488 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



the flasks being shaped to produce this result. They are still in the 

 Alps, as clear, I doubt not, and as free from life as they were when 

 sent off from London. 1 



What is my colleague's conclusion from the experiment before us ? 

 Twenty-seven putrescible infusions, first in vacuo, and afterward sup- 

 plied with the most invigorating air, have shown no sign of putrefac- 

 tion or of life. And as to the others, I almost shrink from asking him 

 whether the hay-loft has rendered them spontaneously generative. Is 

 not the inference here imperative that it is not the air of the loft which 

 is connected through a constantly-open door with the general atmos- 

 phere but something contained in the air, that has produced the 

 effects observed ? What is this something ? A sunbeam glinting 

 through a chink in the roof or wall, and traversing the air of the loft, 

 would show it to be laden with suspended dust-particles. Indeed, the 

 dust is distinctly visible in the diffused daylight. Can it have been 

 the origin of the observed life? If so, are we not bound by all ante- 

 cedent experience to regard these fruitful particles as the germs of 

 the life observed ? 



The name of Baron Liebig has been constantly mixed up with 

 these discussions. " We have," it is said, " his authority for assuming 

 that dead decaying matter can produce fermentation." True, but 

 with Liebig fermentation was by no means synonymous with life. 

 It will be observed, by the careful reader of Dr. Bastian's works, that 

 whenever their author refers to this alleged power of decaying matter, 

 he invariably couples with it the vague term "fermentation," thus 

 softening the shock of the hypothesis which he insinuates rather than 

 asserts. But our present intention is to brush all vagueness aside. 

 We therefore ask, "Does the life of our flasks proceed from dead 

 particles ?" If my co-inquirer should reply "Yes," then I would ask 

 him: "What warrant does Nature offer for such an assumption? 

 Where, amid the multitude of vital phenomena in which her opera- 

 tions have been clearly traced, is the slightest countenance given to 

 the notion that the sowing of dead particles can produce a living 

 crop?" With regard to Baron Liebig, had he studied the revela- 

 tions of the microscope in relation to these questions, a mind so pene- 

 trating could never have missed the significance of the facts revealed. 

 He, however, neglected the microscope, and fell into error but not 

 into error so gross as that in support of which his authority has been 

 invoked. Were he now alive, he would, I doubt not, repudiate the 

 use often made of his name Liebig's view of fermentation was at 

 least a scientific one, founded on profound conceptions of molecular 

 instability. But this view by no means involves the notion that the 

 planting of dead particles " Stickstoffsplittern," as Cohn contemptu- 

 ously calls them is followed by the sprouting of infusorial life. 



1 An actual experiment made three months ago at the Bel-Alp is here described. 



