NA TURE 



[August i, 1901 



The next chapter deals with bioplasm and the 

 biomonad — to wit, protoplasm and the cell— another in- 

 stance of the craze for rechristening. Perhaps a micro- 

 coccus or some similar microbe is composed of but one 

 biomore, but such simplicity is rare. Most unicellular 

 organisms consist of diverse biomores living symbioti- 

 cally in an inlerbiomoric fluid (water, nutritive substances 

 in solution and products of secretion). The author 

 explains that bioplasm includes nucleoplasm as well as 

 cytoplasm, and that it excludes the metaplasm ; it is 

 Huxley's protoplasm, in fact. The bioinoiuid is a living 

 unity, a symbiotic system of biomores, characterised by 

 the chemical nature of the biomores which form the 

 nucleus ; it is a cell, in fact. But while the author em- 

 phasises the fact of symbiosis, he does not, as we have 

 said, really appreciate the idea that vitality is an expres- 

 sion of the interrelations of diverse complex substances 

 associated in a particular organisation or synthesis. 



" The faculty of living resides in the biomolecules them- 

 selves. The biomores are living because they are com- 

 posed of biomolecules. The bioplasm is living because 

 it is composed of biomores. The cell is living because it 

 consists of bioplasm. . . . The phenomena of life and 

 their possibility are based on the properties of carbon 

 compounds. . . . The essential characteristic of life, re- 

 production, is fundamentally a phenomenon of molecular 

 fission into two or more equal molecules.'' 



Thus assertion follows assertion, all, to our thinking, 

 " in the air." 



The authors interpretation of cell-division, which is 

 the subject of the three final chapters of this volume, may 

 be inferred from what has been already noticed in regard 

 to the process by which four molecules of acetic acid may 

 be produced from two. Assimilation is the indispen- 

 sable, though not always sufficient, cause of the division ; 

 it leads to an orientation of atoms which makes a division 

 of the biomolecule imperative ; the division of the 

 biomolecules provokes the division of the biomore, and 

 the division of the biomores provokes the division of the 

 biomonad. How this speculation in any way interprets 

 the actual processes of cell-division we entirely fail to 

 see ; but we are not surprised to find the author insisting 

 that the phenomenon of division is independent of the 

 pature of the division-figures. The figures cannot be 

 chemically interpreted, so they do not count for much. 

 They are dependent on the initial disposition of the 

 biomores in the biomonad. 



Assimilation leads to doubling of biomolecules, and 

 this to doubling of biomores ; the doubling expresses 

 itself as cell-division, because of the particular orientation 

 of the component biomores, which in turn is due to their 

 reciprocal attractions. If this be granted, it is possible 

 to deduce a number of " rational laws of cell-division," 

 which maybeverified by observation. The author deduces 

 no fewer than twenty-eight laws, but many of them read 

 more like assertions, while others are certainly not deduc- 

 tions, but statements of observed fact. We must content 

 ourselves with referring to the first three. The first law 

 is that the living parts of the cell have all the same 

 importance in cell-division ; the biomores enjoy perfect 

 equality ; this is " a natural consequence of the previous 

 interpretation," and, like it, is all in the air. 



The second law is "that the divisions of the diverse 

 \0. 1657, VOL. 6j] 



parts of the cell are independent of one another," and the 

 third "that the direction of the division of the nucleus is 

 determined by the direction of the division of the cyto- 

 plasm." This may seem to the matter-of-fact a con- 

 tradiction, but the author maintains "that between the 

 cellular body and the nucleus there is at once a complete 

 independence and a close dependence.'' This is too 

 subtle for our understanding. 



Recognising that the phenomena of cell-division, 

 which he has interpreted as "purely and exclusively 

 mechanical," were somewhat "ideal" ("sont naturelle- 

 ment quelque peu ideaux "), the author proceeds to 

 discuss the modifications which the ideal scheme suffers 

 in real life. Perhaps this may prove to be the most useful 

 part of the book, for the author proposes a series of 

 thirteen problems dealing with the influence of the 

 position of the central corpuscles, of gravity, of 

 mechanical obstacles, of pressure, of the cell-membrane^ 

 of adjacent cells, and so on (pp. 1S4-285). We do not 

 propose to discuss these problems, for an appreciation of 

 the author's mode of treatment is quite impossible to 

 those who find themselves compelled to reject his 

 premises. But let us state his general conclusions. 



The property of dividing, which characterises living 

 matter, is not due to a special force. It is a consequence 

 of the constitution of living matter and of assimilation, 

 which doubles the number of the parts of the system and 

 may thus lead to the formation of two systems. The 

 force which unites the parts of living substance in a 

 system is the same as that which unites the parts of 

 dead matter. This force is sufficient to explain the 

 phenomena of division. The figures which characterise 

 cell-division are the structural results of the constitution 

 of living matter, and have no importance in the phen- 

 omenon, which is purely and exclusively mechanical. 

 As to the direction of the division, it is partly determined 

 by the position of the central corpuscles, but almost 

 wholly by environmental influences in the widest sense. 



Let us sum up our impression of this ambitious book. 

 The author abstracts from his consideration of the living 

 organism its most characteristic features of adaptive and 

 coordinated behaviour, and thus gives a false simplicity 

 to the whole problem. He invents a theoretical system 

 of biomolecules, biomores, bioplasm and biomonads, 

 which depends on the postulate that there are biomole- 

 cules — a gratuitous assumption, since it is quite as likely 

 that matter exhibiting vital phenomena owes its virtue 

 to the interrelations of a peculiar organisation or syn- 

 thesis of not-living molecules. From the doubling of a 

 chemical molecule (of acetic acid) he passes, with an 

 entirely inadequate discussion of the magnitude of the 

 step, to the structural division of a cell. In spite of his 

 hypothetical diagrams, his mathematical formulae and his 

 twenty-eight so-called laws of cell-division, he leaves the 

 problem all unsolved. The use of a hypothetical system 

 is to furnish convenient modes of re-statement in simpler 

 terms, but we cannot find that the system of Dr. Giglio- 

 Tos makes the division of the amctba under our micro- 

 scope any more interpretable than it was before. The 

 author is continually combating the assumption of 

 " special forces " — and here we are at one with him — 

 but the neo-vitalists do not believe in vital force. They 

 content themselves with disbelieving that the behaviour 



