Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

T.H. Huxley's Criticism of German Cell Theory: An Epigenetic and Physiological Interpretation of Cell Structure

  • Published:
Journal of the History of Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 1853, the young Thomas Henry Huxley published a long review of German cell theory in which he roundly criticized the basic tenets of the Schleiden-Schwann model of the cell. Although historians of cytology have dismissed Huxley’s criticism as based on an erroneous interpretation of cell physiology, the review is better understood as a contribution to embryology. “The Cell-theory” presents Huxley’s “epigenetic” interpretation of histological organization emerging from changes in the protoplasm to replace the “preformationist” cell theory of Schleiden and Schwann (as modified by Albert vonKölliker), which posited the nucleus as the seat of organic vitality. Huxley’s views influenced a number of British biologists, who continued to oppose German cell theory well into the twentieth century. Yet Huxley was pivotal in introducing the new German program of “scientific zoology” to Britain in the early 1850s,championing its empiricist methodology as a means to enact broad disciplinary and institutional reforms in British natural history.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anonymous. 1891. “Thomas Wharton Jones.” British Medical Journal 2: 1175-1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, John R. 1988. The Cell Theory. A Restatement, History, and Critique. Rpt. edn. New York and London: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, Martin. 1837. “On the Unity of Structure in the Animal Kingdom.” Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal 22: 116-141.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1837. “Further Observations on the Unity of Structure in the Animal Kingdom, and on Congenital Anomalies, including ‘Hermaphrodites’ With Some Remarks on Embryology, as Facilitating Animal Nomenclature, Classification, and the Study of Comparative Anatomy.” Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal 22: 345-364.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1838. “Researches in Embryology. First Series.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 2: 302.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1847. “On the Nucleus of the Animal and Vegetable ‘Cell.’ ” Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal 43: 201-229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, Ruth. 1998. “Huxley, Lubbock, and Half a Dozen Others: Professionals and Gentlemen in the Formation of the X Club, 1851-1864.” Isis 89: 410-444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, Alice Levine. 1976. “Edmund B. Wilson as a Preformationist: Some Reasons for His Acceptance of the Chromosome Theory.” Journal of the History of Biology 9: 29-57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bracegirdle, Brian. 1978. A History of Microtechnique. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchdahl, Gert. 1973. “Leading Principles and Induction: The Methodology of Matthias Schleiden.” In Foundations of Scientific Method, ed. R. N. Giere and R. S. Westfall, pp. 32-52. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannon, Susan Faye. 1978. Science in Culture: The Early Victorian Period. New York: Dawson and Science History Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardwell, D. S. L. 1972. The Organisation of Science in England. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1837. “On Unity of Function in Organized Beings.” Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal 23: 92-114.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1840. “Schwann and Schleiden on the Identical Structure of Plants and Animals.” British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review 9: 495-528.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1851. “On the Mutual Relations of the Vital and Physical Forces”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society pt. 2: 727-757.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1856a. The Microscope and its Revelations. London.

  • — 1856b. “President's Address.” Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science 4: 17-33.

  • — 1888. Nature and Man: Essays Scientific and Philosophical, ed. J. E. Carpenter. London.

  • Chambers, Robert. 1994. Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation and Other Evolutionary Writings, ed. James A. Secord. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, Frederick B. 1989. “The Guts of the Matter. Infusoria from Ehrenberg to Bütschli: 1838-1876.” Journal of the History of Biology 22: 189-213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1991. “The Rise of Classical Descriptive Embryology.” In A Conceptual History of Modern Embryology, ed. Scott Gilbert. New York/London: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, William. 1965. “Cell, Nucleus, and Inheritance: An Historical Study.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 109: 124-158.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1971. Biology in the Nineteenth Century: Problems of Form, Function, and Transformation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, Charles. 1985-. Correspondence of Charles Darwin, ed. F. H. Burkhardt et al., 11 vols. to date. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desmond, Adrian. 1982. Archetypes and Ancestors, Palaeontology in Victorian London, 1850-1875. London: Blond and Briggs.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1989. The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1997. Huxley: From Devil's Disciple to Evolution's High Priest. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duchesneau, François. 1987. Genèse de la Théorie Cellulaire. Montreal: Bellarmin/Paris: Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1994. “Kölliker and Schwann's Cell Theory.” In La Storia della Medicina e della Scienza tra Archivio e Laboratorio, ed. Guido Cimino and CarloMaccagni, pp. 103-121. Florence: Leo S. Olschki.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehlers, Ernst. 1885. “Carl Theodor Ernst von Siebold. Eine biographische Skizze.” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Zoologie 42: i-xxiii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley, John. 1982. Gametes and Spores: Ideas About Sexual Reproduction, 1750-1914. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, Edward. 1848. A Monograph of the British Naked-Eyed Medusae. London.

