April 7, 1899.] 



SCIENCE. 



513 



of specific modification became clear to me, 

 and in tlie two liours of my fit I had thouglit 

 out tlie main points of the theory." 



If this had been only a fortunate guess it 

 would have little interest, for no one cares to 

 ask whether Empedocles, or Wells, or Mathew, 

 or Darwin, or Herbert Speucor, or Wallace 

 first had this happy thought. It was because 

 Wallace had spent years of hard work in gath- 

 ering facts and in pondering them that he was 

 able to see that this sudden product of his ' fit ' 

 was worthy of further examination, and be- 

 cause he devoted the rest of his life to its ap- 

 plication to new discoveries that he is held to 

 be the joint discoverer of the law of Natural 

 Selection. 



The origin of species by means of natural se- 

 lection is now universally accepted as a demon- 

 strated principle. "This," says Wallace, " is, 

 of course, partly due to the colossal work of 

 Herbert Spencer; but for one reader of his works 

 there are probably ten of Darwin's, and the es- 

 tablishment of the theory of the Origin of Species 

 by Means of Natural Selection is wholly Darwin's 

 work. That book, together with those which 

 succeeded it, has so firmly established the doc- 

 trine of progressive development of species by 

 the ordinary processes of multiplication and 

 variation that there is now, I believe, scarcely 

 a single living naturalist who doubts it. Prob- 

 ably so complete a changeof educated opinion, 

 on a question of such vast difficulty and com- 

 plexity, was never before effected in so short a 

 time. It not only places the name of Darwin 

 on a level with that of Newton, but his work 

 will always be considered as one of the greatest, 

 if not the very greatest, of the scientific 

 achievements of the nineteenth century, rich 

 as that century has been in great discoveries in 

 every department of physical science." 



To this we must add that, so long as the 

 ' Origin of Species ' holds its place on the shelves 

 of students, close beside it we shall find the 

 ' Malay Archipelago ; ' for the writer of this 

 review has no doubt that Wallace will be one of 

 those to whom future generations will say : 

 " Friend, Go up higher." 



W. K. Brooks. 



Johns Hopkins Universitv, 

 Baltimore. 



The Principles of Bacteriology. By De. Feedi- 

 NAND HuEPPE. Translated by Peofessoe 

 E. O. JoEDAN. Chicago, The Open Court 

 Publishing Co. Pp. 4.55. 



American bacteriologists certainly owe a debt 

 of gratitude to Professor Jordan for putting 

 into clear English this valuable contribution to 

 the science of bacteriology of Professor Hueppe, 

 of Prague. Hueppe's contribution to bacteri- 

 ology in this volume is no ordinary one. The 

 book is not simply a review of facts, but is de- 

 cidedly original. From the first to the last the 

 author and his opinions are decidedly in evi- 

 dence. Whether or not one is inclined to 

 agree with him in all his conclusions, no one 

 will question the force of the arguments with 

 which he upholds his opinions. 



After giving some general information in re- 

 gard to bacteria (in which the author accepts 

 the conclusion that the tuberculous bacillus is 

 not a bacterium at all) he deals in successive 

 chapters with the vital phenomena of bacteria, 

 pathogenic bacteria, the cause of infectious dis- 

 eases, cure by combating the cause, immunity, 

 prevention and history. The chapter upon 

 vital phenomena of bacteria is especially valu- 

 able, since it treats, in a comprehensive manner, 

 of the somewhat obscure subject of the chem- 

 istry of bacterial poisons and bacterial nu- 

 trients. 



But the most suggestive part of the work be- 

 gins with the chapter upon the cause of infec- 

 tious disease. Here he sets himself in opposi- 

 tion to the school of Koch by denying that 

 bacteria can in any proper sense be regarded as 

 the cause of disease, and especially repudiating 

 the idea that definite species of bateria are the 

 'specific' cause of 'specific' diseases. No one can 

 question Hueppe's thorough acquaintance with 

 the facts of modern bacteriology, and it seems a 

 little strange that he can hold a position so gener- 

 ally at variance with that of most bacteriolo- 

 gists. But we soon learn that his position is 

 not so dififerent from that of Koch as at first ap- 

 pears, and perhaps not so different as Hueppe 

 tries to make it appear. Hueppe is, of course, 

 fully aware that diseases are produced in ani- 

 mals by inoculating them with certain bacteria 

 cultures. His criticism is simply against the 

 claim that they are the cause of the disease and 



