admitted now on all hands,” the reviewer says, ‘‘ that 
nged ex to the action of boiling water destroys all 
in solutions ; hence, if undoubtedly living things be found in 
ions treated as above, from which have certainly been 
scluded, the only possible explanation of the phenomena is that 
fhe living things have been evolved de novo.” The reviewer 
then states that Pasteur, Lister and others had tried such experi- 
ments with a number of solutions capable of supporting life, and 
found ‘‘ that no living things whatever developed themselves.” 
sequently he states that Dr. Sanderson had also repeated such 
experiments with similarly negativeresults, Strangely enough how- 
er, the reviewer saysnothing concerning certain other experiments 
made by M. Pasteur, (see vol. i. pp. 340,3 74—399), in which, 
using different and more suitable fluids, living organisms were 
ost invariably found in his experimental flasks ; and as he is 
similarly silent concerning the multitudes of such experiments, 
with similar results which have been made by Needham, Spal- 
Ja ni, and Schwann, by MM. Pouchet, Joly, and Mussett, by 
Professors Mantegazza, Jeffries Wyman, Cantoni, Hughes Ben- 
nett, and many other experimenters, one is forced to conclude 
er that the reviewer is ignorant of the whole history of the 
ject and has not even read the book which he affects to 
out explanation, is not quite easy to understand. 
Without, however, exhibiting any consciousness of having 
made material omissions in the statement of his case, the re- 
viewer then proceeds to demolish and explain away the results 
‘of my own experiments, as though they alone stood in the breach. 
‘The process is summary, if not very original. Taking up the 
iew previously expressed by a distinguished biologist, he ad- 
“mits that ‘‘ the only possible answer” to the results which I ob- 
tained (short of coming to a conclusion similar to my own) is to 
Suppose “‘ that the bodies seen in the solutions were not living, 
‘but dead, and had been there all the time.” Seeing, however, 
what an abundance of evidence in disproof of such a supposition 
has been given in my work (See Series a, Exps. 2, 4, and 5 ; 
es 0, Exps. 2,4; Exp. 6 (p, 443), Exps. ¢ 7, 7, %, 5, %, 
ther with very many of the experiments recorded in AAjen- 
c), Ican only conclude that these portions also have unfor- 
unately escaped the notice of my reviewer, more especially as 
he ventures to state'that ‘The only attempt made to determine 
whether the organisms observed in the solutions were living or 
not, was in the case of Exp. 4, vol. i. p. 368.” With regard to 
the reviewer's further statement that ‘‘the turbidity or scum in 
the solutions was not caused by a development of organisms, 
aut by some coagulation or similar alteration in the fluid,” the 
“suggestionis really almost too puerile to be worthy of serious 
notice. If freshly-filtered infusions of hay or turnip are pre- 
‘pared in the manner above described; if they remain clear for 
a time after they have been boiled ; if, in a few days, they gradu- 
lly become turbid, and if, on subsequent microscopical examina- 
tion, it is found that the turbidity is in all cases due almost 
‘solely to the presence of myriads of Bacteria, Vibriones, and 
perhaps Leftothrix filaments (such as are figured in vol. i, 
Fig. 24), one can only renew a query previously put :—‘‘ Can 
dead organisms multiply in a closed flask to such an extent as to 
make an originally clear fluid become quite turbid in the course 
of two or three days?” (‘* Modes of Origin of Lowest Or- 
Ganisms,” p. x.) 
_ It may be well to remarkhere, also, that the truth of the general 
doctrine as to the possibility of the independent origin of living 
matter, is in no way essentially bound up with the results of my 
experiments with saline solutions. For reasons fully detailed in 
my work, I am stronglyinclined to believe that the bodies figured 
by me as found in these more or less pure saline solutions had 
been formed therein. Fortunately, however, even if I were 
quite wrong in the interpretation of this portion of the evidence, 
there would still remain a superabundance of it in favour of the 
truth of the general position which I and many others support 
concerning the origin of life. 
