Sept. 22, 1870] 
NATURE 
413 
from him in my interpretation of the results of some of these in- 
vestigations, * I am quite content to accept the conclusion which 
is alone derivable from this long chain of evidence. I am 
even prepared to grant to Professor Huxley, for the sake of 
argument, that Bacteria may be ‘‘suspended in the atmosphere 
in myriads.” The evidence thus referred to, if true in all 
respects, would haye been very valuable if it had been brought 
against the doctrine that none of the minute living things of 
infusions derived their origin from atmospheric gerins, though 
it may and dces fall utterly powerless before the doctrine which 
is alone urged, that some of the Living things met with in in- 
fusions appear to be produced independently of pre-existing 
living matter. If it could be proved that the air contained five 
hundred times as many germs as can now~be shown to exist 
therein, this discovery would still be quite compatible with the 
truth of the other doctrine that under the influence of certain 
conditions some Living things, appearing as minutest visible 
specks, do arise de ovo in solutions. 
Whether such an occurrence can or cannot now take place is a 
question which is not at all dependent upon the prevalence or 
paucity of germs in the atmosphere. I may also remind Prof. 
ILuxley of a fact which he seems to have fc rgot'en, and that is, 
that the atmosphere is not the only source of germs. These may 
he prese: t in the water or in the materials dissolved therein. 
Seeing, therefore, that in certain experiments which constitute 
the corner-stones of his edifice of proof, and which are brought 
forward, I suppose, as being capable of influencing our judg- 
ment upon this great question, the materials which were dissolved 
* and the water employed were merely boiled for fifteen minutes, 
we must look upon this as an admission by Prof. Huxley that in 
his opinion the exposure of the solution for such a time to a tcm- 
perature of 100° C. was an adequate precaution to ensure the des- 
truction of all pre-existing living things that may have been con- 
tained therein. This isa most important admission—tacit though 
it be—in the face of other evidence which can be mentioned, and 
if Prof, Huxley does not really believe this, how is it possible 
for us to understand what cithcr his argument or science gains 
from the citation of the following experiments ? 
Having boiled portions of “ Pasteur’s solution” for fifteen 
minutes, in three separate flasks, he placed in the neck of one of 
them, whilst ebullition was continuing, a large plug of cotton wool, 
left another with the mouth of the flask 0, en, whilst into the third, 
when cool, he placed some acteria taken from a 5..Jution of hay. 
«Tn a couple of days of ordinary warm weather,” he says, ‘‘the 
contents of this [latter] flask will be milky from the enormous 
multiplication of Bacteria, The other flask open and exposed to 
the air will, sooner or later, become milky with Bacteria, and 
patches of mould may appear in it ; while the liquid in the fla-k, 
the neck of which is plugged with cotton wool, will remain clear 
for an indefinite time.” And then Prof. Huxley adds :—‘‘I 
have sought in vain for any explanation of these facts, except the 
obvious one, that the a/v contains germs competent to give rise to 
Bacteria,” and similar to those with which one of the solutions 
was purposely inoculated. Now, with reference to these state- 
ments, the possibility at once suggests itself, that had a different 
solution been used in the case where the neck of the flask was 
plugged with cotton-wcola very different result might have been 
obtained. In order to throw light upon this subject I have per- 
formed the following experiments :— 
Immediately after reading Prof. Huxley’s address, I procured 
a piece of cooked meat, made an effusion of the san.e, and afier 
filtration put it into a flask. It was then boied for fifteen 
minutes, after a large plug of cotton wool, 14" in l_ngth, had 
been pushed into itsneck. After this time the plug was rendered 
tighter by pushing inmore wocl. Another flask was prepared in 
* Neither time nor space will permit of my mentioning these various points 
on which I am inclined to differ from him. When Prof. Huxley says, how- 
ever, after a tragical metaphor, *‘It must be admitted that the experiments 
and arguments of Spallanzani furnish a complete and a crushing reply to 
those of Needham,” I will only say that 1 cannot agree with him, and will 
remind him that, in this cate at least, he is not supported by Pasteur, whose 
logic issoinvincible. Pasteur says (Ann. de Chim. et de Phys., 1861, p. 9):— 
*©Un examen impartiel des observations contradictoires de Spallanzani et de 
Needham sur le point le plus delicat du sujet, va nous montrer en effet, 
contrairement @ lop.nion généralément admise que Needham ne pouyait 
en toute justice abandorner sa doctrine en presence des travaux de 
Spallanzani.” E 5 ao 
I would also call Prof. Huxley’s attention, as an impartial historian, to 
some communications made b M. Victor Meunier to the French Academy 
(Comp. Rend. 1865), from which he will see with reference to the vessels 
with bent necks, that it is possible to perform these experiments with an 
“ entire success ” of a different kind from that to which he alludes. Others 
besides myself have also performed such experiments with results similar 
to those of M. Meunier. Much seems to depend upon the nature of the 
solution employed. 
