152 DESIGN IN NATURE 



" The prominent doctrines enunciated by Goodsir in these lectures mainly rested on the existence of centres 

 of force connected with the nutritive and reproductive changes in the normal and pathological processes. The 

 term ' centres of nutrition,' or ' germinal centres,' as employed by him, obviously possessed a similar signification 

 to that which at this time (1868) is attached by Dr. Beale to his ' germinal matter,' and by various anatomists of 

 the most modern German school to their masses of nucleated protoplasm. The allocation to these definite ' centres,' 

 not only of the forces engaged in the nutrition of the textures, but in the reproduction of new forms both in normal 

 and pathological processes — a doctrine which has been in its special relations to pathology so systematically pursued 

 by Virchow and his disciples — was unmistakably present in the mind of Goodsir, and also articulately expressed 

 in the pathological papers in the series now referred to. Of the part which the nucleated cell plays in the processes 

 of nutrition, secretion, and reproduction, normal and otherwise, it may perhaps suffice to refer the reader to the 

 paper on ' Centres of Nutrition,' to that on ' Absorption and Ulceration,' to the memoirs on ' Secreting Structures,' 

 ' On Diseased Conditions of the Intestinal Glands,' and the part on the ' Structure and Pathology of the Kidney 

 and Liver.' In these various memoirs and essays the presence of the products of secretion within cells ; the increase 

 which takes place in the size of the cells, and the multiplication of their nuclei when influenced by morbid changes ; 

 the rupture of these enlarged proliferating cells, and the discharge of their nucleated contents ; all testify to the 

 largeness of his observation of cell-life, both physiologically and pathologically. In the first of these memoirs, not 

 only does he advocate the importance of the cell as a centre of nutrition, but argues that the organism is subdivided 

 into a number of departments, ' each containing a certain number of simple or developed cells, all of which hold 

 certain relations to one central or capital cell around which they are grouped.' This idea has since been freely 

 made use of by Professor Virchow, though, it must be admitted, without a due acknowledgment of the quarter in 

 which it was originally stated, and it has obviously influenced many of his physiological and pathological specu- 

 lations. This reticence is the more strange, as Virchow dedicated his work on ' Cellular Pathology ' to the Edinburgh 

 professor in the following compKmentary terms : ' To John Goodsir, F.R.S., &c., as one of the earliest and- most 

 acute observers of cell-life, both physiological and pathological, this work on Cellular Pathology is dedicated, as a 

 slight testimony of the deep respect and sincere admiration, by the author.' As Professor Virchow has travelled 

 over much of the ground that had been previously cultivated by Goodsir, it is no less remarkable than dis- 

 appointing to find in Virchow's volume of 433 pages but one reference to Goodsir, and that in connection with 

 an observation the merit of which might be more fairly ascribed to Dr. Martin Barry. This is scanty civility to 

 a scientific confrere whom he has designated ' one of the earliest and most acute observers of cell-fife ' — one whose 

 labours he has availed himself of, and whose opinions and words he has occasionally adapted." This subject was 

 fully discussed in the British Medical Journal (Jan. 12, 1861), in a leading article, " Cellular Pathology, its Present 

 Position," being a review of Virchow's work as translated by Chance. The passages referred to are placed in parallel 

 columns.' 



While Germany may be said to have taken the lead in the elaboration of the cell theory, there were able and 

 enthusiastic workers in the field both in London and Edinburgh, foremost among whom may be mentioned Sharpey, 

 Bowman, Carpenter, Gulfiver, Busk, Simon, Paget, Martin Barry, Allen Thomson, J. Hughes Bennett, and, as 

 has been shown, John Goodsir, who in some respects was facile princeps of the group. 



Various opinions as to the nature of the cell have been hazarded. Thus " Schwann looked upon the vitelline 

 membrane as the outer cell wall, the yolk substance the contents, the germinal vesicle the nucleus, and the macula 

 or maculm the nucleolus or nucleoK. Wagner and Henle rega,rded the ' germinal vesicle ' as the true cell, and the 

 other parts of the ovum as of the nature of superadded structures. Goodsir and Virchow held the cell to be the 

 ultimate morphological element in which there is any manifestation of fife, and that the seat of real action must 

 not be transferred to any point beyond the ceU." 



Latterly, the tendency has been to foHow Goodsir's lead, and to identify, more and more closely, the structure 

 and function of the cell. It is now claimed that the cell is not only the unit of structure, but also the unit of 

 function. " It is the ceU to which the consideration of every bodily function sooner or later drives us. In the 



' A ^^Titer in the Pall JMl Gazette, who seems to have fully realised the many admii-able points in Goodsir's character, says : "Since the 

 days of John Hunter, no greater master of anatomica science, no keener investigator of phenomena, no more comprehensive g^^asper of generalisa- 

 bons, no clearer or inore eifective e.xpositor, ever dedicated himself to the great subject of anatomy, human and comparative! thL Johif Goodsh- 

 The only regret wil be that he has left so few records of his discoveries and conclusions ; that in the keenness of his pursuit aftei scientific truth 

 he left himself so little time to gather up and embody m . lasting form his numerous incidental felicities of investigation and doctrine But 

 enough and more than enough, wil always remain to prove the brightness of his intelligence, the justness of his reasoning, and the ph losoXc 

 comprehensiveness of hi.s generalisations. ^„ subject, however remotely connected with his favourite one, but was perfectly known to him 

 When m 1854 he suddenly undertook the task of lecturing on natural history for his deceased friend Edward Forbes, he was foundTmaster^; 

 every point, in the science which was only accessory to his own. It is indeed impossible to estimate aright the loss which scientific Cow^Ih^p 

 and academic education sustain through such a death as his. Let us hope that the generous contagion of his teaching and tlie lustre nflW= 

 example will arouse in .some worthy disciple the masculine enthusiasm, the noble candour, and the chivalrous self-devotiSn which are wfp^V,! 

 tlic too early gi'uve of Jolm Goodsir. ouiiea iij 



