NA TURE 



[May 2, 1907 



within the experimental vessels, and there must be 

 no subsequent contamination with atmospheric germs. 

 Therefore Bastian heated his fluids to 115° C. or 

 130° C, and hermetically sealed the tubes. But 

 these precautions involve disadvantages ; the de- 

 grading effect of the initial purifying heat process 

 may render the medium unfit for the occurrence of 

 future processes that may lead to life-origination, 

 and the glass of the hermetically sealed vessel in 

 which the fluid is contained partially excludes actinic 

 rays which might be potential, or at least helpful, 

 in bringing about the combi'nations in question. In 

 spite of these disadvantages, Dr. Bastian found living 

 creatures — " Bacilli, Vibriones, Cocci, .Streptococci, 

 Torulae, and other germs of Fungi " — in saline solu- 

 tions within tubes that had been heated at 115° C. 

 to 130° C. for from ten to twenty minutes, and the 

 present subdirector of the Pasteur Institute has de- 

 clared, in regard to spores of bacilli in all such fluids, 

 that "a temperature of 115° C. sterilises them com- 

 pletely and most rapidly." Some of the photomicro- 

 graphic figures of " organisms " are not very like 

 organisms at all, but others are. The alternative 

 interpretations are (i) that Dr. Bastian's methods 

 were not rigorous enough; (2) that the fatal tempera- 

 ture has been estimated at too low a figure; (3) that 

 contamination occurred during the preparation of the 

 photographed slides, or (d) that archebiosis actually 

 takes place. Personally, we are not disposed to 

 accept the last interpretation until every possibility 

 of error has been excluded, and we are not convinced 

 'by Dr. Bastian's " final decisive experiments." We 

 suspect that the sterilisation was imperfect ; we 

 suspect that there were " germs " — where we have 

 often seen them — on the slides and cover-slips; we 

 suspect everything to a degree that Dr. Bastian — 

 with a tolerant smile — would say outrages common 

 sense. For we belong to the prejudiced, illogical, 

 conservative sect of St. Thomas who' doubt and doubt. 

 The whole business is so analogous to belief in 

 " spooks " that no amount of argument is of any 

 use until we have seen for ourselves. Why, then. 

 Dr. Bastian says, will you not experiment? And 

 why will you not, in the name of St. Thomas, point 

 out precisely where my experiments are fallacious? 

 As to the first question, we think the answer is that 

 we regard archebiosis as so great a miracle that we 

 do not expect to see it repeated. As to the second 

 question, we do not know what to answer, unless it 

 be that the sterilisation was inadequate, or that the 

 preparations were contaminated before the photo- 

 graphs were taken. At the same time, recent 

 physicochemical discoveries centred around the fact 

 of radio-activity warn us that dogmatism as to possi- 

 bilities is far from being consistent with the truly 

 scientific mood. 



Harking back to heterogcnesis, perhaps it may be 

 useful to say that Dr. Bastian was good enough to 

 show us the mummy of an Otostoma reposing 

 within the egg-case of Hydatina. There can be no 

 doubt about it. But what remains unproved is that 

 the organisation of a Hydatina ovum gives rise by 

 fheterogenesis to the organisation of the infusorian 

 NO. 1957, VOL. 76] 



Otostoma. We suspected parasitism, and we watched 

 many ova of Hydalina. But neither the expected nor 

 the une.xpected happened. On one occasion, however, 

 Dr. John Rennie, lecturer on parasitology in the 

 University of Aberdeen, an expert investigator who 

 was good enough to assist in watching for the advent 

 of Otostoma, observed two (not identified) infusorians 

 moving inside the rotifer's egg, but he did not re- 

 gard the phenomenon as a proof of heterogenesis. 

 -As a matter of fact, the egg-envelope showed a 

 small split, through which the infusorians soon 

 passed out, doubtless following the path by which 

 they formerly entered. 



(2) Prof. Felix Le Dantec has entitled his book 

 "The Nature and Origin of Life," but with a 

 humour which vvc appreciate he has entirely shirked 

 the question of origin, only referring to it in a casual, 

 half-hearted sort of way on the last page, where he 

 tells us that " the time will come when methodic 

 analysis will allow of a reasoned synthesis " of proto- 

 plasm. It is probable that the solution will be found 

 in the study of diastases. 



" When the effective synthesis is obtained, it will 

 have no surprises in it — and it will be utterly useless. 

 With the new knowledge acquired by science, the 

 enlightened mind no longer needs to see the fabri- 

 cation of protoplasm in order to be convinced of the 

 absence of all essential difference and all absolute 

 discontinuity between living and not-living matter." 



Prof. Le Dantec 's book — which discusses the 

 nature of life — ranges over the whole field of biology 

 from bacteria to the nervous system, from karyo- 

 kincsis to mutations, from tropisms to natural selec- 

 tion, and he leaves one with the general impression 

 that even " in the light of new knowledge " the 

 riddle of " life " remains verj' obscure. In a popular 

 elusive manner, with abundant concrete illustrations, 

 the author seeks to show that the living creature is 

 a mechanism and nothing more, and that " the study 

 of life belongs to chemical physics." "A higher 

 animal such as man is a mechanism oj mechanisms 

 of m.echanisms." This rather cryptic conclusion is 

 expanded into the statement that man is an 

 anatomical mechanism of colloid mechanisms of 

 chemical mechanisms. The wonder is that they all 

 hold together. " More and more the living being 

 appears to us a superposition of dead things." But 

 it is a fell superposition. " A rat trap would be alive 

 if, while exercising its normal function of loosing 

 its spring, it should impress on its constituent sub- 

 stances a chemical activity whose result would be a 

 tension of the spring tighter than before." This 

 seems to us rather a clap-trap theory of life. We 

 mean that the author gives the problem a false 

 simplicity ; he conveys the impression that we can 

 really give a mechanical re-description of the develop- 

 ment, the growth, the reproduction, the behaviour, 

 the evolution — the life of living creatures. But he 

 does not go thoroughly enough into any single 

 instance to win conviction, and he is continually re- 

 treating into the mystery of colloids. Some of his 

 utterances strike us as rather intemperate, as when 

 he tells us that " life is an aquatic phenomenon," or 

 that " Life is only a surface accident in the history 



I 



