Alfred Russel Wallace: Letters and Reminiscences, Vol. 1Wallace, Alfred Russel
History
Alfred Russel Wallace: Letters and Reminiscences, Vol. 1
Wallace, Alfred Russel
Naturalists -- Correspondence; Wallace, Alfred Russel, 1823-1913
_Down, Beckenham, Kent. August 28, 1872._
My dear Wallace,--I have at last finished the gigantic job of reading
Dr. Bastian's book, and have been deeply interested in it. You wished to
hear my impression, but it is not worth sending.
He seems to me an extremely able man, as indeed I thought when I read
his first essay. His general argument in favour of archebiosis[92] is
wonderfully strong; though I cannot think much of some few of his
arguments. The result is that I am bewildered and astonished by his
statements, but am not convinced; though on the whole it seems to me
probable that archebiosis is true. I am not convinced partly I think
owing to the deductive cast of much of his reasoning; and I know not
why, but I never feel convinced by deduction, even in the case of H.
Spencer's writings. If Dr. B.'s book had been turned upside down, and he
had begun with the various cases of heterogenesis, and then gone on to
organic and afterwards to saline solutions, and had then given his
general arguments, I should have been, I believe, much more influenced.
I suspect, however, that my chief difficulty is the effect of old
convictions being stereotyped on my brain. I must have more evidence
that germs or the minutest fragments of the lowest forms are always
killed by 212° of Fahr. Perhaps the mere reiteration of the statements
given by Dr. B. by other men whose judgment I respect and who have
worked long on the lower organisms would suffice to convince me. Here is
a fine confession of intellectual weakness; but what an inexplicable
frame of mind is that of belief.
As for Rotifers and Tardigrades being spontaneously generated, my mind
can no more digest such statements, whether true or false, than my
stomach can digest a lump of lead.
Dr. B. is always comparing archebiosis as well as growth to
crystallisation; but on this view a Rotifer or Tardigrade is adapted to
its humble conditions of life by a happy accident; and this I cannot
believe. That observations of the above nature may easily be altogether
wrong is well shown by Dr. B. having declared to Huxley that he had
watched the entire development of a leaf of Sphagnum. He must have
worked with very impure materials in some cases, as plenty of organisms
appeared in a saline solution not containing an atom of nitrogen.
I wholly disagree with Dr. B. about many points in his latter chapters.
Thus the frequency of generalised forms in the older strata seems to me
clearly to indicate the common descent with divergence of more recent
forms.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account