362 
ENVOY: LEEUWENHOEK’S PLACE 
IN PROTOZOOLOGY AND BACTERIOLOGY 
Protozoology and Bacteriology ”’, and I now repeat this 
title—which has since been adopted by others—on the 
title-page of the present work. I do this designedly, because 
in my opinion he alone deserves this designation. In my 
opinion (which has not been formed too hastily) he was the 
first man who ever saw living protozoa and bacteria under 
a lens, and by correctly interpreting and describing his obser- 
vations he created the modern disciplines of Protozoology and 
Bacteriology. Consequently, his relation to these sciences is 
that of “father” or “only begetter’”’. 
Nevertheless, there are still some people who dispute 
Leeuwenhoek’s claim to the discovery of the Protozoa and the ~ 
Bacteria, while there are others who bestow upon him titles 
which he does not deserve—as he himself would freely have 
confessed. He has already been styled “Father” and 
‘Founder ’”’ of Micrography by Blanchard (1868) and Vande- 
velde (1922)—to mention no other authors: though it is 
obvious that Pierre Borel and Henry Power and Robert Hooke 
and Marcello Malpighi have all at least as good a right to the 
title. Launois (1904) obviously goes rather too far when he 
calls Leeuwenhoek one of the “ Fathers of Biology’’: there is 
more evident justification for those who regard him as the 
“Father ” of Histology or Cytology or Haematology ‘"—or even 
as just the First Milk-Analyst.” Almost every writer who 
discusses Leeuwenhoek’s work regards him, apparently, as 
“father” of his own speciality—some strangely misinformed 
but enthusiastic authors even hailing him as “the Inventor 
A FEW years ago I called Leeuwenhoek “Father of 
1 Sabrazés (1926). 
2 Wynter Blyth (1903). 
