48 THE CELL DOCTRINE. 



Transactions, respectively, of 1840 and 1841, and 

 states in a second note that "for the first consistent 

 account of the development of cells from a parent 

 centre, and more especially the appearance of new 

 centres within the original sphere, we are indebted 

 to Martin Barry."* We have carefully read the 

 references in each instance. In Bowman's paperf 

 we can recognize a brief reference to a possible 

 influence of the cell upon nutrition, but none as to 

 its origin, in the following sentence: "It is, how- 

 ever, not impossible, that in all these cases, there may 

 be during development, and subsequently, a further 

 and successive deposit of corpuscles (nuclei) from 

 which both growth and nutrition may take their 

 source." That Dr. Barry's paper is more explicit 

 has been shown. 



HUXLEY, 1853.J 

 Allusion has already been .made to Prof. Huxley 



* Goodsir, Anatomical Memoirs, vol. ii, p. 389, and note on 

 pp. 390-91. 



f Bowman, " Muscle," Philos. Transac., 1840, pt. i, p. 485. 



J We presume it will scarcely be inferred by any reader, that 

 the views of Prof. Huxley here presented are brought forward as 

 those now entertained by the learned Professor, and with which 

 the public have been made so generally familiar through his lec- 

 ture on " Protoplasm," or the " Physical Basis of Life," delivered 

 at Edinburgh, November 18th, 1868, and originally published in 

 the "Fortnightly Keview " for February, 1869; but also largely 

 republished in numerous English and American periodicals, as 

 well as in a separate pamphlet, to be had of the publishers of the 

 Yale College Courant, New Haven, Conn. To one closely observ- 

 ing, however, we think that these later views will appear to be 

 foreshadowed in the theory here given, and which we think of 

 sufficient historical importance to justify its presentation here. 



