Parker. } 104 [November 6, 
forms. In other examples, hay and manure were used in making the 
infusion. The first record states that a few rod-like bacteria were 
seen, and also crystalline cubes, which by aggregation resembled 
Sarcina. These flasks were opened in from ten to forty days. Every 
statement made at the last examination coincides exactly with the 
first record. So, in every case running through the whole series of 
experiments, there is the most perfect agreement between the two 
records. So much alike are they, that the language employed in both 
descriptions is almost identical. 
From these experiments, we are forced to the conclusion that there 
is not a shadow of evidence that any of the organisms found in the 
infusions, originated in them after heating. All the facts on the con- 
trary go to show that the infusions were not capable of originating 
life. It is very common for those who hold the theory of Archebiosis 
to state, as the result of experiments, that only a part of the whole 
number of flasks containing the same fluids, prepared at the same time, 
and surrounded by the same conditions are prolific, the rest being 
sterile. This seems to be impossible, for it would compel us to admit 
that one part of a particular infusion has the life-producing property, 
while the other has not. Now this state of things might be ex- 
plained if some of the fluids were exposed to the air by being im- 
perfectly sealed. But when all are hermetically sealed, they are re- 
moved from all external influences except light and heat; and as 
each fluid receives the same proportion of these, this important vari- 
ation is unaccountable, and difficult of belief. The question arises 
why investigators in this field of inquiry, conducting experiments 
upon the same general plan, reach such different results. The ex- 
periments described above throw some light upon this subject. 
Judging from these experiments, different results seem to arise 
from a variety of causes, some of which I will mention. In general 
it may be stated that the different results do not arise from what is 
seen, so much as from a wrong interpretation of observed phenom- 
ena; and especially from not paying due regard to the probable 
sources from which many vitalized bodies may be derived. Many 
errors have originated from ascribing to vital action, the motion that 
all microscopic bodies assume when their own density nearly ap- 
proaches that of the fluid in which they are found, and which may 
be due to evaporation, or to molecular or such other changes as the 
fluids may be undergoing. Another source of error is the belief that 
filtering liquids frees them from all organisms previously contained — 
