- Feb. 27, 1873] 
hyrdogen. Later (June 1867) Mr. Johnstone Stoney showed, in 
an important paper on the ‘‘ Constitution of the Sun and Stars,” 
that hydrogen was to be expected. I acknowledge that I ought 
to have found the lines. 
___  ** When the position of the lines was known, Huggins saw 
them instantly with the same spectroscope which he had pre- 
viously used in vain.” Of course in this remark I refer only to 
my own experience ; I do not wish to be thought to imply that 
such assistance was either needed or received in the case of any 
other observer. Prof. Stewart asks why I did not see the lines 
sooner after receiving the news from India, This question 
awakens painful memories. At the time the Indian reports 
reached me I was watching by the bed of the dying, and a few 
_ days afterwards I suffered so severe a bereavement that I was 
unable to resume work in the observatory until the beginning of 
December, when I saw the lines. WiLiiaM Huccins 
The Beginnings of Life 
Ir seems advisable for me not to pass without comment the 
communication made by Dr. Wm. Roberts, of Manchester, in 
last week’s NATURE. 
Dr. Roberts calls attention to what he considers two possible 
sources of error in my experiments. The first is the ‘‘ possibility 
of the introduction of atmospheric germs at the moment of seal- 
ing the vessels,” owing, as he says, to the fact ‘‘ that the sealing 
can only take place just as ebullition is about to cease,” and to 
the consequent risk of some ‘‘ reflux of air into the flask.” After 
Dr. Roberts has made a series of experiments similar to those 
_ which have been recently cited in these columns (see NATURE, 
Feb. 6, p. 275 with Zrratum in Feb. 13, p. 296), he may per- 
haps be a little less apprehensive as to this source of contamina- 
tion. It is, however, not the fact that flasks cannot be sealed 
during ebullition, and this I shall be very happy to demonstrate 
to Dr. Roberts. Moreover, if he will refer to Dr, Sanderson’s 
letter, Dr. Roberts will find that in speaking of the seal- 
ing of the flasks in the blow-pipe flame, he says care was 
taken ‘‘ to continue the ebullition to the last.” And in several 
series of experiments M. Pasteur also made use of flasks which 
had been sealed during ebullition—believing that in so doing he 
was experimenting with vessels from which all living germs had 
been excluded. Speaking of the preparation of such flasks, 
Pasteur says (Ann. de Chim, et de Physique, 1862, p. 74): 
“je ferme l’extremité effilée pendant |’ebullition. Le vide se 
trouve fait dans les ballons.” No one has hitherto questioned 
M. Pasteur’s skill as an experimenter. 
The second alleged source of error is, according to Dr. 
Roberts, much more important. My mode of experimenta- 
tion, he says, ‘‘ does not insure that the entire contents of the 
flask are effectively exposed to the boiling heat.” Although 
Dr. Roberts confirms my statement that many fluids treated in 
the manner I have described do soon swarm with living things, 
he seems to think their appearance may be due to the fact that 
“several of the mixtures ‘froth excessively in boiling, and spurt 
about particles which adhere to the glass, and probably some of 
these escape the full effect of the heat.” I feel quite sure that 
in my experiments no portion of the inner surface of the glass 
has escaped the scathing action of the boiling fluid The vessel 
has generally been more than three-fourths full before he ;ro- 
cess of heating has been commenced, so that when ebulliti in 
occurs the fluid has always swept over the previously uncovered 
inner surface and, as Dr. Sanderson tes ifies, ‘‘ during the boiling 
some of the liquid was frequen'ly ejected from the almost capil- 
lary orifice of the retort.” The inner surface of the vessel was, 
in fact, always thoroughly and repeatedly washed with the boil- 
ing fluid, nearly half of which has been spurted away in order 
that I might effect this object 
_ Dr. Roberts says :—‘‘ Dr. Sanderson is, however, careful not 
to endorse the conclusions which Dr. Bastian has drawn from 
these experiments.” But this is scarcely a fair statement, since 
Dr. Sanderson had near the beginning of his letter announced 
his intention of taking no part in the controversy, Dr. Sander- 
son’s opinions, however, on the elements of the question have 
already been set forth (see Thirteenth Report of Medical Officer 
of Privy Council, p. 59). Whilst not believing in the danger 
of atmospheric contamination by Bacteria germs, he does believe, 
in common with other biologists, that immersion in boiling 
liquids is a ready means of de-troying them. If Dr. Sanderson 
d not thought that the conditions of the experiments were such 
as to be exclusive of the intervention of living germs, why 
should he have previously doubted ‘‘my statements of fact” in 
NATURE 
321 
respect to them? Does Dr. Roberts consider Dr, Sanderson so 
much of. a tyro in these matters as to suppose that he would 
doubt the well-known fact that living germs will always rapidly 
multiply in suitable fluids? If not, then the only other source of 
doubt that could have arisen, must have been as to the possi- 
bility of the appearance of swarms of living things in hermetically 
sealed vessels in which all pre-existing organisms had been 
killed. And if Dr. Roberts wishes ample proof that such has been 
the view also entertained by others I need only refer him to the 
last few pages of a curious article (purporting to be a review of 
my work “‘The Beginnings of Life”), which appeared ina 
recent number of a journal (Quart. Yourn. of Micros. Science) of 
which Mr. Ray Lankester is one of the editors. It is perhaps 
fortunate for the reviewer’s reputation and for his fame as a 
scientific experimenter that his name does not appear, or that 
his unsuccessful experiments, destined to upset my views, were 
not published before the advent of Dr. Sanderson's letter. 
