**8. The other two, ‘Geological Time’ and ‘SI Units’ do not seem particularly
appropriate.

The Collins has a dedication to the man ‘who told us both what a species
is!’ But the entry does not mention the asexually reproducing organisms,
as Henderson’s does, while Chambers’ appears more systematic in its description.
Henderson’s intends to come out as a paperback at some time in the future.
Even that remote prospect does not alter my, admittedly idiosyncratic, choice,
which is for the Collins on numerous samplings, a few of which have been
cited.

I am encouraged in my recommendation by the discovery that it is also
the cheapest, which makes it the best buy on at least two counts.