488 
POPULAR SCIENCE REVIEW. 
pendent existence. If it was required to form a tendon, cells were arranged in 
rows, their walls allowed to become confluent, and their nuclei the greater 
part to disappear. Muscle, in the same manner, was said to be built up through 
the agency of these wonderful little organisms ; and so on with every other 
tissue in the body. Every animal organ was originally a cell or congeries of 
cells ; even the ovum itself was a cell in which the “ germinal vesicle ” was 
the nucleus, and the “ spot ” the nucleolus. Such was the creed almost uni- 
versally adopted, and Dr. Carpenter was its warm supporter. 
The most important character, perhaps, which serves to distinguish organic 
from inorganic matter is its constant liability to alteration ; so it is with 
philosophy, or at least with those branches of it which are connected with 
medical science. That which we are prepared to swear by to-day we may 
have to regard as unworthy of confidence to-morrow. It must not, therefore, 
surprise our readers to learn that the view which Dr. Carpenter clung to 
with feelings of affection for so many years he has at length resigned. The 
most important feature in the present edition of his manual is his surrender 
of the cell-doctrine, which he effects in the following manner : — 
‘‘ For it now appears to be conclusively established that the cell with its 
membranous wall, nucleus, and contents is no longer to be taken as the 
primitive type of organization ; but that the nearest approach to this type is 
to be found in the segment of ‘‘ proto-plasmic substance,’ or ‘ sarcode,’ which 
forms the entire body of the lowest animals ; and, further, that the portion 
of the fabric of even the highest animals which is actively concerned in nutri- 
tion, is a proto-plasmic substance diffused through every part, its segments 
being sometimes in continuous connection with others, sometimes isolated by 
the formation of cell- walls around them.” 
The author having thus given in his recantation, expresses his obligations 
to Dr. Beale, whose researches upon the structure and development of tissues, 
have been the philosophic beacon which guided him through the mist in 
which he had previously existed. This is what surprises us most of all in 
Dr. Carpenter’s treatise, for we fancy the writer has afforded but scant 
justice to one of our most able savants, whose opinions, nevertheless, he 
appears to have more fully adopted than those of Professor Beale. Why has 
Dr. Carpenter never mentioned the name of Thomas Henry Huxley in alluding 
to this subject, — a name which must live for ever in the annals of histology as 
that of the most formidable opponent the cell-doctrine has ever encountered ? 
Twelve years ago Professor Huxley, single-handed, attacked the very founda- 
tion of the ceU-theory. The doctrine was then in the zenith of its fame, and 
the difficulties which attended an onslaught on it were immense ; yet, not- 
withstanding these circumstances. Professor Huxley’s analysis of it must have 
convinced all unprejudiced minds that it was unworthy of support. It 
appears, therefore, to us a little unfair to give all the credit of conversion to 
Dr. Beale, who, though his investigations have been of the highest order, 
does not justly take precedence of the School of Mines Professor as the 
reformer of histological science. Further, it is not very easy to see in what 
Dr. Carpenter’s present opinions (which differ certainly from Professor 
Beale’s) are distinct from those of Huxley. The latter regards all tissues as 
being composed of two elements, jperiplast and encloplast. The periplast cor- 
