54 THE CELL DOCTRINE. 



Barry."* We have carefully read the references in 

 each instance. In Bowman's paperf we can recog- 

 nize a brief reference to a possible influence of the 

 cell upon nutrition, but none as to its origin, in the 

 following sentence: "It is, however, not impossible, 

 that in all these cases, there may be during develop- 

 ment, and subsequently, a further and successive de- 

 posit of corpuscles (nuclei) from which both growth 

 and nutrition may take their source." That Dr. 

 Barry's paper is more explicit has been shown. 



REMAK, 1853-55. 



Remak;]: defended most effectually the view that 

 cells originate from previously existing cells by divi- 

 sion, and that at least in the early stages of the de- 

 velopment of the embryo, no other mode of cell devel- 

 opment occurs than by division. Remak also con- 

 tended for, and according to Strieker,§ established 

 the same law in respect to the pathological develop- 

 ment of cells, although Strieker admits also that 

 Yirchow played an important part in the extension 

 of our knowledge in this direction. 



HUXLEY, 1853.11 

 Allusion has already been made to Prof. Huxley 



* Goodslr, Anatomical. Memoirs, yol. ii, p. 889, and note on 

 pp. 390-91. 



■j- Bowman, " Muscle," Philos. Transac, 1840, pt. i, p. 485. 



X Bemak, Untersuchung ilber die Entwickelung der Wirtel- 

 thiere. Berlin, 1852-55. 



g Strieker, Manual of Human and Corporative Histology. New 

 Syd, Soc. Transl., 1870, p. 84. 



II We presume it will scarcely be inferred by any reader, that 



