48 



THE AMERICAN MONTHLY 



[March. 



Mrs. Hart's paper is a model criti- 

 cism. Dr. Norris's theory in itself is 

 beautiful and complete, and assumes 

 to explain some of the darkest secrets 

 of physiology ; but it rests entirely 

 on the demonstration of the existence 

 of the invisible corpuscle as a normal 

 element in the blood. Since this fact 

 has been so skilfully disproved by 

 Mrs. Hart, the entire theory falls to 

 the ground. 



The Reticulate Structure of Liv- 

 ing Matter ("Bioplasson").* 



The living matter of plants and ani- 

 mals, from the lowest protophyte to 

 the highest form of animal life, is, so 

 far as our knowledge extends, iden- 

 tical. It is variously named proto- 

 plasm, bioplasm, sarcode, and, not 

 having a sufficient number of names, 

 still another has been applied to it — 

 bioplasson — and a new hypothesis of 

 the structure of living matter, termed 

 the " bioplasson theory," has recently 

 been put forward, and upheld in this 

 country mainly by Drs. Carl Heitz- 

 mann and Louis Elsberg. It is this 

 so-called theory, which at the most is 

 merely an hypothesis, accepted by a 

 very few persons, that I desire to 

 speak of this evening. 



I may say at the outset, that it is 

 my intention to speak ver}^ pointedly 

 concerning this hypothesis. For a 

 long time it has been taught to medi- 

 cal students and practicing physicians ; 

 and occasional articles have been pub- 

 lished in medical and dental journals, 

 describing the structure of bioplasson, 

 according to the observations of those 

 who support it ; but it has always 

 seemed that more accurate and scien- 

 tific evidence must be brought for- 

 ward before it would receive general 

 attention. Yet not much has been 

 said against it. This is, no doubt, 

 partly because the errors involved in 

 it are of a nature very unpleasant to 



* Abstract of an article read before the 

 New York Academy of Sciences, by R. 

 Hitchcock, Feb. 5th, 1S83. 



refute, since in so doing one must, of 

 necessity, question either the skill or 

 the integrity of the observers. 



In bringing the subject before you 

 this evening, I shall be obliged to 

 point out what I believe to be the er- 

 rors of observation of those who are 

 responsible for the bioplasson doc- 

 trine. I shall endeavor to do this 

 without reserve, for the question be- 

 fore us is one of fact ; and an asser- 

 tion made in the name of science 

 before this Academy, must bear the 

 most rigid examination, or be ex- 

 punged from the records of scientific 

 truths. 



Although I have written a few words 

 upon the subject to read before you, 

 it is not upon these, or upon any argu- 

 ment, that I rely to uphold me in the 

 position I have assumed in this mat- 

 ter. For either the observations of 

 those gentlemen are capable of verifi- 

 cation and demonstration to this 

 audience, or else they are not true. 

 If a small fraction of what we are told 

 concerning the structures described is 

 true, there is not a person in this au- 

 dience to whom the appearance in 

 question cannot be shown by the aid 

 of the microscope. Therefore I shall 

 rely upon ocular proof to show that 

 there is no reticulum in the blood- 

 cells. 



We are accustomed to hear more or 

 less rambling talk about the difficulties 

 in microscopical examinations, the 

 great amount of training of hand and 

 eye that is required to use the instru- 

 ment. The microscope, like every 

 other instrument of research, requires 

 to be manipulated by a person of ex- 

 perience to yield trustworthy and the 

 most perfect results. Yet there is avast 

 difference between the ability to ma- 

 nipulate it, and the ability to see what 

 it reveals. Perhaps only a small pro- 

 portion of this audience could use the 

 instrument fairly well, yet 1 doubt if 

 there is one person here who could 

 not see the most minute details of any 

 object, after the proper adjustments 

 have been made. . . . 



I am not an histologist, and I do 



