SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. 



443 



Bacillus anthracis and the Bacillus subtilis, in 

 ■which it is said that the actual germs of bacteria 

 do exist. I have seen nucleated bacteria myself. 

 I confess I have never seen things which resisted 

 such treatment as these germs are said to have re- 

 sisted in the hands of others. But even these 

 germs are not ultra-microscopic. They are bright 

 points that are seen, bright granules. There has 

 never been evidence of any ultra-microscopic germ. 

 . . . For my own part I think it extremely improb- 

 able that bacteria in general bave germs. They 

 are actual reproductive organs, constantly multi- 

 plied by segmentation ; and, if there be any organ- 

 ism in existence that does not require germs, I 

 should say it is the bacterium. ... I have never 

 yet found any organism which resisted the temper- 

 ature of 210° continued for half an hour — I mean to 

 say in the moist state. I have seen no organism 

 in a liquid continue fertile after exposure to 210° 

 Fahr. for half an hour." 



On the other hand, in direct reply to Prof. 

 Tyndall, Prof. Burdon-Sanderson 1 recently made 

 the following statements before the Royal Society : 



" Dr. Tyndall has demonstrated, by the experi- 

 ments to which I have already alluded, that the or- 

 dinary air also contains germinal particles of ultra- 

 microscopic minuteness. . . . That such particles 

 exist there can be no question ; but of their size, 

 structural attributes, or mode of development, we 

 know nothing. ... If, for the sake of clearness, 

 we call the particle a, and the organism to which it 

 gives rise A. then what is known about this matter 

 amounts to no more than this, that the existence of 

 A was preceded by the existence of a." a 



"While at the meeting of the Pathological So- 

 ciety, shortly afterward, to which I have above 

 referred, Prof. Burdon-Sanderson said concerning 

 the question whether things can be shown to ex- 

 ist which are the seeds of bacteria, " I entirely 



1 See Nature, November 29, 1877. 



' I would here point out that Dr. Sanderson does 

 not state that the invisible particle (a) grows bodily 

 into the visible organism ; he is, of course, quite un- 

 able to make any such affirmation, because such par- 

 ticles may give rise to organisms by inciting chemical 

 changes in the organic fluid of such a nature as to de- 

 termine an independent development of the particles 

 of living matter which subsequently show themselves, 

 and develop into bacteria (A). His use of the epithet 

 "germinal" is, therefore, as it appears to me, rather 

 open to misconception. It carries with it an unproved 

 implication. 



agree with Prof. Lister in the opinion that no 

 proof has been given of any such seed with ref- 

 erence to common bacteria." 



Having had to occupy so much space in at- 

 tempting to correct the very erroneous impres- 

 sions which Prof. Tyndall's paper in the last 

 number of this Review was calculated to spread 

 abroad, I have no room, even if it were desirable 

 for me, to add anything further as to my present 

 views on this question, or on that of the deriva- 

 tive problems concerning the origin of communi- 

 cable diseases. It has only been with great re- 

 luctance and inconvenience to myself that I have 

 been compelled to come forward now as I have 

 done, to defend my views from the misrepresenta- 

 tions of them which have of late been made by 

 Prof. Tyndall. I felt also that it was incumbent 

 upon me to endeavor to rescue the general ques- 

 tion from the confusion in which it is fast bein» 



o 



involved by so many contradictory utterances on 

 all sides. All scientific readers who care to go 

 further in regard to my views, will find that I 

 have pretty fully considered the present bearings 

 of the evidence in relation to these problems in 

 a recent paper in the Zoological Section of the 

 Journal of the Linncean Society. 



What I have said, however, in these pages 

 will, I trust, be sufficient to make it clear how 

 much the weight of reason is on my side, and to 

 show that the doctrine of " spontaneous genera- 

 tion," far from being worthy of almost universal 

 repudiation, as it was thought to be when I first 

 wrote on the subject in 1870, is one which is now 

 well supported by evidence. Even if it cannot be 

 considered to be absolutely proved, I hope I may 

 have made it perfectly clear that those who would 

 show that the balance of evidence is against its 

 being a common process at the present day can 

 only do so by bringing forward proofs that fer- 

 ment organisms are really able to withstand a 

 brief exposure to 212° Fahr. in fluids — proofs that 

 are stronger than the evidence which, np to 1870, 

 had engendered the almost universal belief that 

 nothing of the kind was possible. As I have said, 

 a good measure of the intensity of this previous 

 belief is afforded by the incredulity with which 

 my now admitted experiments were at first re- 

 ceived — Nineteenth Century. 



