CELL THEORIES. 125 
conceptions ; and Virchow dedicates his “ Cellular 
Pathology ” to Goodsir, as “one of the earliest and 
most acute observers of cell life.’ And if I may 
again quote one neglected anatomist in support 
of the claims of another, it may be mentioned that 
in 1845, Goodsir, in his paper on “Centres of 
Nutrition,” which never admits the possibility of 
cells originating otherwise than from pre-existing 
cells, declares that “ for the first consistent account 
of the development of cells from a parent centre 
we are indebted to the researches of Martin 
Barry.” However, we are informed by the Ger- 
man Professor, that Remak, in his “ Entwicklungs- 
geschichte,” 1852-1855, “has the merit of chiefly 
contributing to the abandonment of the doctrine 
of cell formation from free blastema,” and that 
the same observer established the law that cells 
are developed by division alone in pathological 
processes also. Then follows the remark, naive 
enough, considering these statements about Re- 
mak, that Virchow’s “well-grounded statement 
made in 1855, ‘Omnis cellula e cellula, really 
constitutes the basis of our present cell theory.” 
Virchow’s real claim to consideration in the history 
of cell theories is neither grasped nor mentioned, 
namely, that by displaying in their full importance 
the connective-tissue-corpuscles, he afforded the 
