FURTHER REMARKS ON THE CELL-THEORY. Bol 
Further Remarks on the Cell-theory, with a 
Reply to Mr. Bourne, 
By 
Adam Sedgwick, F.R.S8. 
In a paper published last autumn (this Journal, vol. 37), 
I called attention to the apparent inadequacy of the cell- 
theory. Recently a criticism upon my article has appeared 
from the pen of Mr. G.C. Bourne, to which I may be allowed 
to devote a few words. But before replying to Mr. Bourne, I 
should like to state my position with regard to the theory a 
little more fully than I have hitherto done. In my previous 
communication I used the word “inadequacy”’ because it seemed 
to me to express, as nearly as possible, my own views with 
regard to the theory. A theory to be of any value must ex- 
plain the whole body of facts with which it deals. If it falls 
short of this, it must be held to be insufficient or inadequate ; 
and when at the same time it is so masterful as to compel men 
to look at nature through its eyes, and to twist stubborn and 
uncomformable facts into accord with its dogmas, then it 
becomes an instrument of mischief, and deserves condemna- 
tion, if only of the mild kind implied by the term inadequate, 
The assertion that organisms present a constitution which 
may be described as cellular is not a theory at at all; it is— 
having first agreed as to the meaning and use of the word cell 
—a statement of fact, and no more a theory than is the asser- 
tion that sunlight is composed of all the colours of the spec- 
trum. The theory comes in when we try to account for the 
cellular constitution of organisms; and it isthis theoretical 
part of the cell-theory, and the point of view it makes many 
of us assume, that I condemn. It is not the word “ cell” which 
