Part 41

IV.--Epigenesis or Evolution?

The derivative origin of species, then, being at present the most admissible one, and the retrospective survey of such species showing convergence, as time recedes, to more simplified or generalised organisations, the result to which the suggested train of thought inevitably leads is very analogous in each instance. If to kosmos or the mundane system have been allotted powers equivalent to the development of the several grades of life, may not the demonstrated series of conversions of force have also included that into the vital form?

In the last century, physiologists were divided as to the principle guiding the work of organic development.

The "evolutionists" contended that the new being preexisted in a complete state of formation, needing only to be vivified by impregnation in order to commence the series of expansions or disencasings, culminating in the independent individual.

The "epigenesists" held that both the germ and its subsequent organs were built up of juxtaposed molecules according to the operation of a developmental force, or "nisus formations."

At the present day the question may seem hardly worth the paper on which it is referred to. Nevertheless, "pre-existence of germs" and evolution are logically inseparable from the idea of species by primary miraculously-created individuals. Cuvier, therefore, maintained both as firmly as did Haller. In the debates of 1830 I remained the thrall of that dogma in regard to the origin of single-celled organisms whether in or out of body. Every result of formfaction, I believed, with most physiologists, to be the genetic outcome of a pre-existing "cell." The first was due to miraculous interposition and suspension of ordinary laws; it contained potentially all future possible cells. Cell-development exemplified evolution of pre-existing germs, the progeny of the primary cell. They progagated themselves by self-division, or by "proliferation" of minutes granules or atoms, which, when properly nourished, again multiplied by self-division, and grew to the likeness of the parent cells.

It seems to me more consistent with the present phase of dynamical science and the observed graduations of living things to suppose the sarcode or the "protogenal" jelly-speck should be formable through the concurrence of conditions favouring such combination of their elements, and involving a change of force productive of their contractions and extensions, molecular attractions, and repulsions--and the sarcode has so become, from the period when its irrelative repetitions resulted in the vast indefinite masses of the "eozoon," exemplifying the earliest process of "formification" or organic crystallisation--than that all existing sarcodes or "protogenes" are the result of genetic descent from a germ or cell due to a primary act of miraculous interposition.

I prefer, while indulging in such speculations, to consider the various daily nomogeneously developed forms of protozoal or protistal jellies, sarcodes, and single-celled organisms, to have been as many roots from which the higher grades have ramified than that the origin of the whole organic creation is to be referred, as the Egyptian priests did that of the universe, to a single egg.

Amber or steel, when magnetised, seem to exercise "selection"; they do not attract all substances alike. A speck of protogenal jelly or sarcode, if alive, shows analogous relations to certain substances; but the soft yielding tissue allows the part next the attractive matter to move thereto, and then, by retraction, to draw such matter into the sarcodal mass, which overspreads, dissolves, and assimilates it. The term "living" in the one case is correlative with the term "magnetic" in the other. A man perceives ripe fruit; he stretches out his hand, plucks, masticates, swallows, and digests it.

The question then arises whether the difference between such series of actions in the man and the attractive and assimilative movement of the amæba be greater or less than the difference between these acts of the amæba and the attracting and retaining acts of the magnet.

The question, I think, may be put with some confidence as to the quality of the ultimate reply whether the amæbal phenomena are so much more different, or so essentially different, from the magnetic phenomena than they are from the mammalian phenomena, as to necessitate the invocation of a special miracle for their manifestation. It is analogically conceivable that the same cause which has endowed His world with power convertible into magnetic, electric, thermotic and other forms or modes of force, has also added the conditions of conversion into the vital force.

From protozoa or protista to plants and animals the graduation is closer than from magnetised iron to vitalised sarcode. From reflex acts of the nervous system animals rise to sentient and volitional ones. And with the ascent are associated brain-cells progressively increasing in size and complexity. Thought relates to the "brain" of man as does electricity to the nervous "battery" of the torpedo; both are forms of force and the results of action of their respective organs.

Each sensation affects a cerebral fibre, and, in so affecting it, gives it the faculty of repeating the action, wherein memory consists and sensation in a dream.

If the hypothesis of an abstract entity produces psychological phenomena by playing upon the brain as a musician upon his instrument be rejected, and these phenomena be held to be the result of cerebral actions, an objection is made that the latter view is "materialistic" and adverse to the notion of an independent, indivisible, "immaterial," mental principle or soul.

But in the endeavour to comprehend clearly and explain the functions of the combination of forces called "brain," the physiologist is hindered and troubled by the views of the nature of those cerebral forces which the needs of dogmatic theology have imposed on mankind. How long physiologists would have entertained the notion of a "life," or "vital principle," as a distinct entity if freed from this baneful influence may be questioned; but it can be truly affirmed that physiology has now established and does accept the truth of that statement of Locke--"the life, whether of a material or immaterial substance, is not the substance itself, but an affection of it."

