126 
The Theories of Cell Development. 
forward to that subsequent differentiation which results in the (not 
lawful , hut) lawless creation of living beings. It carries us hack to 
the days of Wolf, and substitutes for specific germs, endowed with 
vital force for a specific and unchangeable purpose, a something 
(which we may as well call a “ vis essentialis ” as anything else) 
by virtue of which dead matter is brought to life, boiled hay is 
made a creator, and solutions of salts forget the laws of crystalliza- 
tion and take to themselves the power of the genesis of new and 
unheard-of living (!) beings. For my own part, I cannot accept 
the doctrine of spontaneous cell formation in any form or to any 
extent, or the doctrine of heterogenesis (which is the same thing in 
different dress), until, like Pouchet, I shall be blessed with that 
boundless faith which sees in spontaneity the very beginning of 
animated existence, and in the higher order of beings, even up to 
man himself, only the result of “ the ascending development of 
organized beings upon the globe.” 
( b .) Globular or Molecular Theories. — The globule theory, ac- 
cording to Virchow, was partly the outgrowth of the reaction 
against the fibre theory of Haller, partly the result of optical illu- 
sions from the unskilful use of microscopes which, at the very best, 
were infinitely inferior to those of the present day. It is difficult 
to understand the precise relation of the globule or molecule theory 
to the cell in the minds of the earlier writers, for the following 
reasons: First, several observers, following Leuwenlioek, believed 
that the tissues were developed directly from globules, without the 
intervention of cells ; secondly, the terms “ globule,” “ molecule,” 
and “granule” were, and indeed still are, so interchangeably used, 
especially among the Germans, that neither term seems to have, or 
to have had, any very definite meaning ; and thirdly, it is, to say 
the least, very probable that cells were frequently described as glo- 
bules, and globules were sometimes described as cells. Although 
the terms “globule,” “granule,” and “molecule” are now under- 
stood to refer to bodies which are morphologically, and possibly 
chemically, distinct, they usually seem to have indicated to the 
earlier, as well as to some recent, writers, bodies smaller than cells, 
but having to cells a developmental relation. 
The writings of Milne-Edwards gave general currency to the 
globule theory ; but he does not seem to have deemed it necessary 
that globules should be converted into cells before proceeding to 
form tissues ; but, as pointed out by Tyson, “ there is little doubt 
but that many of these so-called globules described by Edwards 
were really cells, seen with indifferent instruments, and further 
distorted by the glare of direct sunlight.”* 
On the other hand, Arnold and Baumgartner recognized the cell 
* ‘ The Cell Doctrine,' p. 24. 
