178 

department of nature down to the most minute details. 
. . . . Wot even one grain of material is ever used, 
when less would suffice for the purpose.” 
This is, no doubt, admirable, and would suit the most 
frantic of the mischief-making teleologists. But, alas ! like 
the Editor of the Zzttle Pedlington Observer, “ What in 
one line we state we retract in another.” For there 
follows— 
“We can demonstrate by mathematics that in the 
use of every such muscle [triangular, &c.] there zs a neces- 
sary loss of force. . . . 1 have always maintained 
that beauty of form . . . was one of the pre-existing 
conditions in the mind of the Contriver of the universe, as 
well as economy of force.” 
As intermediate to these two quotations, and in itself 
amusing from its doxhommiée and condescension, we may 
take the following :— 
“ Nature, according to my principle, is entitled to employ 
these two forms of muscles whenever she pleases.” 
The reader may take our word that these are but single 
gems, selected from among many similar and often richer 
ones, mainly on the Principle of Least Trouble (in copying 
out for press). 
As to really scientific matters, occasionally referred to 
in these lectures, we need merely mention that the author 
is ignorant of, or ignores, Dr. Pettigrew’s extraordinary 
researches on wings and other adaptations for progres- 
sion ; researches which ought to be thoroughly mastered 
by any one who attempts to write on the subject of animal 
mechanics ; and that, in his remarks on the strength of 
the uterine muscles, he seems to have entirely forgotten 
to notice how thoroughly least action theories (at least as 
applied by him) have been upset in a late number of the 
Dublin Quarterly Fournal of Medical Science. 
We promised Science first and Sensation afterwards. 
In attempting to collect the Science we have got hold of 
little but Sensation: so we need give only one extract 
more. Would it have been considered possible (till the 
23rd of last May) that a Dublin professor, an M.D.,a 
D.C.L., an F.R.S., and a clergyman of the (till lately) 
Established Church, should, even in jest, speak as follows 
in the Royal Institution in London ?>— 
ets A brilliant idea came across my mind 
- . . . What in the world is to hinder me from taking 
a farm in Westmeath, deliberately and wilfully refusing 
to pay my rents, and in due time shooting my landlord, 
and, instead of using him as a New Zealand tenant would, 
dissecting him at my leisure?” 
We have only toadd that the British Medical Fournal, 
in publishing the above, conspicuously prints the re- 
mark :— 
“Tn reproducing the zAszsszma verba of the lecturer, and 
giving them a permanent place in scientific literature, an 
enduring service will be rendered to Science.” 
Which means, we hope, that all men, scientific or other- 
wise, will, once for all, take warning from this terrible 
example. If such be the result, Prof. Haughton will, in- 
deed, not have lectured in vain, But if the Br7tish Medical 
Fournal intends its remarks to signify approval, we can 
say of it and of Prof. Haughton, in the language of 
Cervantes— 
No rebuznaron en valde 
El uno y el otro Alcalde, 
NATURE 
| Fuly 6, 1871 
BASTIAN ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE 

The Modes of Origin of Lowest Organisms : including a 
Discussion of the Experiments of M. Pasteur, and a 
Reply to some Statements by Professors Huxley and 
Tyndall. By H. Charlton Bastian, M.A., M.D., F.R.S., 
&c. (Macmillan and Co., 1871.) 
T may be as well to state at the outset that the present 
volume is not Dr. Bastian’s long-promised work on 
“The Beginnings of Life ;” and it would have been better 
had some title been devised to prevent the confusion 
that will inevitably be caused by its appearance at this 
juncture. We have here, however, a condensed sketch 
of the whole controversy on Spontaneous Generation, and 
a statement of some very important researches conducted 
by the author since the discussion which followed Prof. 
Huxley’s Presidential Address at Liverpool last September. 
{t will be remembered that the objections to Dr. Bastian’s 
experiments and to the results he deduced from them were 
twofold. It was said that we have no proof that these 
minute organisms (Bacteria, &c.), or their germs cannot 
resist the heat to which they were subjected. It was also 
said that no proof was given that the supposed organisms 
found by Dr. Bastian in these boiled and hermetically 
sealed liquids were alive. The motions exhibited might 
be “ Brownian” motions, and the experimenter probably 
found nothing in his vessels but what he put into them. 
The answer to these objections is now given. The test 
of vitality is said to be, not movement, which is ad- 
mitted to.be uncertain, but the ower of reproduction. 
It is found that if a portion of liquid containing Bacteria 
is divided into two parts, one of which is boiled, and a 
drop from each of these portions is mounted as a micro- 
scopic object, under a covering glass surrounded by 
quickly-drying cement, the unboiled specimen exhibits a 
marked increase from day to day in the quantity of im- 
prisoned Bacéeréa, while the boiled specimen continues 
unchanged during the same time. Making use of this 
test of vitality, it was next ascertained what degree of 
heat was fatal to these low organisms. By using a lower 
and lower temperature, it was found that exposure to 140° 
F. for ten minutes destroyed Bacteria, while after ex- 
posure to 131° F. for the same time they rapidly multi- 
plied. Somewhat higher organisms—V72d770s, Am@ebe, 
Monads, Vorticelle, &c., were, however, killed by ex- 
posure to 131° F. for five minutes. It was subsequently 
ascertained that a four hours’ exposure to a temperature 
of even 127° F, destroyed Bacteria and Torule. It is 
argued that, as in all these experiments the solutions used 
swarmed with Bacteria, &c., in various stages of increase, 
their hypothetical “ germs” cannot be supposed to have 
been entirely absent ; and that we may therefore conclude 
that the “germ” has no greater power of resisting heat 
than the animal itself. 
Dr. Bastian also criticises many of the experiments of 
Pasteur, and the arguments founded on them. He main- 
tains that the corpuscles found by the latter to exist in 
the atmosphere, and which “resemble” spores of fungi, 
have never been proved to be such ; and even if they were 
so proved, it would not account for the constant occur- 
rence of Sacteyia and other low organisms, whose 
“germs” are quite unknown, and which there seems no 
reason to believe could retain their vitality in a dry state 