  • Foster, Michael. 1895. “A Few More Words on Thomas Henry Huxley.” Nature 52: 319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geison, Gerald L. 1969. “The Protoplasmic Theory of Life and the Vitalist-Mechanist Debate.” Isis 60: 273-292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1978. Michael Foster and the Cambridge School of Physiology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gooday, Graeme. 1991. “ ‘Nature’ in the Laboratory: Domestication and Discipline with the Microscope in Victorian Life Science.” British Journal for the History of Science 24: 307-341.

  • di Gregorio, Mario. 1984. T. H. Huxley's Place in Natural Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • — with the assistance of Nick Gill. 1990. Charles Darwin's Marginalia, Vol. 1. New York and London: Garland Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, Stephen Jay. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haeckel, Ernst. 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Berlin.

  • Haines, George. 1957. German Influence Upon English Education and Science, 1800-1866. New London, CT.

  • Hall, Vance. 1979. “The Contribution of the Physiologist,William Benjamin Carpenter (1813-1885) to the Development of the Correlation of Forces and the Conservation of Energy.” Medical History 23: 129-155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, Henry. 1999. The Birth of the Cell. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollowday, Eric D. 1995. “Thomas Henry Huxley and the Microscope.” Quekett Journal of Microscopy 37: 437-454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, Arthur Frederick William. 1959. A History of Cytology. New York: Abelard-Schuman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, Leonard, ed. 1913. Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, 2nd edn., 3 vols. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, Julian S. 1936. T. H. Huxley's Diary of the Voyage of H.M.S. Rattlesnake. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, Thomas Henry. 1845. “On a Hitherto Undescribed Structure in the Human Hair Sheath.” London Medical Gazette 1: 1340.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1851a. “Observations Upon the Anatomy and Physiology of Salpa and Pyrosoma.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 2(1): 51-53.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1851b. “On the Auditory Organs in the Crustacea.” Annals and Magazine of Natural History 2nd ser. 7: 374.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1851c. “Zoological Notes and Observations Made on Board H.M.S. Rattlesnake During the Years 1846-1850. Pt. 3: Upon Thalassicolla, a New Zoophyte.” Annals and Magazine of Natural History 2nd ser. 8.

  • — 1851d. “Report upon the Researches of Prof. Müller into the Anatomy and Development of the Echinoderms.” Annals and Magazine of Natural History 2nd ser. 8: 1-19.

  • — 1852. “Upon Animal Individuality.” Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain 1 (1851-1854), 184-189.

  • — 1853a. “On the Morphology of the Cephalous Mollusca, as Illustrated by the Anatomy of Certain Heteropoda and Pteropoda Collected during the Voyage of H.M.S. Rattlesnake in 1846-50.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 1.

  • — 1853b. “On the Identity of Structure of Plants and Animals.” Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain (1851-1854) 1: 298-302; Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal 53: 172-177.

  • — 1853c. “The Cell-Theory.” British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review 12: 285-314.

  • — (trans.). 1853. “Fragments Relating to Philosophical Zoology. Selected from the Works of K. E. von Baer.” In Scientific Memoirs, Selected from the Transactions of Foreign Academies of Science, and From Journals. Natural History, ed. Arthur Henfrey and T. H. Huxley. London.

  • — 1854. Review of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, 10th edn. London; 1853. British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review 13: 341.

  • — 1855. “On Certain Zoological Arguments Commonly Adduced in Favour of the Hypothesis of the Progressive Development of Animal Life in Time.” Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain (1854-1858) 2: 82-85.

  • — 1861. “On the Nature of the Earliest Stages of the Development of Animals.” Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain (1858-1862) 3: 315-317.

