This paper discusses some philosophical and historical connections between, and within, nineteenth century evolutionism and microscopical research. The principal actors are mainly Darwin, Schleiden, Whewell and the “London Doctors,” Arthur Henfrey and Edwin Lankester. I demonstrate that the apparent alliances—particularly Darwin/Schleiden (through evolutionism) and Schleiden/Whewell (through Kantian philosophy of science)—obscure the deep methodological differences between evolutionist and microscopical biology that lingered on until the mid-twentieth century. Through an understanding of the little known significance of Schleiden’s programme (...) of microscopical research and by comparing certain features of his methodology to the activities of the “London Doctors,” we can identify the origin of this state of affairs. In addition, the outcome provides an insight into a critique of Buchdahl’s view on Schleiden’s philosophical conception. (shrink)

No presente estudo, discuto e sintetizo o conceito de célula vegetal de M. J. Schleiden e o conceito de animal elementar que elaboro a partir da ideia de “animal abstrato” sugerida por R. E. Grant. A elaboração e a interpretação que conduz a essa síntese é feita ampliando a ideia do desenvolvimento como um princípio regulador, proposta por E. Cassirer. Concebo tal ideia como expressão de uma racionalidade morfológica genética. O resultado geral obtido é que a célula vegetal e (...) o animal elementar são duas variações de uma mesma forma que exibe uma íntima relação estrutural-funcional, manifesta empiricamente em duas modalidades essenciais de vida, uma simples e singular e outra complexa e plural. A interação de ambas torna inteligível fenômenos básicos da vida vegetal e animal a partir de uma matriz genética comum. (shrink)

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 (...) class='Hi'>Schleiden and Schwann (as modified by Albert von Kölliker), 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. (shrink)

The cell theory of Schleiden and Schwann is generalized to the effect that throughout the natural world, in physics, biology, and sociopsychology, there is a widespread phenomenon of the existence of organized cells, whose organization is usually protected by barriers. These barriers exist not only in space, but in time and even in other domains. These barriers typically not only protect the organization within the cell from external disturbance, but they actively participate in reducing the internal disorganization. It appears (...) that the quantum phase cell or its equivalent, the discrete quantum state, may be a physical analog of the organized biological cell. The sampling and ambiguity theorems of communication theory throw new light on phase cells. The quantum phase cell has both configuration and momentum elements, which are analogous respectively to the somatic elements in the cytoplasm of a cell and the genetic elements in the DNA. A biological cell or organism, a physical quantum state, and a human being as a sociopsychological entity each has a natural individuality. A natural individuality is a somewhat mysterious thing, since in addition to specificity, it also involves stochasticity and complementarity. There are some striking and unexplained spin-analog characteristics in biology which have a relation to boson- and fermion-analog characteristics in biology that corresponds with the known relation in physics. The hypothesis suggested in our earlier paper, that quantum mechanical entropy is diminished in interaction, is clarified and sharpened in this paper. (shrink)

(Recipient of the 2020 Everett Mendelsohn Prize.) This article revisits the development of the protoplasm concept as it originally arose from critiques of the cell theory, and examines how the term “protoplasm” transformed from a botanical term of art in the 1840s to the so-called “living substance” and “the physical basis of life” two decades later. I show that there were two major shifts in biological materialism that needed to occur before protoplasm theory could be elevated to have equal status (...) with cell theory in the nineteenth century. First, I argue that biologists had to accept that life could inhere in matter alone, regardless of form. Second, I argue that in the 1840s, ideas of what formless, biological matter was capable of dramatically changed: going from a “coagulation paradigm” that had existed since Theophrastus, to a more robust conception of matter that was itself capable of movement and self-maintenance. In addition to revisiting Schleiden and Schwann’s original writings on cell theory, this article looks especially closely at Hugo von Mohl’s definition of the protoplasm concept in 1846, how it differed from his primordial utricle theory of cell structure two years earlier. This article draws on Lakoff and Johnson’s theory of “ontological metaphors” to show that the cell, primordial utricle, and protoplasm can be understood as material container, object, and substance, and that these overlapping distinctions help explain the chaotic and confusing early history of cell theory. (shrink)

In his study on 'schelling's and hegel's verhaltnis zur naturwissenschaft' of 1844 m j schleiden, one of the leading biologists of that time, opposed the speculative idealism. his work marks the change of the german biology to a science that is founded on materialistic assumptions. it gives the essence of a discussion that is not only interesting in a historical perspective but accentuated an ongoing controversy.

