64 
POPULAR SCIENCE REVIEW. 
Moiitanvert, on the Glacier of the Maladetta, in the Spanish 
Pyrenees, 9,000 feet above the sea, and 3,000 feet higher than 
that of Montanvert, using all the precautions required by M. 
Pasteur. In addition, before cutting off the ends of their her- 
metically sealed tubes with a file, previously heated by a lamp, 
they held the flasks above their heads. Notwithstanding, in- 
fusoria appeared in all the infusions a few days afterwards.* 
To this communicaticn, presented to the Academy, Sept. 2l, 
1863, iSI. Pasteur replies, Nov. 2,f saying that he is rejoiced 
that his learned adversaries have gone to such an altitude to 
repeat his experiments ; but observes that they did not take 
the necessary precautions. They only had eight flasks, whereas 
he had twenty ; they shook their flasks before opening them, 
which he took care not to do ; and they had the imprudence to 
use a file instead of a pair of pincers with long bi’anches, 
heated in the flame of a lamp. He says that the thumb and 
fingers holding the file were too near the opening into the flask, 
and may have conveyed germs there, especially as they were 
not passed through the flame, as the file was.i He defies them, 
if they take sufficient precautions, to obtain infusoria in all 
their flasks.§ 
MM. Jolly and Musset accept the defiance of M. Pasteur, 
Nov. 16,11 in fact, on the 13th of June following, they send 
a memoir to the AcademyJ stating that they had returned to 
the Maladetta, this time with twenty-two flasks — that is, two 
more than were used by M. Pasteur — fulfilled all his conditions, 
not forgetting the yjincers with long branches, properly heated, 
and found that infusoria appeared in every flask without excep- 
tion in four days ;1[ and so ended this part of the controversy. 
The only conclusion I can draw from the numerous contra- 
dictory and ingenious communications presented to the Academy 
of Sciences during the last eight years on this matter is, that 
not the slightest proof is given by the chemists, with M. Pasteur 
at theii-»head, that fermentation and putrefaction are necessarily 
dependent on living germs existing in the atmosphere. They 
rather tend to show that these are phenomena of a chemical 
nature, as w;is ably maintained by Liebig.** We must conclude, 
therefore, that living germs are not necessarily the cause of 
putrefaction and fermentation; neither is it necessary to believe 
that ferments are living at all — they may be dead. This, if not 
admitted, seems to be implied by Pasteur himself, who tells us 
he can now excite these processes, not by fresh yeast only, but 
♦ “ t ’omptf*8-Kei)du8,” tome Ivii. p. f Ibid. p. 724. 
* Ibid, p, 72/). § n»id. p. 720. 
II Ibid. pp. 842-84/), ^ Ibid, tome Ivi. p. 1122. 
“ Letters on Chemistry/’ letters 18 and 19. 
