228 
be considered to strengthen the probabilities in favour of my as- 
sumption that an acid fluid is less prone to undergo those mole- 
cular changes which lead to the evolution of Living things, than an 
otherwise similar fluid whose reaction is neutral or faintly alkaline. 
And yet this explanation was utterly ignored by M. Pasteur ; he 
wrongly assumed that the before-mentioned discrepancies were 
explicable only in one way; and he moreover illogically at- 
tempted to set aside a rule to which he had previously assented, 
on the strength of evidence which was most ambiguous, and, 
therefore, inconclusive—in nature. M. Pasteur engages himself 
in a controversy concerning one of the most important questions 
in the whole range of biological science, and yet he assumes the 
attitude of a man who is so convinced beforehand of the error of 
those who are of the opposite opinion, that he will not abide by 
ordinary rules of fairness, he will not even, at first, assume the 
possibility of the truth of the opinions which are opposed to his 
own. Ambiguous evidence is explained as though it were not 
ambiguous ; conclusions based upon good evidence are attemp- 
ted to be set aside in favour of conclusions based upon evidence 
which is comparatively worthless ; and, by such illogical methods, 
M. Pasteur proclaims that he has ‘‘mathematically demonstrated” 
the truth of his own views. Unfortunately for the cause of 
Truth, people have been so blinded by his skill and precision 
as a mere experimenter, that only too many have failed to dis- 
cover his shortcomings as a reasoner. 
But it will already have been perceived by the attentive 
reader, that it was not necessary for me—in my endeayour to 
establish as a Truth the great doctrine which M. Pasteur has 
striven to repudiate—to show the inconclusiveness of his reason- 
ings on that branch of the subject to which I have just been 
alluding. I have striven rather to show in their true light the 
real nature of such modes of reasoning, which are I fear only too 
likely to be repeated by others. So long as people are unable 
readily to appreciate the worthlessness of arguments like these, 
they will never be likely to penetrate through the clouds of 
controversy which envelope this subject. Their mental vision 
will be blinded, and the truth will remain hidden from them. 
But, lured on by the success of reasonings such as these, others 
would have grown bolder still, and precisely as the exigencies 
of the case required, so would the standard of vital resistance to 
heat have been raised. What object can there be in laboriously 
ascertaining by direct experiment and observation at what tem- 
perature the lower kinds of organisms cease to live, if the 
information so obtained is to be studiously ignored just when 
it ought to be used as a kind of touchstone, or as a lamp to 
i!lumine phenomena whose explanation would otherwise be 
doubtful? It is a very easy process, certainly, first to start with 
the assumption that it is ‘‘impossible” for Living things to be 
evolved de novo, and then, every time that Living things are 
found under conditions where they ought not to occur (if the 
assumption were true, and if the generally received notions con- 
cerning vital resistance were correct), to assume that the very 
fact of their having been found under these conditions, of and 
by itself, shows that the previous notions concerning vital 
resistance were entirely wrong, and that the organisms which 
were formerly admitted to have been destroyed by a temperature of 
100°C., must now be considered to be able to brave for four hours a 
temperature of 150° C., simply because they have been found in 
fluids which had been submitted to this temperature. The reason- 
ing by which Truth is sought to be ascertained is, in fact, this :— 
No matter what the temperature to which the solutions and the 
hermetically sealed flasks have been exposed—be it even 
500° C.—if Living organisms are subsequently found in the 
solutions, then they or their ‘‘ germs” ust have been able to 
resist the destructive influence of such a temperature, simply be- 
cause Living things have been found, and because it is assemed 
that they cannot be evolved de ove, It is to be hoped that this 
is not the kind of reasoning which will find favour with those 
who are seeking for the advancement of Biological Science ! 
My principal objects in this paper have been to show :— 
1. That there is a strong @ friori probability in favour of the 
possibility of the occurrence of the heterogenous evolution of 
Living things, and that the most reliable scientific data which we 
possess do, in fact, fully entitle us to believe in this as a pos- 
sibility. 
2. That microscopical investigation, whilst it teaches us as 
much concerning the mode of origination of the lowest Organisms 
as it does concerning the mode of origin of Crystals, enables us to 
watch all the steps of various processes of heterogenous Evolution 
NATURE 
[ Fuly 14, 1870 
of slightly higher Organisms, such as may be seen taking place in 
a pellicle on a fluid containing organic matter in solution. 
3. That the kinds of organisms which have been shown to be 
destroyed by atemperature of 100° C. may be obtained in organic 
fluids, either acid or alkaline, which, whilst enclosed within 
hermetically sealed and airless flasks, had been submitted not 
‘only to such a temperature but even to one varying between 
146° and 153° C. for four hours. 
