( 232 ) 

 PKOGRESS OF MICROSCOPICAL SCIENCE. 



The Subject of Binocular Vision is partly a microscopic one. Wo 

 therefore notice a paper which we had intended to have reproduced, 

 but which we now for various reasons are compelled to give up. It 

 is by Mr. Joseph Le-Conte, Professor of Natural History in the 

 University of California, and is really a very interesting communi- 

 cation. It enters upon a discussion of M. Pictet's views, which it 

 disputes, and the author supports his views by some very ingenious 

 experiments. The paper is of considerable length, and has been 

 published in two or more numbers of ' Silliman's American Journal 

 of Science,' to which we must refer our readers for further particulars. 

 — Vide Silliman's American Journal, December. 



The Development of Microzymas. — A claim to priority of discovery 

 of the development of these organisms has been made to the French 

 Academy.* M. Bechamp asserts, it is alleged, that the mycrozymes 

 or Bacteria unite together, and thus form a cell. Now M. de Seynes 

 asserts that this fact was pointed out by M. Pineau in 1845. In the 

 number of ' Comptes Eendus ' referred to, M. Bechamp says that he 

 never asserted that the bacterias or mycrozymes unite to form a cell ; 

 on the contrary, he pointed out where they may become converted 

 into Bacteria. He admits that Henle's Anatomy (1843) does contain 

 some ideas like his, but they were put forward as mere speculations. 



Spontaneous Generation. — On this subject, which has of late, through 

 Dr. Bastian's publications, received so much attention, two lectures 

 have been delivered in New York before the College of Physicians 

 and Sui-geons, by Professor J. C. Dalton, M.D. These give a useful 

 summary of the various experiments that have been tried in the 

 several European countries and in America during the last two 

 hundred years. The lectures are full of interest, and extend over 

 forty pages of the ' New York Medical Journal.' f We therefore com- 

 mend its consideration to our readers. The author seems more opposed 

 to spontaneous generation than in favour of it, as may be seen by the 

 following concluding remarks : — " Thus," he says, *' we find that now, 

 as always, the idea of the spontaneous generation of living beings is 

 confined to organisms of which we know the least. Exactly where 

 our definite knowledge fails, owing either to the minute size or the 

 imperfect organization of these bodies, there commences the obscurity 

 which hangs around their origin. It is very justly said, in support of 

 their spontaneous generation, that, if this mode of production exists 

 at all, it is precisely in the case of the simplest and most imperfect 

 organisms that we should expect it. We might imagine a bacterium 

 or a monad to originate in this way, but not an eagle or an elephant. 

 On the other hand, it is alleged that the imperfect organization of 

 these minute forms is only apjiarent, and depends on the imj)erfection 

 in our means of observation. When our microscopes and other aids 

 to investigation have been still further improved, we shall find, it is 

 said, that the bacterium and the vibrio possess an organization of their 

 own, not less essential and complete in its way than that which we 

 * 'Comptes Kendus,' Feb. 19, 1872. t February, 1872. 