a similar way, only in this, a strong filtered infusion made from 
undressed meat was placed. At the expiration of the fourth 
day (Monday morning, Sept. 17th) the weaker solution, still 
quite c/eay, was opened, and on microscopical examination of 
two or three drops of the fluid a multitude of minute motionless 
particles of various sizes were seen, others in active movement, 
and two or three Bacteria about 55" in diameter. The flask 
containing the stronger solution was opened at the expiration 
of forty-two hours. The fluid still appeared quite clear, and on 
microscopical examination of a few drops of the fluid many 
tolerably active Bacteria were found varying between qy'sy'’— 
too’ in length, besides a multitude of particles, some moving 
and others motionless. 
These results seem to me what might have been expected 
after what I-have made known concerning putrefaction 7 vacuo. 
It could scarcely be expected that mere f/tration of air should 
be able to prevent putrefaction when it has been already shown 
that this will take p!ace in the absence of air. 
What conclusion, then, is now deducible from Prof. Huxley’s 
three comparative experiments? Certainly nothing that has 
any value for the support of his argument. 
[A strong point made by Prof. Huxley is the supposed fact 
that the possibility of preserving meat is a fatal reply to the 
experiments of myself and others. I shall show next week, 
that the actual facts strengthen my point of view, and that ‘* per- 
fectly good” cases of meat which I have examined have con- 
tained Bacteria and Leptothrix filaments. ] 
H. CHARLTON BASTIAN 
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 
[The Editor does not hold himself restonsible for opinions expressed 
by his Correspondents, No notice is tak.n of anonymous 
communicaiions. | 
English Physiology 
THE present state of physiology in this country ought to 
bea matter of regret. Though foremost in many things, Britain 
is far behind Continents] countries in the field of physiological 
science. We can boast of a few distinguished physiolocists, as 
Jobn Hunter, Sir Charles Bell, and Dr. John Reid ; and famous 
microscopists, as Carpenter and Beale ; but a very small number 
of English names can be cited compared with the host of Con- 
tinental physiologists, past and present, as Magendie, Miller, Von 
Beyoid, Von Baer, Beéclard, Bernard, Brown-Sequard, Du Bois 
Reymond, Helmholtz, &c. This discrepancy arises not from 
want of talent, but from lack of opportunity. The mental 
qualities required by a physiologist, as observation and memory, 
are developed separately at different periods of life. Mence 
there are only a limited number of years during which any 
such branch of learning can be cultivated with fresh ardour, 
and during which the power termed originality can be brought 
into play. The Continental schools make use of these precious 
yeais by affording those who are naturally inclined to cultivate 
any one branch of science, full scope for repeating the observa- 
tions of their predecessors, and for endeavouring to add to the 
existing stock of knowledge. By having various laboratories 
and certain paid appointments ccnnected with their universities, 
they allow young men to devote their whole time and energy 
to the study of individual subjects, as physivlogy. Those who 
set themselves to work of this kind do not look forward to the 
practice of the medical profession, but purpose to live and 
work as physiologists. These young men are known by thicir 
labours to be specialists, and are proposed by the senatus 
with which they are connected for a vacant professorship 
when it occurs. This is the only method of securing original 
and extensive work in any cne scientific branch, as Physiology. 
It would be well, therefore, if the approaching Royal Commis- 
sion of [nqu'ry into the State of Science in this country would not 
overlook Physiology, b.it would make some arrangements where- 
by Great Britain might no longer be stigmatised by her Conti- 
neutal neighbours as ‘* having no Physiologist.” 
Dr. Stricker, in the two aiticles he has already communicated 
to Nature on ‘The Medical Schools of England and Ger- 
many,” has not referred to the Edinburgh University, which 
possesses the best furnished Physiological Laboratory to be 
found in Great Britain, and one equal to most of those met with 
in Germany. The plan recently introduced into this Scottish 
University of having salaried assistants to the professors re- 
