March 2, 187%] 
NATURE 
355 

combined itself so as to form a highly developed compound 
with the three or four other elements named. Compounds 
devoid of Carbon never exhibit those peculiar chemical 
and physical properties which exclusively belong to only 
a part of the compounds of Carbon (the so-called “organic 
compounds”); on this account modern chemistry has 
replaced the term “organic compounds” by the more 
significant term “ Carbon-compounds.” 
10. Carbon, then, is that element, that indivisible funda- 
mental substance, which, in virtue of its peculiar physical 
and chemical properties, stamps the various Carbon com- 
pounds with their peculiar organic character, and in chief 
fashions this Protoplasm, the “matter of life” (Zeben- 
stof?), so that it becomes the material basis of all vital 
phenomena. 
11. The peculiar properties which Protoplasm and the 
other component tissues and substances of the organism 
derived secondarily from it, exhibit, especially their viscid 
condition of aggregation, their continual change of matter 
(on the one hand their facile decomposition, on the other 
their facile power of assimilation) and their other “ vital 
properties,” are therefore simply and entirely brovght 
about by the peculiar and complex manner in which Carbon 
under certain conditions can combine with the other 
elements. 
12. The entire properties of the organism are, there- 
fore, ultimately conditioned with equal necessity by the 
physical and chemical properties of Carbon, as are the 
entire properties of every salt and every inorganic com- 
pound conditioned by the physical and chemical proper- 
ties of its component elements. 
TN 
We now pass on to the chapter in Haeckel’s work 
headed “The Monera and Spontaneous Generation.” 
Although, remarks Haeckel, Darwin himself states in 
his work that he has nothing to do with the origin of life, 
every thinking reader of the “ Origin of Species” must ask 
himself whence came the simplest original living form? and 
no question has been more actively discussed, in conse- 
quence of Darwin’s reform of the descent theory than that 
of spontaneous generation (Urzeugung). Abiogenesis 
(Urzeugung, which may best be translated as Archi- 
genesis) is, in fact, a necessary and integral part of 
the universal evolution theory. It is the natural bridge 
which places in continuity Kant’s and Laplace’s theory 
of the mechanical origin of the universe and the earth, 
with Lamarck’s and Darwin’s theory of the mechani- 
cal origin of animal and vegetal forms. When we per- 
ceive that all inorganic nature, as well as the development 
of organic nature from an original parent organism, is 
explained by the continual working of one great law of 
evolution, we cannot admit in explanation of the one dark 
point in this great causal network a supernatural act of 
creation. We are logically bound to seek a natural link, 
and this link is Archigenesis (Urzeugumg), z.e., the origin 
of the simplest organisms from so-called lifeless inorganic 
materal. Till recently the question of Archigenesis has 
been treated by most naturalists in a most unphilo- 
sophical and superficial manner. Instead of examining 
the bearings of the question in all directions, and dis- 
cussing duly its very complex nature, they have rushed 
into experiment, and obtained an answer without 
fairly putting the question. Because in highly artificial 
apparatus and under artificial conditions no organisms 
have been developed in certain fluids prepared for 
examination, the whole doctrine has been denied, 
and the totally unwarranted conclusion arrived at, 
“There is no Archigenesis.” Such experiments as 
those of Pasteur and other very marvellous ones have 
really no value in this question, since they merely 
prove that in the particular case, under certain artificial 
and complex conditions, no organism is formed by 
Archigenesis. Positive contradiction of the hypothesis of 



Archigenesis is impossible. Positive proof there is not 
yet, since no one has yet seen any organism take origin, 
except by Parentage. But, thanks to our progress in 
biology during the last ten years, the question no longer 
presents the theoretical difficulties which it did. Before 
the discovery of those simplest of conceivable organisms, 
the Monera—it was necessary that from inorganic 
materials a Cell should be formed by Archigenesis—an 
organism presenting two chemically, physically, and 
morphological distinct portions, the inner Nucleus and 
the external Protoplasm. The formation of such a nu- 
cleated Plastid by Archigenesis is difficult to conceive. 
But now by the discovery of the Monera the matter 
assumes quite a different aspect. Such forms as Protogenes 
and Protameva present no definite shapes, have no indivi- 
dual development, but grow and multiply by division. Their 
growth and nutrition is purely a physico-chemical process, 
just as the growth of a crystal, with this difference, that the 
viscid cohesion of Protoplasm entails intussusception of 
nutriment, whilst the crystal grows at its surface only. 
The same viscid state of cohesion explains the reproduc- 
tion of such Monera—which we do not observe in crystals 
—the cohesive power of the Protoplasm under certain 
conditions of nutrition is no longer sufficient to hold the 
body together, and fission occurs. Thus the chief vital 
phenomena of Monera are traced to physico-chemical 
causes. 
Since in our chemical laboratories, with our exceedingly 
limited and rough methods, we have succeeded in forming 
many Carbon-compounds, and have good reason to sup- 
pose that we may one day synthetically produce albuminoid 
bodies, is it not reasonable to suppose that in the great 
laboratory of Nature, similar but more complex chemical 
synthesis may go on, such as the formation from inorganic 
materials of albuminoids and of living protoplasm? If 
we are to call in a special creative act—superior to mere 
chemical synthesis—to account for the existence of Proto- 
plasm because we have not succeeded in forming it artifi- 
cially, so also must we postulate a peculiar creative act fora 
great variety of minerals, such as felspar, fluor spar, heavy 
spar, augite, &c., since we are equally unable to build up 
these inorganic bodies. In this way we should divide 
the whole world into a Natural and a Supernatural group. 
The former would contain such salts, gases, &c., as we can 
build up in the laboratory, also alcohol, acetic acid, &c. 
All these bodies have arisen by Archigenesis, z.2., by 
natural, mechanical means, solely by the interaction of 
the inherent physical and chemical forces of their matter. 
The latter group would contain all minerals not yet formed 
in the laboratory, also all the complex Carbon-compounds. 
These bodies would be considered as arising by ‘‘Creation,” 
that is, by supernatural means, through a mysterious 
creative force existing externally to the bodies. 
To every philosophic naturalist such a view must appear 
as untenable as is every assumption of a “ Creation.” 
On the other hand the assumption of an Archigenesis for 
the first living beings from which all others have deve- 
loped, is a logical postulate of the human intelligence. 
It is not at all remarkable that as yet we have not ob- 
served the Archigenesis of Monera. Supposing it were 
taking place every day and every hour, it would be very 
difficult to observe. Very minute particles of Protoplasm 
are found in quantity, both in sea and fresh water, when 
carefully sought for. They are generally regarded as 
fragments of decomposing organisms. But what proof is 
there of this? and how could it be clearly proved that 
these particles have of arisen by Archigenesis? The 
first commencement of a Protoplasm-granule in a fluid 
would be as difficult to observe as the first commencement 
of a crystal in its mother-liquor. And not less difficult 
would be the observation of the gradual growth of such 
an excessively minute Protoplasm-granule into the larger 
protoplasmic masses of Protam@ba,&c. 
Bathybius seems to be of the greatest significance for 
