492 
NATURE 
[Océ. 20, 1870 
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 
[The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions expressed 
by his Correspondents, No notice is taken of anonymous 
communications. | 
The Evolution of Life: Professor Huxley’s Address 
at Liverpool 
BELIEVING that readers of NATURE can feel no interest in the 
extended personalities with which Prof. Huxley almost fills his 
letter this week, and believing also that such matters are little 
worthy of occupying your columns, I shall only allude to that 
part of his letter which contains statements having a scientific 
bearing. 
The distinct issue raised in my experiments was, were /iving 
things to be found in the fluids of my flasks? If so, such living 
things must either have braved a higher degree of heat than had 
been hitherto thought possible, or else they had been evolved 
de 10v0. 
The effect of the very high temperature upon pre-existing 
living things, which were purposely exposed thereto, was shown 
by their complete disorganisation in an experiment which is 
recorded in NaTuRE, No. 37, p. 219, and to this I would 
especially direct Prof. Huxley’s attention. 
~ Prof. Huxley advances an explanation of the mode of origin 
of the distinct fungi, bearing masses of fructification (NATURE, 
No. 36, figs. 12, 14, and 17) and of the inextricably tangled coils 
of spiral fibres (figs. 13 and 15) found in my flasks after expo- 
sure to temperatures at and beyond Pasteur’s standard of destruc- 
tive heat ; his theory is entirely novel, apparently extemporised 
for the occasion, and is very startling. He says, and in justice 
to Prof. Huxley I quote the passage in full, ‘* Any time these 
six months Dr. Bastian has known perfectly well that I believe 
that the organisms which he got out of his tubes are exactly 
those which he has put into them; that I believe that he has 
used impure materials, and that what he imagines to have been the 
gradual development of life and organisation in his solutions is 
the very simple result of the settling together of the solid impurities, 
which he was not sufficiently careful to see when in their scattered 
condition when the solutions were made.” 
Now, although it was quite true that minute portions of 
Sphagnum leaf were found in two unpublished experiments, it 
seems very marvellous that on this slender foundation Prof, 
Huxley should hazard such a purely imaginative and unprece- 
dented hypothesis as to the mode of production of fungi. 
I have, moreover, not been able to see why the occurrence 
of the incident to which he refers should make him repudiate a 
number of experiments in which wsmistakeably living things 
were found in fluids from hermetically sealed flasks after these 
and their contents had been exposed to temperatures higher than 
those which living things are known to be capable of resisting. 
Following a precept more honoured in dialectics than in 
science, Prof. Huxley has attacked his opponent rather than the 
arguments which he affects to destroy. He objects to only one 
passage in my ‘‘ Reply,” and this he thinks was not worthy of 
the special type in which it was printed ; and yet, notwithstand- 
ing its special type, I can only conclude from his reply that Prof. 
Huxley has failed to appreciate its meaning. My words were : 
‘*Living things may and do arise as minutest visible specks, in 
solutions in which, but a few hours before, no swch specks were 
to be seen.” The word which now alone stands in italics was 
ignored by Prof. Huxley. I had no wish to tell him that certain 
refractive particles, or foreign bodies, might not be visible in the 
thin film of fluid to which I referred. I alluded to the gradual 
and equable development of living specks throughout a fluid 
containing no apparent germs. His retort that some unobserved 
visible germs might have become centres of development is a 
contre-sens. It does not apply to the gradual appearance of 
myriads of egually diffused motionless particles in a motionless 
film of fluid. 
The very authoritative tone which Prof. Huxley has lately 
assumed in his remarks concerning Brownian movements and 
those of living organisms, fails to impress me very much. His 
knowledge about these movements, as I have good reason to 
know, is of quite recent growth. Movements which, in the 
month of March of the present year, Prof. Huxley did not re- 
gard as Brownian, he now does believe to have been of this 
nature. If he is now right, what value is to be set upon his 
knowledge of Brownian movements six months ago ; and what 
guarantee have we that in another six months Prof. Huxley may 
not again take a different view ? 