  • — 1870. On the Physical Basis of Life. New Haven, CN: Charles C. Chatfield.

  • — 1878. “Biology.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th edn., Vol. 3, pp. 679-690. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

  • — 1879. “President's Address.” Journal of the Quekett Microscopical Club 4: 374-379.

  • — 1880. “The Coming of Age of the Origin of Species.” Nature 22: 1-4.

  • — 1898-1901. The Scientific Memoirs of Thomas Henry Huxley, ed. Michael Foster and E. Ray Lankester, 4 vols. + supplement. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacyna, L. S. 1983a. “Immanence or Transcendence: Theories of Life and Organization in Britain, 1790-1835.” Isis 74: 311-329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1983b. “John Goodsir and the Making of Cellular Reality.” Journal of the History of Biology 16: 75-99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1984. “The Romantic Programme and the Reception of Cell Theory in Britain.” Journal of the History of Biology 17: 13-48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jahn, Ilse. 1982. “Die Herausbildung zoologischer Disziplinen.” In Geschichte der Biologie. Theorien, Methoden, Institutionen, Kurzbiographien, ed. Ilse Jahn, Rolf Löther and Konrad Senglaub, pp. 344-395. Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahn, Ilse, Rolf Löther and Konrad Senglaub, eds. 1982. Geschichte der Biologie. Theorien, Methoden, Institutionen, Kurzbiographien. Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kölliker, Albert. 1845. “Die Lehre von der thierischen Zelle und den einfacheren thierischen Formelementen, nach den neuesten Fortschritten dargestellt.” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Botanik 1(2): 46-102.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1853-1854. Manual of Human Histology (trans., T. H. Huxley and George Busk), 2 vols. London.

  • Körner, Hans. 1967. “Carl Theodor v. Siebold (1804-1885).” In Die Würzburger Siebold. Leipzig.

  • Lenoir, Timothy. 1989. The Strategy of Life: Teleology and Mechanics in Nineteenth-Century German Biology, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, Sherrie L. 1995. “The Origins of T. H. Huxley's Saltationism: History in Darwin's Shadow.” Journal of the History of Biology 28: 465-466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1999. Thomas Henry Huxley: The Evolution of a Scientist. Amhurst, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Mohl, Hugo. 1850. Die Vegetabilische Zelle. Braunschweig.

  • — 1852. The Vegetable Cell (trans., Arthur Henfrey). London.

  • Nyhart, Lynn K. 1991. “Writing Zoologically: The Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Zoologie and the Zoological Community in Late Nineteenth-Century German.” In The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies, ed. Peter Dear, pp. 43-71. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1995a. Biology Takes Form: Animal Morphology and the German Universities, 1800-1900. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1995b. “ "A Difficult Subject': Animal Individuality and Biological Politics, 1845-1860.” Paper Presented at the British Society for the History of Science Conference. T. H. Huxley: Victorian Science and Culture. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ospovat, Dov. 1976. “The Influence of Karl Ernst von Baer's Embryology, 1828-1859: A Reappraisal in Light of Richard Owen's and William B. Carpenter's ‘Palaeontological Application of ‘Von Baer's Law.’ ’ ”. Journal of the History of Biology 9: 1-28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, Richard. 1843. Lectures on the Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of the Invertebrate Animals. London.

  • Pelz, Willy. 1987. Zellenlehre: Der Einfluss Hugo von Mohls auf die Entwicklung der Zellenlehre. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickstone, John V. 1999. “How Might We Map the Cultural Fields of Science? Politics and Organisms in Restoration France.” History of Science 37: 347-364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehbock, Philip F. 1983. The Philosophical Naturalists: Themes in Early Nineteenth-Century British Biology. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, Eveleen. 1987. “A Question of Property Rights: Richard Owen's Evolutionism Reassessed.” British Journal for the History of Science 20: 129-171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, Robert. 1992. The Meaning of Evolution: The Morphological Construction and Ideological Reconstruction of Darwin's Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, Marsha L. 1988. “Darwin's Study of the Cirripedia.” In Correspondence of Charles Darwin, ed. F. H. Burkhardt et al., Vol. 4, pp. 388-409. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1989. “Protozoa as Precursors of Metazoa: German Cell Theory and its Critics at the Turn of the Century.” Journal of the History of Biology 22: 243-276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1997. “ "A Lab of One's Own': The Balfour Laboratory for Women at Cambridge University, 1884-1914.” Isis 88: 222-255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — In preparation. “Revolt Against Recapitulation: Adam Sedgwick and the Cambridge School of Morphology.” Paper Presented at the Sessions in honor of Frederick B. Churchill, International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology Meeting. Seattle, 1997.