Like others who have written on the same side of the question, 
the reviewer in the Academy shows a strong tendency to accept 
in an unconditional manner the experimental results and conclu- 
ms of some favoured worker. Formerly Pasteur’s experiments 
were much lauded, and the existence of atmospheric germs was 
believed (as he himself put it) to have been ‘‘ mathematically 
demonstrated.” Now, however, M. Pasteur is thrown over- 
board ; for, as the reviewer tells us, “ Dr. Burdon Sanderson 
recently shown that in the case of Bacteria this view can no 
ger be maintained,” It is a source of much satisfaction to 
‘me that Dr, Sanderson’s yery conclusive experiments should have 
icise, or else that he has acted in a manner which, with- 
27 
forced him to come to this conclusion, because they were con- 
firmatory of others made independently by myself (‘Modes of 
Origin of Lowest Organisms,” pp.30and91), and published some- 
what earlier. But if the causes of fermentation and putrefaction 
are not derived from the air, it becomes obvious that they must 
be contained in the fluids employed. These causes are, however, 
by no means necessarily germs of Bacteria, as Dr. Sanderson’s 
language would seem to imply. 
It now happens that Dr. Sanderson’s experiments are con- 
stantly quoted as though they were irreconcilable with my own. 
This, however, is quite a misconception. In many respects, as 
I have in part already shown, our conclusions have been similar, 
Dr. Sanderson has, however, employed only a limited number 
of different solutions, and these mostly of a kind not adapted for 
demonstrating the independent origin of living matter. He ex- 
pressly states that he was interested only in the behaviour of 
certain fluids, and having found, as others had done, that there 
was no reason to believe that living matter could arise in them 
de novo, he was quite content : though with reference to an inde- 
pendent origin of living matter he says, ‘‘It will be quite unne- 
cessary either to deny or to assert its possibility under other and 
different conditions.” It certainly is somewhat unfortunate that 
Dr. Sanderson should not have been induced to carry his experi- 
ments a little further, and ascertain what would have been the 
result of similar methods of experimentation with other fluids 
(See vol. ii, p. cl.)—with infusions of hay or turnip, for instance. 
But unless he also is prepared to reject, as untrustworthy, all the 
experiments with positive results obtained by Pasteur, Pouchet, 
Wyman, Cantoni, myself and others, Dr. Sanderson should, 
from his present standpoint, be a believer in the possibility of 
the independent origin of living matter. 
The reviewer deals with the third part of my work in a 
very extraordinary and summary manner. He looks upon 
it as a tissue of ‘‘absurd statements concerning heterogene- 
sis,” and does not think it worth his while even to mention 
the fact that more or less similar phenomena have been 
seen by many excellent observers—by Turpin, Kiitzing, 
Reissig, Harte, Gros, Pringsheim, Pineau, Carter, Nicolet, 
Pouchet, Schaaffhausen, Braxton Hicks, and Trécul—and that 
the author whom he criticises, merely comes in as one capable 
of supplying that confirmation which is commonly demanded 
when we have to do with an order of facts not generally admitted. 
The actual observations of all these independent investigators 
are passed over and ignored, apparently because Mr. Moseley 
is not able to undertand that phenomena which widen the 
range of our experience are not necessarily “opposed to 
all the accepted facts and theories of biological science.” He 
does, however, criticise in a very characteristic manner one particu- 
lar set of observations of my own of a startling nature, in which 
the development of Free Nematoids, belonging to the genus Dif- 
Jogaster, was seen taking place from a number of the altered 
spores of a fresh-water alga named Vaucheria. After the reviewer 
has done a little work at the subject himself, he will 
doubtless become thoroughly convinced that the “ crucial obser- 
vations ” to which he refers do unfortunately ‘‘lie outside the pro- 
vince of heterogeny ” (see vol. ii. p. 37, note 1; and 519, note 1), 
He seeks to set aside my conclusions by suggesting a series 
of possibilities which are so -little recondite that they might, 
even by an ordinary use of the imagination, fairly be con- 
sidered to have been duly weighed by the observer himself. 
Whilst the reviewer is also not ingenuous enough to confess that 
I should in all probability be thoroughly familiar with the appear- 
ance of Free Nematoids and their eggs, he, without the least hesi- 
tation, again suggests an explanation whose only warrant seems to 
exist in the supposed necessity for upsetting my statements. I can 
assure Mr. Moseley, however, that after having worked for more 
than three years at the subject of the distribution and anatomy of 
Nematoids (Trans. of Linn. Soc, vol. xxv., 1865, p. 73; Philo- 
soph, Trans. 1866, p. 545). I have never seen anything in 
support of his altogether gratuitous supposition that “* conside- 
rable variation in size may exist in the ova produced under vari- 
ous conditions by individuals of the same species. ” : 
H. CHARLTON BASTIAN 
University College, Nov. 9 
Physics for Medical Students 
Your correspondents on this subject in the last number of 
NATURE entirely agree with me that ‘‘a medical man should 
have some knowledge of natural philosophy and its applications 
to the conditions with which he has to deal ;” but there are one 
