Feb. lo, 1876] 



NA TURE 



285 



5. Pouchet, HSterogenie, 1859, and Nouvelles Exfhiences, &c,, 

 1864. 



6. Pasteur, Ann. de Chimie, 1862 (see pp. 60-62), 



7. Joly and Musset, Compt. Rend., 1 861 and 1862. 



8. Jeffries Wyman, American Journal of .Science, vol. xxxiv., 

 1862, and vol. xliv., 1867. 



9. Victor Meunier, Compt. Rend., tome xli., 1805. 



10. Child, Proceed, oj Roy. Soc, June 1S64, and April 186$. 



11. Hughes Bennett, Ed. Med. journ., 1868. 



12. Cantoni, Gaz. Med. Ital. Lombard., tome i., 1868. 



13. Bastian, Nature, 1870 ; Modes of Origin, &c., 1871 ; 

 The Beginnings of Life, 1872. 



14. Burdon Sanderson, Nature, Jan. 8 and June 1873 ; Med. 

 Times and Gaz., Oct 22, 1873. 



15. Huizinga, Nature, March 20, 1873, and VRug&^sArchiv, 

 vols, vii. and viii. 



16. Lankester and Pode, Proceea.^of Roy. Soc, vol. xxi., 1873. 



17. Roberts, Phil. Trans., vol clxiv., 1874. 



18. Samuelson, Pfliiger's Archiv, vol. vii., 1874. 



19. Gscheidlen, quoted by Dr. Sanderson in ^^aaVzw;', July 10, 



1875. 



I have set down the names in order of time, and included my 

 own amongst them because those mentioned after me have all 

 confirmed my results with regard to the putrefaction of some 

 fluids in hermetically sealed vessels, from which the air has been 

 expelled by boiling ; the very experiments, in fact, which Prof. 

 Tyndall now endeavours to impeach by his own one hundred and 

 thirty-nine failures. 



Dr. Burdon Sanderson's well-known corroboration of the 

 accuracy of my results may be here reproduced. He says 

 (Nature, January 8, 1873) : — "The accuracy of Dr. Bastian's 

 statement of fact with reference to the particular experiments 

 now under consideration has been publicly questioned. I myself 

 doubted it, and expressed my doubts, if not publicly, at least in 

 conversation. I am content to have established — at all events, 

 to my own satisfaction — that, by following Dr. Bastian's direc- 

 tions, infusions can be prepared which are not deprived by an 

 ebullition of from five to ten minutes of the faculty of undergoing 

 those chemical changes which are characterised by the presence 

 of swarms of Bacteria, and that the development of these organ- 

 isms can proceed with the greatest activity in hermetically sealed 

 glass vessels, from which almost the whole of the air had been 

 expelled by boiling.'' 



And, if Prof. Tyndall and others wish to know how far these 

 results have since been generally recognised as correct, reference 

 may be made to a review of my work, "Evolution and the 

 Origin of Life," by Dr. Burdon Sanderson, in the Academy of 

 July 10, 1875. There, in reference to the confirmation which 

 these experiments had received, and in relation to other work in 

 connection with the question generally by Samuelson and 

 Gscheidlen, Dr. Sanderson writes: — "As regards the trust- 

 worthy character of the experiments themselves, it will probably 

 be a sufficient guarantee to most readers that they have been 

 conducted under the immediate supervision of men like PflUger 

 and Hoppe-Seyler, who occupy the foremost rank as vital physi- 

 cists. Those who are more especially interested in the subject 

 will best satisfy themselves of the exactitude and completeness 

 with which all the investigations have been carried out by read- 

 ing for themselves the original papers." 



Although Dr. Sanderson thus thoroughly recognises the fact 

 (and knows that others do the same) that many boiled fluids will 

 putrefy in closed vessels from which air has been expelled by 

 boiling, it is well known that he is not willing to regard such 

 facts as the proof of the occurrence of " spontaneous generation." 

 He admits, indeed {British Medical Journal, February 13, 1875, 

 p. 201), that I and others have shown that Bacteria in their 

 " ordinary state " are killed by a temperature of about 140° F. ; 

 but, instead of accepting ' ' spontaneous generation " as an ex- 

 planation of the occurrence of living organisms in the vessels 

 above referred to, he pleads in favour of the only other possible 

 explanation, viz., a " latent vitality " in some Bacteria-germs not 

 extinguishable by exposure for ten minutes or so to the influence 

 of boiling water. I felt it my duty to refer to this hypothesis in 

 my address at the Pathological Society last year {British Medical 

 Journal, April lo, 1875, P- 473) 5 t>ut, whatever its worth may 

 be, Dr. Sanderson, whose learning and knowledge of the whole 

 question few will dispute, knows that this, or some such hypo- 

 thesis, alone stands in the way of the acceptance of " spontaneous 

 generation " as a proved reality. 