  • Ridley, Mark. 1985. “Embryology and Classical Zoology in Great Britain.” In A History of Embryology, ed. T. J. Horder, J. A. Witkowski and C. C. Wylie, pp. 35-68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rinard, Ruth. 1981. “The Problem of the Organic Individual: Ernst Haeckel and the Development of the Biogenetic Law.” Journal of the History of Biology 14: 249-275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roe, Shirley A. 1981. Matter, Life, and Generation: Eighteenth-Century Embryology and the Haller-Wolff Debate. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupke, Nicolaas A. 1993. “Richard Owen's Vertebrate Archetype.” Isis 84: 231-251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Edward Stuart. 1917. Form and Function. A Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology. New York: E.P. Dutton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schickore, Jutta. 1999. “The Use and Abuse of Chromium Acid.” Paper Presented at the International Society for History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology Meeting. Oaxaca, Mexico.

  • Schwann, Theodor. 1839. Mikroskopische Untersuchungen über die Ñbereinstimmung in der Struktur und im Wachstum der Thiere und Pflanzen. Berlin.

  • — 1847. Microscopical Researches into the Accordance in the Structure and Growth of Animals and Plants (trans., Henry Smith). London.

  • Secord, James A. 1994. “Introduction.” In Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation and Other Evolutionary Writings by Robert Chambers, ed. James A. Secord. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedgwick, Adam. 1894. “On the Inadequacy of the Cellular Theory of Development, and on the Early Development of Nerves, Particularly of the Third Nerve and of the Sympathetic in Elasmobranchii.” Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science (1894-1895) 37: 87-101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadbolt, George. 1857. “The President's Address for the Year 1857.” Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science 5: 133-144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siebold, Karl Theodor Ernst von. [1845-1848]. Anatomy of the Invertebrata (trans., Waldo I. Burnett), 2nd edn. Boston, 1874.

  • Sloan, Phillip Reid. 1992. “Introductory Essay: On the Edge of Evolution.” In Richard Owen. The Hunterian Lectures in Comparative Anatomy, May-June 1837, ed. P. R. Sloan. London: Natural History Museum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strick, James E. Forthcoming. Sparks of Life: Darwinism and the Victorian Spontaneous Generation Debates. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Thiselton-Dyer, W. T. 1925. “Plant Biology in the ‘seventies.’ ” Nature (suppl. 9): 710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuchman, Arleen. 1993. Science, Medicine, and the State in Germany: The Case of Baden, 1816-1871. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyson, James. 1870. The Cell Doctrine: Its History and Present State. Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blakiston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vines, Sydney Howard. 1889. “An Examination of Some Points in Prof. Weismann's Theory of Heredity.” Nature 40: 621-626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenham, F. H. 1856. “On the Formation and Development of the Vegetable Cell.” Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science 4: 1-10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitman, Charles Otis. 1894. “The Inadequacy of the Cell-Theory of Development.” In Biological Lectures, Marine Biological Station, pp. 105-124. Boston: Ginn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winsor, Mary P. 1976. Starfish, Jellyfish, and the Order of Life: Issues in Nineteenth-Century Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Alison. 1997. “The Construction of Orthodoxies and Heterodoxies in the Early Victorian Life Sciences.” In Victorian Science in Context, ed. Bernard Lightman, pp. 24-50. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interdisciplinary Studies Program, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, 48202, U.S.A.

    Marsha L. Richmond

Authors
  1. Marsha L. Richmond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Richmond, M.L. T.H. Huxley's Criticism of German Cell Theory: An Epigenetic and Physiological Interpretation of Cell Structure. Journal of the History of Biology 33, 247–289 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004881730937

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004881730937

Search

Navigation