434 
rather strongly in favour of my view of the case, and will continue 
to be so, so long as our Axow/edge concerning the inability of 
Living things to resist the destructive influence of very high tem- 
peratures remains in anything like the same condition as it is at 
the present day. 
Prof. Huxley is inclined to believe that there has been some 
error about the experiments recorded by myself and others. 
With regard to my own experiments, however, the chances of 
error were certainly diminished to a minimum. Certain fluids 
were placed in glass vessels, and were handed over to one of the 
inost accomplished chemists in this country, with the simple re- 
quest that he would extract most of the atmospheric air from the 
flasks, would seal them hermetically, and would then expose 
them to a temperature of 150° ©. for four hours. All this is 
certified by Prof. Frankland to have been faithfully done.* One 
of the flasks was opened in the presence of Prof. Huxley himself, 
whilst another of them was opened in the presence of Prof. 
Sharpey; and although the others were opened when I was 
alone, I hope the results are none the less reliable. In the 
face of these facts, and of what has been detailed elsewhere, 
it seems difficult to imagine that the experiments are not really 
trustworthy. t 
Prof. Huxley then concludes his observations on these experi- 
ments by saying :—‘‘ But if, in the present state of science, the 
alternative is offered us, either germs can stand a greater heat 
than has been supposed, or the molecules of dead matter, /o7 7z0 
valid or intelligible reason that is assigned, are able to rearrange 
themselves into living bodies, exactly such as can be demon- 
strated to be frequently produced in another way, I cannot un- 
derstand how choice can be even fora moment doubtful.” 
Although this climax is thoroughly consistent with the style 
of the preceding remarks, I find it very difficult to understand 
why Prof. Huxley should have so much departed from his usual 
method of argumentation. I should like to ask him, however, 
whether he considers it the function of a scientific investigator 
to believe ov/y in such seeming possibilities as he can at the 
time explain or account for; and also whether he who be- 
lieves in the analogy between crystals and organisms,} can 
‘assign any valid or intelligible reason” which is likely to be 
satisfactory to himself or to others, why the constituents of 
common salt, when in solution, should under certain circum- 
stances aggregate into crystals of a cubical form ; and why, on 
the other hand, the constituents of sulphate of soda should ag- 
gregate into rhombic crystals. Notwithstanding his inability to 
explain these facts, I suppose he nevertheless accepts them 
as facts, even although in the case of sulphate of soda, almost 
exactly the same kinds of crystals result, whether they have pro- 
ceeded from pre-existing crystalline germs, or whether they have 
avisen de novo.§ Prof. Huxley seems only too much to overlook 
the fact that what may be perfectly inexplicable from one point 
of view, may, on the contrary, flow as a necessary consequence 
from one of an opposite nature. Although, therefore, as a dis- 
ciple of Redi, the facts to which he has alluded may seem diffi- 
cult to explain, Prof. Huxley must recollect that two rival 
doctrines are in question. And having two doctrines of almost 
equal probability to decide between, it seems to me mere childish- 
ness to reject a certain well-supported interpretation simply 
* See his description of the process, NATURE, No. 36, p. 199. 
+ The possibilities of error, which in a previous discussion (on Sept. 
20) in the Biological Section, seem to have been suggested by Prof. 
Huxley, were two in number. First, that unperceived cracks may have 
been present in the hermetically sealed flasks, and second, that objects sup- 
posed to have been Zévéng, may not have been so in reality. I have already 
spoken of these possibilities with reference to 2/. 19, and there is no 
better ground for either of the suppositions in reference to Zxs. 17, 18, 
and 20. (See Nature, No. 36, pp. t99—201.) 
t See quotation, Narure, No. 46, p. 4rr. ; 
§ There is a very slight difference in the form of the crystals in the two 
cases, because in order to make sure of the absence of crystalline germs, 
the new crystals have to form under a different and exceptional set of condi- 
tions. But, notwithstanding what Prof. Huxley says, we find even a more 
striking divergence occasionally, in the case of organisms, which possibly 
have been evolved from similar materials though under different conditions. [ 
have elsewhere said (NATURE, No. 37, p. 223):—‘‘ We find also associated 
with different sets of conditions, different kinds of Living things. In none of the 
crystals of tartrate of ammonia have I ever found a single distinct bacterium, 
and there has been the same complete absence of organisms of this kind in 
all my experimental fluids containing tartrate of ammonia and phosphate of 
soda, which have been sealed up zz vacuo. This agreement is very striking, 
seeing that whenever a similar fluid, or a solution of tartrate of ammonia 
alone, is exposed to the air, then bacteria appear in abundance. There is a 
marked accordance, then, between the organisms which are produced in the 
experimental tubes 27 vacuo, and those which come from the cavities within 
the crystals,” whilst these differ altogether from those which are met with in 
a similar solution exposed to the air. (See also what is said in oze on same 
page concerning the occurrence of Savcina.) 