This bibliographical review of the modelling of the mitotic apparatus covers a period of one hundred and twenty years, from the discovery of the bipolar mitotic spindle up to the present day. Without attempting to be fully comprehensive, it will describe the evolution of the main ideas that have left their mark on a century of experimental and theoretical research. Fol and Bütschli's first writings date back to 1873, at a time when Schleiden and Schwann's cell theory was rapidly (...) gaining ground throughout Germany. Both mitosis and chromosomes were to be discovered within the space of thirty years, along with the two key events in the animal and plant reproductive cycle, namely fecondation and meiosis. The mitotic pole, a term still in use to this day, was employed to describe a morphological fact which was noted as early as 1876, namely that the lines and the dots of the karyokinetic figure, with its spindle and asters, looks remarkably like the lines of force around a bar magnet. This was to lead to models designed to explain the movements of chromosomes which take place when the cell nucleus appears to cease to exist as an organelle during mitosis. The nature of those mechanisms and the origin of the forces behind the chromosomes' ordered movements were central to the debate. Auguste Prenant, in a remarkable bibliographical synthesis published in 1910, summed up the opposing viewpoints of the vitalists, on the one hand, who favoured the theory of contractility or extensility in spindle fibres, and of those who believed in models based on physical phenomena, on the other. The latter subdivided into two groups: some, like Bütschli, Rhumbler or Leduc, referred to diffusion, osmosis and superficial tension, whilst the others, led by Gallardo and Hartog, focussed on the laws of electromagnetism. Lillie, Kuwada and Darlington followed up this line of research. The mid-20th century was a major turning point. Most of the modelling mentioned above was criticized and fell into disuse after disappearing from research publications and textbooks.This marked the onset of a new era, as electron microscopes made possible the materialization and detailed study of the macromolecular elements of the fibres, filaments and microtubules of the cytoskeleton. The successive phases of (a) de Harven and Bernhard's 1956 discovery of the centriole's ultrastructure, (b) its identification with the basal body of the cilia and flagella, confirming the theory set out by Henneguy and von Lenhossek (1898–99), (c) the universal presence of microtubules in animal, vegetal and eukaryotic protist cells, (d) the polymerization-depolymerization induced reversible transformations of the tubulin pool in mitosing cells (Inoue, 1960), (e) ultrastructural comparative studies of the mitotic apparatus of eukaryotes illustrating the Pickett-Heaps integrating concept of the MTOC (microtubule-organizing centre), (f) the possibility ofin vitro experiments on mtocs or on microtubules, brings us upon the present day, which has seen the focus placed on the concept of motor-proteins (kinesin, dynein) and on cell cycle models. The latter are based on a close coincidence between the observable modifications of the mitotic apparatus and the periodic variations in intracellular concentrations of calcium or of certain enzymes (cyclins, Cdc2) during the main transitions of the cell cycle. (shrink)

In December 1905 the zoologist Karl Möbius, director of the Berlin Museum of Natural History, spoke on the leading ideas of his theory of the animals' aesthetical value to the members of the famous Mittwochs-Gesellschaft . He wanted to demonstrate how the mysterious aesthetical effect of living creatures could be explained in an empirical way by biological and psychological facts. Möbius' aesthetic of animals is an important part of the antimetaphysical tradition of the German 19th century aesthetic of nature. Möbius (...) continued the aesthetical work of the naturalists A. von Humboldt (1769–1859) and M.J. Schleiden (1804–1881). His empirically founded aesthetic is similar to that of the English philosopher and statesman E. Burke (1729–1797) and to that of the philosopher, physicist and psychologist G.T. Fechner (1801–1887). (shrink)

Ernst Brücke’s 1861 essay Die Elementarorganismen has often been cited as a watershed in the history of physiology as well as in the history of cell theory. In its time it was widely read as a reform of animal cell theory, shifting the concept of the cell away from Schleiden and Schwann’s original cell schema of a membranous vesicle with a nucleus, and towards the protoplasm theory that had developed in botany, centered on the cell’s living contents. It was (...) also notorious for its arguments against the necessity of both the nucleus and the cell membrane. An English translation of “The Elementary Organisms” is presented for the first time in this journal issue, with annotations and illustrations, doi:10.1007/s10739-024-09773-9. Brücke’s essay was not only an intervention into cell theory: historians can read it as a continuation of debates on the nature of the organism and theories of organization, and as an epistemological meditation on the microscope. In addition, although Brücke was known as a founder of the Berlin school of organic physics, “The Elementary Organisms” shows how he combined an avant-garde physicalist physiology with a much older tradition of comparative anatomy and physiology. The following introductory essay will provide a scientific biography of Ernst Brücke up to 1863, with background on debates on biological organization, cell theory, and muscle histology. (shrink)