Let me assure Prof. Huxley, however, that the duty which he 
is ‘‘credibly informed” he owes to the public remains still 
undischarged. I protested against his ‘‘ Address” on scientific 
grounds which are fully stated, and those who have read my 
protest will see that Prof. Huxley cannot dispose of the question 
really at issue by recounting any mistakes of mine, whether 
real or imaginary. If, as I believe, he has failed to give any 
worthy or serious view of the question, this could have been in no 
way necessitated by a disbelief, however strong, in my experiments. 
The labours of Profs. Wyman, Mantegazza, and Cantoni had 
already taken the question into regions never attained by M. 
Pasteur, and therefore they demanded a fair consideration, Is 
Prof. Huxley, in his capacity of President of the British Associa- 
tion, warranted in ignoring their labours, and therefore in mis- 
representing the present state of science on the subject, because, 
owing to two errors among my many experiments, he declares 
himself to have altogether lost faith in my skill or capacity as an 
investigator? The answer cannot be doubtful. Is it, again, 
consistent with his high responsibilities that he should pervert 
the real issues, and should do a grave injustice to others, in order 
that he might preserve a ‘‘silence” which should be his “ best 
kindness” to me? Let me tell Prof. Huxley that I repudiate 
such ‘‘ kindness,” as any honest man would who is simply seek- 
ing after truth, and relegate it to the same regions as I would 
that indescribable air of restrained omniscience whereby he en- 
deavours to crush arguments and facts, to which he altogether 
fails to reply. 
H, CHARLTON BASTIAN 
University College, Oct. 17 
Aurora Borealis 
A BRILLIANT display of the Aurora Borealis was visible here 
on Sept. 24th. I submit the following statement of my observa- 
tions, which probably may be acceptable to your readers. 
About 8.39 P.M. a broad white streak of light was seen due 
north, extending from the horizon towards the north star. This 
streak was soon accompanied by several others, rising and 
streaming upwards from the horizon between the north-west and 
north-east points, and converging towards the zenith: at the same 
time all the northern portion of the sky became illuminated. 
At 9 P.M. the coruscations of the Aurora became more bril- 
liant and active, streaming with great rapidity towards the 
zenith, though none could be seen to reach that point, assuming 
very beautiful colours, which were generally of light pink and 
reddish hues. 
About 10 P.M. the colouring and brilliancy of the Aurora 
attained its fullest effect, the coruscations varying with yellow, 
pink, and almost crimson hues, the intermediate spaces of the 
sky in the background appearing to be light green. The brightest 
streamers were confined to the north and north-westerly direc- 
tions. The coruscations continued in rapid action with sur- 
prising grandeur up to 10.30 P.M., when a somewhat indistinct 
purple arch was visible, with its culminating point north and 
about thirty-five degrees above the horizon. Shortly after this 
exhibition, the display of coruscations and luminous streamers 
gradually ceased action, but the northern portion of the sky 
remained illuminated, resembling twilight after sunset. 
The sky was quite clear at the commencement of the Aurora; 
it became partially obscure about 10 P.M. ; the clouds then, 
especially those in the north-east, reflected very beautiful roseate 
tints from the Aurora, which, in combination with the varying 
colours of the coruscations, produced a most striking and grand 
spectacle. 
Three shooting-stars were observed between 9 and IO P.M., 
and several were seen on the previous night. 
The barometer was at 30°4, and has not read below 30°3 
during the past week. The temperature has been very regular 
for the same time ; the maximum by day was 64°, and the mini- 
mum at night 51°. Winds have been constant from the east, 
and the sky free from cloud. 
The northern region of the sky remained illuminated through- 
out the night, producing a strong reflection on the sea, and 
rendering the rocks and vegetation around me quite per- 
ceptible. Even at 3.30 A.M. the light from the northward pro- 
duced all the effect of early dawn. 
T must add, that during all my Arctic voyaging I never wit- 
nessed in any Aurora the same conditions of varied colouring as 
were displayed on this occasion. 
