PRACTICAL NOTES ON “ HETEIlOGENESIS. , 
339 
Tlie former part of the hypothesis — that living* forms origi- 
nate in not-living elements — arise, de novo , from dead matter — 
has received, and is still receiving, the most careful and persis- 
tent consideration of biologists ; and the present balance of facts 
may safely he accepted from the pen of Professor Huxley, who, 
in a most comprehensive and elaborate article on “ Biology, ” in 
the edition of “ Encyclopaedia Britannica,” now passing through 
the press, affirms that “ The biological sciences are sharply 
marked off from the abiological, or those which treat of the 
phenomena manifested by not-living matter, in so far as the 
properties of living matter distinguish it absolutely from all 
other kinds of things, and as the present state of knowledge 
furnishes us with no link between the living and the not- 
living.” * 
But the latter part of the hypothesis with which we are now 
dealing — that of the production of one kind of organism by an- 
other of an altogether different nature — although it has had some 
irresistible refutations, has not been seriously considered by the ma- 
jority of leading biologists. The reason is plain. It is absolutely 
unsustained by facts. It is based on careless and incompetent 
observation, or exaggerated inference. It is out of harmony with 
all the most valuable observations of the most careful observers, 
and contradicts all we have otherwise learned of nature's methods. 
Its refutation, so far as it need be accomplished, may be safely re- 
legated to specialists to be dealt with in detail, and this in more 
than one instance has been already done with remarkable effect. 
The philosophical biologist can afford to discard it ; it does not 
require his serious consideration ; his experience has taught him 
its fallacy ; whilst its influence upon the student can neither be 
great nor lasting. To every mind, indeed, it should be apparent 
that, before such remarkable affirmations are presented as 
scientific facts , every pains should have been taken to make 
them such. These extraordinary “transformations,” which are 
not only alleged, but plentifully figured, ought surely to have 
been so scrutinised, repeated, controlled, and purged of all fal- 
lacy, as to make the recorded phenomena at least as certain as 
the manner of recording them would lead the reader to infer it 
was, and as the seriousness of the issue demanded. But that 
this has not been the case is painfully apparent. In the in- 
stances of reputed 66 transformation ” which are the result of Dr. 
Bastian’s personal investigation, there is a looseness of method, 
and a disregard of detail, minutiae, and above all, continuity of 
research, which stands in singular contrast to the precision and 
persistence of modern science, even in the simplest matters. 
But the surprise which this awakens is enhanced by the fact that 
* Vol.iii. p. 679, 9th Ed. 1875. 
z 2 
