254- 
NATURE 
[Fuly 28, 1870 
Natural History given here should besupplemented by visits 
tothe Zoological Gardens and the British Museum. Having 
gone through the first three lessons, the cleverest boy in 
the class, or the teacher himself, should note down the 
names of the different animals described, with their 
peculiarities ; the notes might then be copied by each 
boy, or at any rate read out to them. The visit to the 
Gardens or Museum should next be paid, not with the 
idea of wandering about in a desultory manner, but with 
the object of testing the truth of the statements contained 
in the lessons. Half an hour with a rabbit’s or sheep’s 
head, the examination of the teeth of the cat or dog, will 
help wonderfully to develop a boy’s love for Natural His- 
tory. The lessons should if possible be illustrated by the 
skulls or skeletons of some of the smaller members of 
each order orclass. Such specimens may be obtained at 
acheap rate from Mr, Cutter, 35, Great Russell Street, 
Bloomsbury, The same principle may be followed with 
Astronomy.” These extracts show that the book is the 
work of a practical man, and as such we commend it. 
= =e 
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 
The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions expressed 
by his Correspondents, No notice is taken of anonymous 
communications. | 
Spontaneous Generation 
Pror. WANKLYN says the opponents of spontaneous genera- 
tion are placed in a dilemma by some new facts and arguments 
recently advanced in favour of the theory by Dr. C. Bastian, 
whose observations were only concluded in NATURE for July 14, 
1870. 
Prof. Wanklyn might have allowed the ‘‘ opponents ” a little 
more breathing time, and if his cause is really so strong, why so 
soon call attention to ‘‘other difficulties” under which they labour? 
These tactics compel me to remark that the spontaneous generation 
theory will gain nothing by being forced upon the attention. Like 
other doctrines it must stand or fall according as the facts on which 
it is based are confirmed or refuted. It matters not whether A or 
B is an advocate for or against. The question can be determined 
by observation and experiment only. It is of little importance 
though the theory be supported by the press or be believed in by 
a large section of the public. If it can be proved to be true it 
will be accepted, but the utmost notoriety it may be possible to 
gain for it cannot create conviction of its truth, 
I confess to being an ‘‘ opponent” of the doctrine but simply 
because I cannot admit that the evidence yet adduced is at all con- 
vincing ; while it seems to me the very way in which the doctrine 
has been thrust forward is calculated to excite undeserved distrust. 
The attempts made to prepare our minds, as it were, for its recep- 
tion, the frequent announcements that the proof is comég, the 
bolstering up, if I may use such a term, this doctrine appears to 
require—instead of promoting its reception, is only calculated to 
excite suspicion, which may be entirely undeserved. I, for one, 
am quite prepared to receive the facts adduced in favour of the 
doctrine, but am by no means disposed to accept immediately 
or unconditionally the inferences drawn therefrom. 
Before 1 proceed to discuss the ‘‘ dilemma” in which, accord- 
ing to Prof. Wanklyn, as an opponent of the doctrine, I am 
placed, I would suggest that figures of the different forms of 
organisms, supposed to be sfomtancously generated, be published 
in NaTuRE, side by side, with a short description, reference to 
authority, and magnifying power. In this way we should see at 
a glance the different kinds of organisms which had been formed 
de nove, according to different authorities. 
Some of the figures of Dr. Bastian, I confess, astonished me. 
To judge from the drawings and statements it would appear 
that a solution of tartrate of ammonia and phosphate of soda 
in vacuo, Was a much more potent generator of life than a solu- 
tion of boiled turmip or boiled hay. I was certainly very much 
surprised when I saw Figs. 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. If the or- 
ganisms represented in those drawings have been produced, as Dr. 
Bastian states, in saline solutions destitute of living germs 77 
vacuo, the fact is, indeed, so very important and of such very great 
interest, that it would have been better, in my opinion, to have 
directed attention to it alone without mixing up the question of 
fact with Mr, Herbert Spencer's probabilities. The experiments 
are either sound or not. If the former they do not require 
the support or assistance of any @ rior? reasoning ; if the latter, 
all the philosophical arguments that can be adduced will not 
procure their acceptance. Dr. Bastian could not have published 
his drawings without feeling that those at all familiar with such 
inquiries would be surprised—and those who support him must 
therefore not feel hurt at the reserve of ‘‘ opponents,” and because 
they do not write to the very next number of NATURE to declare 
themselves convinced, and ready to subscribe to the spontaneous 
generation doctrine and give it all the support in their power. 
