SCIENCE- GOSSIP. 



the enormously more complicated protoplasm 

 whence they are derived the atomic systems have 

 an internal atomic construction identical with 

 that they possess on passing out of the organism. 

 This is certainly the case in all other branches of 

 organic chemistry, and I see no necessity for 

 making an arbitrary assumption that it is otherwise 

 in living matter. One may, therefore, assume that 

 protoplasm consists of a number of atomic systems 

 or groupings — we may call them " units." each 

 with a •' kernel, - ' or " core,'" of carbon atoms, and 

 attached to this core a number of nitrogen atoms. 

 These nitrogen atoms may serve to connect up 

 system with system in an unstable way, so that 

 system is eternally breaking away from system. 

 and a kind of circulating internal movement of 

 these atomic groupings results. In the way sug- 

 gested above, nitrogen may be the " linking " 

 element — the element that is eternally oscillating 

 between adjacent groups ; but. so far as I can dis- 

 cover, there is no chemical evidence that nitrogen 

 ever forms the li core " of a complete atomic 

 grouping. 



Animals are internally connected up by a com- 

 plex circulating system, which serves to convey 

 nourishment to every part of the body. 



I would extend the principle further, and assume 

 that in every fragment of living protoplasm there 

 is an analogous stream of atoms continually circu- 

 lating throughout all its parts ; that, in fact, a 

 fragment of living matter is a fragment in a state 

 of organised motion. All inert bodies — for ex- 

 ample, a crystal — are eternally quivering with 

 motion, but their motion is not directed. I would 

 assume that the difference between a living frag- 

 ment and a crystal is simply that, in the one case, 

 the motion of the atoms is directed so as to produce 

 continual motion, whereas in the other case the 

 motion is not thus directed. 



If carbon is truly the " core " of each proto- 

 plasmic unit, the internal cohesion of every such 

 unit must depend upon the central attractive force 

 of this " core." The force with which the nitrogen 

 is bound to the carbon core must be a junction of 

 the attractive strengths, both of carbon and nitro- 

 gen. At the temperature of living matter these 

 forces are, according to my theory, almost balanced. 

 Consequently there results a chemical union of 

 extreme unstability, so unstable that the ever- 

 varying influence of the neighbouring atoms is 

 sufficient to cause a continual breakdown of the 

 system, thus giving rise to the phenomenon of 

 vitality. 



It will be noticed that the fundamental charac- 

 teristic of the carbon compounds is their plasticity 

 or liquidity. Even those compounds of carbon 

 which are solid at ordinary temperatures melt at 

 quite moderate temperatures. When the whole 

 range of compounds of an element are stamped 

 with a common property, we may assume 

 that, it is conferred upon them by the properties 



of the central atom. I would therefore suggest 

 that at normal temperatures the degree of 

 motion of the atoms in carbon compounds is such 

 that, when set in opposition to the attractive 

 strength of the carbon atoms, a balance is at- 

 tained, and the carbon atom has but little external 

 energy left over wherewith to cause such an 

 intense internal cohesion of the neighbouring 

 molecules as is characteristic of the silicon com- 

 pounds. Such a plasticity or fluidity is of the utmost 

 importance in order to ensure a continuous internal 

 movement in the living structure. The nitrogen 

 compounds have by no means the monopoly of unsta- 

 bility. Indeed, an eminent chemist (-) has declared 

 that the chemistry of the carbon compounds is 

 peculiarly the region of unstable compounds. One 

 cannot fail to be struck with the numerous and 

 deep-seated changes that are continually occurring- 

 among carbon compounds. 



The slightest elevation of temperature effects 

 chemical changes in countless numbers of purely 

 carbon compounds. In this respect the carbon 

 compounds are quite as unstable as the nitrogen 

 compounds, although free from that rapidity of 

 change that characterises the latter. The decom- 

 positions of the carbon compounds are slow, and it 

 is this " time element " that makes them appear 

 so much more stable than the nitrogen com- 

 pounds. 



The unstability of the carbon compounds is an 

 intramolecular unstability. and takes the form of 

 isomeric changes. A slight increase of tempera- 

 ture usually suffices to transform a compound into 

 its isomeric modification. 



I take it that such a fundamental characteristic 

 throughout all the range of its compounds indicates 

 that the carbon atom is unable at ordinary tempera- 

 tures to fully control the motion of the attached 

 atoms, and consequently, when this motion is in- 

 creased, intramolecular rearrangement takes place. 



I therefore claim for carbon the property of 

 being an element in its "critical" state, although 

 Dr. Allen's view, that nitrogen is also such an 

 element, cannot be contested. 



Dr. Allen justly remarks that in order to effect 

 important changes among inorganic substances 

 such as the silicates, we require the employment 

 of strong chemical reagents, such as the caustic 

 alkalies and the like, as well as a high tempera- 

 ture : whereas in a living being the range of 

 temperature during which the processes of growth. 

 secretion, or excretion goes on is restricted to a 

 few degrees. I maintain that were the silicates at 

 a sufficiently high temperature, such smooth iso- 

 meric changes that characterise the carbon com- 

 pounds would certainly become manifest. In 

 contradistinction to these imperceptible intra- 

 molecular transformations of the carbon com- 

 pounds, we may contrast the violent, abrupt, and 



(2) Xernst. "Theoretical Chemistry," p. 570- 

 Ed. 1895. 