RUDOLF VIRCHOW

Cellular Pathology

Rudolf Virchow, the son of a small farmer and shopkeeper, was born at Schivelbein, in Pomerania, on October 13, 1821. He graduated in medicine at Berlin, and was appointed lecturer at the University, but his political enthusiasm brought him into disfavour. In 1849 he was removed to Wurzburg, where he was made professor of pathology, but in 1856 he returned to Berlin as Professor and Director of the Pathological Institute, and there acquired world-wide fame. His celebrated work, "Cellular Pathology as based on Histology," published in 1856, marks a distinct epoch in the science. Virchow established what Lord Lister describes as "the true and fertile doctrine that every morbid structure consists of cells which have been derived from pre-existing cells as a progeny." Virchow was not only distinguished as a pathologist, he also gained considerable fame as an archæologist and anthropologist. During the wars of 1866 and 1870-71, he equipped and drilled hospital corps and ambulance squads, and superintended hospital trains and the Berlin military hospital. War over, he directed his attention to sanitation and the sewage problems of Berlin. Virchow was a voluminous author on a variety of subjects, perhaps his most well-known works being "Famine Fever" and "Freedom of Science." He died on September 5, 1902.

The Cell and the Tissues

The chief point in the application of Histology to Pathology is to obtain recognition of the fact that the cell is really the ultimate morphological element in which there is any manifestation of life.

In certain respects animal cells differ from vegetable cells; but in essentials they are the same; both consist of matter of a nitrogenous nature.

When we examine a simple cell, we find we can distinguish morphological parts. In the first place, we find in the cell a round or oval body known as the nucleus. Occasionally the nucleus is stallate or angular; but as a rule, so long as cells have vital power, the nucleus maintains a nearly constant round or oval shape. The nucleus in its turn, in completely developed cells, very constantly encloses another structure within itself--the so-called nucleolus. With regard to the question of vital form, it cannot be said of the nucleolus that it appears to be an absolute essential, and in a considerable number of young cells it has as yet escaped detection. On the other hand, we regularly meet with it in fully-developed, older forms, and it therefore seems to mark a higher degree of development in the cell.

According to the view which was put forward in the first instance by Schleiden, and accepted by Schwann, the connection between the three co-existent cell-constituents was long thought to be of this nature: that the nucleolus was the first to show itself in the development of tissues, by separating out of a formative fluid (blastema, cyto-blastema), that it quickly attained a certain size, that then fine granules were precipitated out of the blastema and settled around it, and that about these there condensed a membrane. In this way a nucleus was formed about which new matter gradually gathered, and in due time produced a little membrane. This theory of the formation of the cell is designated the theory of free cell formation--a theory which has been now almost entirely abandoned.

It is highly probable that the nucleus plays an extremely important part within the cell--a part less connected with the function and specific office of the cell, than with its maintenance and multiplication as a living part. The specific (animal) function is most distinctly manifested in muscles, nerves, and gland cells, the peculiar actions of which--contraction, sensation, and secretion--appear to be connected in no direct manner with the nuclei. But the permanency of the cell as an element seems to depend on nucleus, for all cells which lose their nuclei quickly die, and break up, and disappear.

Every organism, whether vegetable or animal, must be regarded as a progressive total, made up of a larger or smaller number of similar or dissimilar cells. Just as a tree constitutes a mass arranged in a definite manner in which, in every single part, in the leaves as in the root, in the trunk as in the blossom, cells are discovered to be the ultimate elements, so it is with the forms of animal life. Every animal presents itself as a sum of vital unities, every one of which manifests all the characteristics of life. The characteristics and unity of life cannot be limited to any one particular spot in an organism (for instance, to the brain of a man) but are to be found only in the definite, constantly recurring structure, which every individual element displays. A so-called individual always represents an arrangement of a social kind, in which a number of individual existences are mutually dependent, but in such a way that every element has its own special action, and even though it derive its stimulus to activity from other parts, yet alone affects the actual performance of its duties.

Between cells there is a greater or less amount of a homogeneous substance--the intercellular substance. According to Schwann, the intercellular substance was cyto-blastema destined for the development of new cells; I believe this is not so, I believe that the intercellular substance is dependent in a certain definite manner upon the cells, and that certain parts of it belong to one cell and parts to another.

At various times, fibres, globules, and elementary granules, have been regarded as histological starting-points. Now, however, we have established the general principle that no development of any kind begins de novo and that as spontaneous generation is impossible in the case of entire organisms, so also it is impossible in the case of individual parts. No cell can build itself up out of non-cellular material. Where a cell arises, there a cell must have previously existed (omnis cellula e cellula), just as an animal can spring only from an animal, and a plant only from a plant. No developed tissues can be traced back to anything but a cell.

If we wish to classify tissues, a very simple division offers itself. We have (a) tissues which consist exclusively of cells, where cell lies close to cell. (b) Tissues in which the cells are separated by a certain amount of intercellular substance. (c) Tissues of a high or peculiar type, such as the nervous and muscular systems and vessels. An example of the first class is seen in the epithelial tissues. In these, cell lies close to cell, with nothing between.