But indisposition on the part of many of us to accept imme- 
diately the inferences does not detract in the slightest degree 
from the acknowledgment of their importance. 1 for one, as 
I said before, am ready to accept them, but not yet, because, 
as far as I know, Dr. Bastian’s results are exceptional, and the 
experiments may require repetition. Nor could I thus early 
make the inquiries that would be necessary concerning the de- 
tails and the many little precautionary measures that are re- 
quisite, and which, for aught that appears, have been taken, 
without seeming to be offensive. But I cannot help saying here 
that many of the preliminary remarks, and many observations 
in the notes, and much of the argument, are calculated rather to 
prejudice the mind against the conclusions sought to be esta- 
blished by experiment. 
All the arguments hitherto adduced in favour of spontaneous 
generation fail to convince. Neither Mr, Herbert Spencer nor 
Mr. J. S. Mill himself could convince any man acquainted with 
the facts of the case, that heterogenesis really occurs in these 
days. At the same time a very strong case—nay, a ease certain 
to convince anyone who was not practically acquainted with the 
matter—might be made. Such a case has indeed many times been 
made, and has produced a vast number of converts, some of 
whom have afterwards fallen away from the faith, and have been 
led to believe in another view. Many things seem to be proved 
by irrefragable reasoning which are zof proved, and cannot be 
proved in the present state of our knowledge. Dr. Bastian of 
course admits all this, or he would never have tried ew expert- 
ments. It is therefore only these new experiments which, by 
adding to our knowledge, can alter the question as it stands. All 
the arguments concerning invisible germs of crystals, the mode of 
‘building together the molecules of corn,” ‘‘collocations,” 
‘@ priori presumptions in favour of new modes of evolution,” 
&c., &c,, merely increase the difficulty experienced by ordinary 
mortals of grasping the real question at issue and discussing the 
theory within any reasonable limits. The introduction of these 
preliminary @ Jor? considerations is calculated to confuse. They 
certainly interfere with the due concentration of the attention upon 
the results of the experiments. They will not excite persons who 
are at all conversant with the inquiry to put more trust in 
the new experimental results than they would be inclined to do 
without them. On me, I regret to say, they have a contrary 
effect. The fact of @ friort arguments having been so very 
much dwelt upon, makes me think that the mind of the experi- 
menter may have been to some extent prejudiced (prepossessed) 
in favour of the doctrine he seeks to support by new facts, and 
in this way they are calculated to excite in my mind, however 
much I may resist, a doubt whether the inferences which have 
been arrived at really have been deduced from facts of observation 
and experiment o7z/y, 
Prof. Wanklyn, whose observations have called forth these 
remarks, is rather damaging the cause he hopes to serve in 
another way. He states that ‘‘rather more than one pint of 
average atmospheric air does not contain so much organic nitro- 
genous matter as corresponds to a cube of dry albumen of the 
gieth part of an inch in diameter,” and affirms that this quantity 
is altogether inadequate to account for the ‘‘ immense multitudes 
of germs, the existence of which in atmospheric air is assumed by 
the vitalists.” Now these ‘‘vitalists” hardly require ‘‘ immense” 
multitudes, and instead of being ‘‘ assumed,” the presence of quite 
a sufficient number has been froved, and moreover, they can be 
seen by anyone who chooses to take the trouble to look for them. 
But I thank Prof. Wanklyn for his fact and calculation, The 
evidence he adduces is very interesting, and conclusively in 
favour of the presence of living germs in the air; for those who 
accept the views he objects to, do not require a tithe or even a 
hundredth part of the albuminous matter he finds ac‘ually exists: 
‘Lhe space occupied by a moist blood corpuscle gyy5 of an inch 
in diameter, which only contained even less than a ¢enth of its 
weight of dry albuminous matter, would be large enough to hold 