In some respects the actual results of the experiments per- 
formed by Dr. Roberts differ from those of other experimenters. 
Thus he has found that filtered infusions of any animal or 
vegetable substances can be ‘invariably preserved unchanged 
when boiled for five or ten minutes in a flask plugged with 
cotton wool.” The results obtained by M. Victor Meunier and 
by myself have been different, and we have both shown that they 
are apt to vary according to the strength and nature of the in- 
fusions employed. Dr. Roberts says he has also found 
that many ‘‘highly putrescent mixtures” remained perfectly 
barren “‘ after the flask containing them had been immersed in a 
water-bath kept at a boiling heat for twenty or thirty minutes,” 
although several of the same mixtures ‘‘ could not be kept un- 
changed by simple boiling over the flame,” and the sealing of 
the flask during ebullition. If, after what I have already said 
concerning the latter mode of experimentation, anything is to 
be deduced from these facts, it would perhaps be that the partial 
vacuum within the flask is more favourable to the initiation of 
putrefactive changes in some boiled fluids than their contact with fil- 
tered air. This is what I have always thought, and evidence point- 
ing that way may be found in Afpendix C of my ‘‘ Beginnings 
of Life.” Certainly one cannot assent to the conclusion which 
Dr. Roberts would draw from such experiments, based upon the 
supposition that the boiling of the sealed flasks in water is a 
protective measure. Dr. Roberts’ results are here again some- 
what different from others which have long become matters of 
history. Need I say that this was essentially the method of ex- 
perimentation introduced more than a century ago by Needham, 
and that his results were confirmed by his adversary, Spallan- 
zani, who says: ‘‘ L’ebullition d’une demi-heure ne fut pas un 
obstacle a la naissance des animalcules du dernier ordre qui peu- 
plérent toujours, plus ou moins, tous les vases exposés a son 
action pendant tout ce temps-la.” Does Dr, Roberts forget that 
Dr. Wyman boiled his flasks for two hours and yet obtained 
positive results? that he boiled others in a Papin’s digester 
under a pressure of two and five atmospheres respectively, and 
sull obtained living organisms from his flasks. Must I also 
remind him of the numerous experiments by Prof. Cantoni, of 
Pavia, in which the hermetically scaled flasks were heated in a 
Papin’s digester to temperatures ranging from 109°—117° C.; 
and to several of the experiments that I have myself recorded 
in which undoubtedly—living organisms were obtained from 
flasks that had been heated in fluids raised to temperatures vary- 
ing from 130°—153° C. (e.g. such experiments as are recorded in 
“The Beginnings of Life,” vol. i. pp. 441, 443, 447, and 463). 
When wiil those who do me the honour of referring to my 
experiments look all round and cease to argue from one half of 
the facts ? H. CHARLTON BasTIAN 
University College, Feb. 24 
Himalayan Ferns 
Dorin the years 1861-66 I took every available opportunity 
to collect ferns in the Sevalik and Himalaya ranges. There being 
at that period no published work on the ferns of British India, 
and one subsequently published in Madras not having come 
under my notice, my specimens, several hundred in number, and 
all well dried, remain unclassified. 
Would this collection be of any scientific value, and if so, to 
what society could [ present it? I opine it would be worse than 
useless to offer it to the herbarium of the British Museum, as 
there it might remain untouched for the next fifty years; whilst 
at Kew I presume Hooker’s superior collection would render my 
poor mite useless. 