Prof. Tyndall, however, seems to regard this hypothesis as 

 undeserving of notice. He makes no sort of reference to it, and 



agrees with me in thinking that Bacteria and their germs are 

 decidedly killed by five minutes' boiling in organic infusions. He 

 still further supports the view held by me, in «ppositi«n to that 

 of M. Pasteur, that such a result follows both with alkaline and 

 with acid infusions. 



This may seem to many of my readers a rather remarkable finale 

 when compared with Prof. Tyndall's own anticipations ; but I 

 feel thoroughly assured that those who understand the subject 

 will see that, in the present stage of the controversy, no other 

 conclusions of value are deducible from his recent experiments. 

 He appears to have completely misapprehended the present state 

 of knowledge on the question ; he has uniformly failed to ob- 

 tain results which are now firmly established ; and, as regards 

 the only question which is at present in dispute, he unhesitatingly 

 coincides with me. 



Feb. 7 H. Charlton Bastian 



I have read with great interest and pleasure Prof. Tyndall's 

 paper on Germs. But I am troubled on one point. I am 

 sure Prof. Tyndall will not think my difficulties unworthy 

 of attention and removal, though I confess that I am only 

 one of that unpretending class to whose enjoyment and in- 

 struction he has devoted so large a share of his valuable time. 

 I am an outsider in scientific research ; I delight to follow every 

 investigation which tends to the development of science ; but I 

 have not the time, and, if time were available, perhaps I should 

 find that I had not the skill to conduct experiments for myself. 

 I have to trust — and I have seldom found myself misled by 

 trusting — to the recorded experiments of men whose reputation 

 has been established by prolonged and valuable work. I cannot 

 willingly give up this trust, and yet there is one passage in Prof. 

 Tyndall's paper which almost forces me to do so. He tells us 

 that in 139 instances he boiled organic solutions in flasks 

 which were then hermetically sealed, and that in no one case 

 did putrefaction accompanied by Bacteria occur. The inference 

 he draws from this "cloud of witnesses" is that Bacteria cannot 

 be developed in flasks so treated. 



Precisely the opposite conclusion appears to have been arrived 

 at by Prof. Burdon Sanderson (Nature, vol. vii. p. 180). He 

 also tested organic fluids in flasks boiled and hermetically sealed, 

 and he found that putrefaction, with swarms of Bacteria, fre- 

 quently followed. He considered it established that the develop- 

 ment of Bacteria could proceed with the greatest activity in herme- 

 tically sealed glass vessels previously subjected to boiling heat. 



I observe that Prof. Tyndall suggests that such contradictory re- 

 sults may be explained by "errors of preparation or observation." 

 No doubt they may, but it would be a great shock to my scientific 

 faith to be driven to this theory to explain apparent discrepancies 

 between such observers as Professors Tyndall and Sanderson. 

 I cannot help, not only hoping, but believing that there must 

 be some way of reconciling the experiments of two such eminent 

 inquirers, and I should be much perplexed if I were compelled 

 to form an opinion whether the supposed error, if it does exist, 

 ought to be attributed to the one or the other. 



Can Prof. Tyndall relieve me from the necessity of believing 

 that either went astray in his work ? May there not have been 

 some variations in the conditions which would allow us to accept 

 both sets of experiments as sound ? On carefully comparing the 

 two I find that Prof. Tyndall's experiments are far more nume- 

 rous than those tried by Prof. Sanderson. On the other hand, 

 I. find that Prof. Sanderson describes with admirable precision 

 all the details of his work. Perhaps it scarcely fell within the 

 scope of Prof. Tyndall's discourse to descend to such minutiae, 

 but it may very well be that a more particular description, such 

 as that which Prof. Sandei-son published, of his treatment of the 

 hermetically-closed flasks — as to the preparation of the solutions, 

 and their specific gravity, the mode and duration of the heating, 

 the method and temperature of the developing treatment, and 

 the like — would supply the means of reconciling his results with 

 the apparently contradictory results arrived at by his brother 

 professor. 



When we are considering the conclusions of men of science of 

 the highest calibre I do not think that over much weight should 

 be attached to their preconceived expectations. Still, so far as 

 they go, the avowed opinions of Prof. Sanderson before trying 

 his experiments do tend to reinforce their value. He obtained 

 results which he did not anticipate, and that after taking very 

 careful precautions to exclude the possibility of errors of 

 observation. The errors may have crept in notwithstand- 

 ing, but it is especially uncomfortable to us outsiders to think 