La« théorie cellulaire», élaborée au XIXe siècle sous l'impulsion, entre autres chercheurs, de Lorenz Oken, Matthias Schleiden, Theodor Schwann et Rudolf Virchow, a profondément modifié la vision que l'Homme se faisait jusque-là de la vie, puisqu'elle affirmait que la cellule est l'unité organique constitutive de tous les êtres vivants et que tout être vivant est issu d'une cellule. L'observation d'un unicellulaire comme la paramécie montre, en effet, qu'une cellule doit être considérée comme une forme vivante intégrale puisqu'en se nourrissant, (...) en se développant, en se défendant et en se reproduisant elle manifeste le destin commun à tous les êtres vivants. Son espace vital, engendré par ses déplacements, est coextensif à ses besoins et donc à ses comportements. (shrink)

Jakob Friedrich Fries (1773–1843) was the most prolific German philosopher of science in the nineteenth century who strived to synthesize Kant’s philosophical foundation of science and mathematics and the needs or practised science and mathematics in order to gain more comprehensive conceptual frameworks and greater methodological flexibility for those two disciplines. His original contributions anticipated later developments, to some extent, though they received comparatively little notice in the later course of the nineteenth century—a fate which partly can be explained by (...) the unfortunate development of the so-called ‘First Friesian School,’ founded by E. F. Apelt, M. J. Schleiden and O. X. Schlömilch. This situation changed temporarily when Leonard Nelson (1882–1927) arrived on the philosophical stage and founded a second, so-called, ‘New Friesian School’ in 1903. In the following two decades, Fries’ specific transformation of Kantian philosophy gained influence within the vigorous discussions about ‘new’ foundations of mathematics and, thus, also played a role within the Berlin Group surrounding Hans Reichenbach, though his work had no direct impact on the philosophy of physics being expounded therein. -/- This essay will first outline some characteristics of Fries’ development of the Kantian approach. Then it will point out the limited impact of the ‘New Friesian School’ on the Berlin Group, while highlighting some missed chances for fruitful exchange. As the originality of this school and its importance for the development of logic and philosophy of mathematics—by and large merits of its early members Walter Dubislav and Kurt Grelling —is dealt with in separate chapters of this volume, and elsewhere, this article will focus on what Fries called the ‘mathematical philosophy of nature’ (i. e. the philosophical foundations of physics). More specifically, it will show how the New Friesian School reacted to Einstein’s theories of relativity, in a way that contrasts with the approach of the Berlin Group. This discussion about relativity will also be used to reveal different understandings of the nature of ‘scientific philosophy’ in general, as well as different models of how philosophy and the empirical sciences should interact. (shrink)

What are cells? How are they related to each other and to the organism as a whole? These questions have exercised biology since Schleiden and Schwann (1838–1839) first proposed cells as the key units of structure and function of all living things. But how do we try to understand them? Through new technologies like the achromatic microscope and the electron microscope. But just as importantly, through the metaphors our culture has made available to biologists in different periods and places. (...) These two new volumes provide interesting history and philosophy of the development of cell biology. Reynolds surveys the field's changing conceptual structure by examining the varied panoply of changing metaphors used to conceptualize and explain cells – from cells as empty boxes, as building blocks, to individual organisms, to chemical factories, and through many succeeding metaphors up to one with great currency today: cells as social creatures in communication with others in their community. There is some of this approach in theVisionsedited collection as well. But this collection also includes rich material on the technologies used to visualize cells and their dialectical relationship with the epistemology of the emerging distinct discipline of cell biology. This volume centres on, but is not limited to, ‘reflections inspired by [E.V.] Cowdry's [1924 volume]General Cytology’; it benefits from a conference on the Cowdry volume as well as a 2011 Marine Biological Lab/Arizona State University workshop on the history of cell biology. (shrink)

In his book "Organic Chemistry in its Application to Agriculture and Chemistry." Justus Liebig attacked "the plant physiologists" for their support of the humus theory and for their general ignorance of chemistry. Two leading botanists, Matthias Schleiden and Hugo von Mohl, responded by sharply criticizing Liebig for his lack of knowledge of plants and his misrepresentation of the views of plant physiologists. The origin and character of this debate can be understood in part through the temperaments of Liebig and (...) Schleiden, but can be viewed also as a contest for control between the well-established discipline of chemistry and a potential discipline of plant physiology that had as yet acquired no stable institutional foundations. (shrink)

Following Mr. Bixby and some other 19th century scientist-philosophers such as Claude Bernard, relevant scientific actions should, as a matter of primary importance, be explained with reference to the competence and not to the intentions of those involved. The background is a reliabilist virtue approach - a widespread tendency in 19th century epistemology and philosophy of science. Bixby's approach includes a critique of some constructivist arguments and establishes a mutually supportive connection to conceptions of scientific progress.