NATURE 
[ Sep. 29, 1870 
because itis inexplicable on the one hypothesis, and to think that 
this inexplicability is an argument against the interpretation 
given, when, so far from being inexplicable, this, 27 the light of 
the counter hypothesis, is nothing else than a logical consequence. 
That some such similarity as that which is alluded to should 
exist, is only to be expected by those who believe that the lowest 
living things are but the products of the molecular properties of 
a complex matter, and the “conditions” acting thereupon.* I 
entirely agree with Mr. G. H. Lewes, when, in a most valuable 
essay,+ he points out that ‘‘similarity in the laws and con- 
ditions of Organic Combination must produce similarity in 
organisms, independently of relationship, just as similarity in 
the laws and conditions of inorganic combination will produce 
identity in chemical species.” It is the extreme complexity 
of the materials in the one case, and their corresponding sen- 
sitiveness to modifying influences, which make it hopeless 
for us to think of ever getting the same uniformity of results, 
which we ave able to attain when we have to do with simple in- 
organic materials. The difference, however, is one of degree, 
not of kind. 
I enter a protest, therefore, against the first portion of Prof, 
Huxley’s Inaugural Address, for the following reasons :— 
I. Because it does not seem to be characterised by ‘‘due im- 
partiality.” 
2. Because it is calculated to mislead the public; since what is 
represented as relevant and of first importance, has only an 
indirect bearing on the subject : Aéundance or paucity of germs 
in atmosphere. 
3. Because the real issues having already been pointed out by 
others, Prof. Huxley ignoring these, approaches the problem as 
though they had never been stated, and as though he himself 
were not aware of them: A/ode of origin of specks of Living 
matter in apparently homogeneous solutions. 
4. Because it allows room for the inference, and even suggests 
it, that evidence which is generally admitted to be of the greatest 
importance for the solution of the question in dispute, is really 
of little or no importance : Limits of vital resistance to heat, and 
presence of Living organisms in closed vessels which had been pre- 
viously exposed to great heat. 
5. Because, without any sufficient warrant, it throws doubt 
upon the ‘‘ trustworthiness” of certain experiments, of whose 
real nature his audience and the public are not informed : xferi- 
ments of Wyman, Mantegazza, Cantoni, &c. 
6. Because it opposes the definite results of these experiments 
by nothing but insufficient statements, and what appear to be 
crude suppositions: Statements and assumptions concerning pre- 
served meats. 
‘The general effect being, I conceive, an entire misrepresenta- 
tion of the present state of knowledge upon the questions con- 
cerning the Origin of Life, which are at present under discussion. 
H. CHARLTON BASTIAN 
** Owing to the great pressure on our Space, We are 
compelled to postpone several articles of real value which 
are already in type. 
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 
[ The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions expressed 
by his Correspondents, No notice is taken of anonymous 
communications. | 
University College Lectures for Ladies 
IN this week’s number of Nature I see it noted that among 
the courses of lectures announced for the ensuing winter by the 
Ladies’ Educational Association in connection with University 
College, are included two upon scientific subjects (chemistry and 
experimental physics). May I venture to point out that the pros- 
pectus makes mention also of a third, namely, on logic, intro- 
duced by ten lectures on the psychology of intellect ? This course 
* It is difficult, almost impossible, for us to say how far seemingly great 
differences in conditions, are really very different in respect to the influences 
which are most potential in leading the not-living toassume Living modes of 
combination, because we do not know for certain what these ost potential 
factors are, and therefore how far these may be present or absent under cir- 
cumstances apparently dissimilar. 
+ “ Darwin’s Hypothesis.” Fortnightly Review, April 1868, p. 372. 
— 