4. That a new and direct evolution of organisable compounds 
may, in all probability,* be capable of arising, sometimes by 
isomeric transformation of the atomic constituents of a single 
saline substance such as tartrate of ammonia, and sometimes 
by a re-arrangement of certain of the atomic constituents belong- 
ing to two or more saline substances existing together in solution. 
It is not only supposed that this may occur, but that even Living 
things may subsequently be evolved therefrom, when the solutions 
have been exposed, as before, in airless and hermetically sealed 
flasks to a temperature of 146° to 153° C. for four hours. 
On account of this @ Zrior? probability, and in the face of this 
evidence, I am, therefore, content, and as I think justified, in 
believing that Living things may and do arise de zove. _ Such a 
belief necessarily carries with it a rejection of M. Pasteur’s 
Theory of Putrefaction, and of the so-called ‘‘Germ Theory of 
Disease.” H. CHARLTON BASTIAN 
* It is not pretended that this is proved. The aid of the chemist and 
physicist must be much more extensively resorted to before sucha point could 
be proved. I hope soon, however, to be able to bring forward additional 
evidence bearing upon this part of the subject. 
BOOKS RECEIVED 
ENGLIsH.—Travels of a Naturalist in Japan and Manchoria: A. Adams 
(Hurst and Blackett).—Hydrostatics and Sound ; R. Wormell (Groombridge). 
ForeiGn.—Théorie mécanique de la chaleur: E. Verdet (Paris ; Masson 
et fils). (Through Williams and Norgate)—Vierteljahresschrift der Astronom- 
ischen Gesellschaft, Nos. 1 and 2: Anwers and Winnecke.—Studien tiber 
das centrale Nervensystem der Wirbelthiere: Dr. L. Stieda.—Lehrbuch der 
Botanik : Dr. J. Sachs.—Resultate aus Beobachtungen auf der Leipziger 
Sternwarte, pt. 1: Dr. R. Engelmann. 
CONTENTS 
Tue UNION OF THE ELEMENTARY TEACHING OF SCIENCE AND MATHE- 
Pace 
MATICS! jae fe. eine, “0 Me) ce je 8. He) ie ve ae ns 
Pe. 
BAG to) 160: ee ie MUM Lhe Tole poo daa. 6 
2c5 
Pror. Rouveston’s Forms or AnNiMAL Lire. II. By 
206 
NEW ATLASES: Sf 3s felts 2 0 me a 0s Kein) roy oc 
Our Book SHEERS “oo 1s. sate ok, vac ce pop lor poy note ate taco 
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR :— 
Prof. Pritchard and Mr. Proctor.—R. A. Procror . .... + 
Whence come Meteorites.—Dr. STANISLAS MEUNIER. «. 4 + - 
Monographs of M. Michel Chasles.—A. Lancaster; Dr. G. E, 
DAY etalon” Keubee pare hts wie 040 Cro ake ine: 
Specific Heat of Mixtures of Alcohol and Water.—A,. Dupre and 
Fe DeMasPAGE . | ss sesiie) hoot ol gees cue io ge 
Geographical Prizes—F. Gatton, F.R.S. ....... 
“Kinetic” and ‘‘ Transmutation."—C. K. AKIN. . . . . « « 21L 
Parturition of the Kangaroo.—Dr. JoHN BARKER. «. . . « + 
The Extinction of Stars.—Capt. E. Mairrann, R.A. . . . . - 
Why is the Horse Chestnut Tree so called ?—E, A. CONNELL 
Fall of an Aerolite—T. W. WEBB; . . 9. .'5 = «© « «Js 
ANDERSON’S UNIVERSITY . . . 
Tue Microscope. By E. Ray LANKESTER . . . «5 © » « « 
METEOROLOGY OF JUNE, 1870. By JoHNJ. Hatt . ..... « 
THE RoTUNDIDY OF THE EARTH, =. 2 @ e ie) aie tas) to ea 
Tea. By J. R. Jackson, Curator of the Royal Museum, Kew. (With 
Ullusteateaesy. te Xo it ia.) ete yo | ot bec te) ele ep Rt 
INOTES $< tee) folie oie jo 1s os le. sol ben tel foifingirelyye! wa sfe) Tue 
FAcTS AND REASONINGS CONCERNING THE HETEROGENOUS EvoLu- 
TION oF Livinc Tutncs. III. By H. Cuariton Bastian, M.D." 
F.R.S. (With Illustrations.) . . . + 
BooxkSRECEIVED <. «. .«) s.ck) Say fe decide: So eee een Jeane 
