Bathybius Haeckelii and the psychology of scientific discovery

NICOLAAS

BATHYBIUS

A. RUPKE

HAECKELII

PSYCHOLOGY

AND

THE

OF SCIENTIFIC

DISCOVERY THEORY INSTEAD CONTROLLED THE ‘DISCOVERY’ FORM

OF OBSERVED DATA LATE 19th CENTURY OF A PRIMITIVE OF LIFE

THE TRADITIONAL image of the scientist as an objective fact finder has become seriously tarnished by recent work in the history and philosophy of science. ’ It is argued that the growth of science is not always brought about by a reasoned debate based on objective evidence. Instead, scientific discovery seems to be controlled quite as much by certain psychological factors such as respect for a theoretical superstructure. The debate around T. S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has brought similar iconoclastic aspects of scientific conduct to the attention of a cross section of the scholarly community.’ Without wanting to enter into the controversy generated by Kuhn’s book,3 this paper records one of the better examples from the annals of science to show how respect for a theoretical superstructure brought about a fictitious the heuristic value century produced called Bathybius,

discovery. Specifically, it records how confidence in of evolutionary theory in the second half of the 19th the discovery of a fictitious primitive form of life, its sub-division into two genera, its reported occur-

rence over vast regions of the ocean floor, its identification in the geologic record, and its wide acceptance in the life and earth sciences for the period of almost a decade. Background Shortly

after the publication

to the ‘Discovery’

of Darwin’s

The Ongin

of Species

(1859),

1 See review paper by S. G. Brush, Science 183, 1164 (1974). 2T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Reuolutions Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2nd edn., 1970. 3See for example Ctiticism nnd the Growth of Knowledge, I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.) Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1970. Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci 7.( 1976), No. 1. Printed in Great Britain 53

54

Studies

the conceptual

in History

need was felt by a number

and Philosophy

of Darwin’s

of Science

supporters

to

link the late 18th century nebular hypothesis of planetary evolution with the hypothesis of organic evolution and establish by that the philosophy of ‘universal transformism’. The link was thought to consist of factual evidence for the origin of life out of inorganic matter, i.e. a&genesis.

Howeyer,

at about

the same time,

Pasteur

conducted

his

classic experiments on fermentation (1860-1866) and made a cogent case for the germ theory of fermentation and against abiogenesis. In the midst of the controversy generated by Pasteur’s experiments, the German zoologist E. H. Haeckel reported in his Generelle Morphologie der Organismen (1866) on the existence of a group of very primitive microbes, which he called Monera.’ A Moneron was defined as a primitive form of life consisting of undifferentiated protoplasm and lacking a nucleus. In a separate monograph on this group, Haeckel described in some detail a number of different Moneru, among which the most primitive of all which he called Protamoeba primitiu6 It was described as being entirely homogeneous and reproducing itself by process of binary fission (Figure 1). The primitive level of organization of the Monera was interpreted to indicate that the group represented life in statu nascendi, and as such it made abiogenesis conceivable.

Figure 1 Protamoeba

primitiva

(Haeckel), O-04 mm in dia (From reference 13).

The ‘Discovery’

of Bathybius

At about the same time that Haeckel announced the existence of the Moneru, the English zoologist T. H. Huxley examined a number (he did not mention how many) of mud samples dredged during an 1857 4L Pasteur, Ann Sci nut. Part. Zoo1 16, 5 (1861). SE. H. Haeckel, Generelle Mosphologie de7 Organismen 6E. H. Haeckel, Jenu Z Med Naturw. 4,64 (1868).

(Berlin, 1866) p. 135.

Bathybius Haeckeliiand

expedition

the Psychology of Scientific Discovery

aboard the ‘Cyclops’

northwest

55

of Ireland.

The mud samples

had been preserved in alcohol. Huxley, employing a special microscope with ‘a magnifying power of 1200 diameters’, 7 observed in the ooze a gelatinous protoplasm

substance with a granular texture. in a primitive state of organization

of Haeckel’s

Moneru.

In a paper

depths in the North Atlantic ‘I conceive they

are

that

the granule-heaps

imbedded

represent

the Radiolaria,

characterise

Ocean’

form

described

of those

by Haeckel

this new “Moner” Professor

simple

organisms

of protoplasm.

“Urschleim”,

animated

in his “Monographie name

in the University

beings

gelatinous Take

away

would

matter

in which

the cysts

very nearly

which

resemble

which must,

I think, be regarded

which

recently

have

der Moneren”.

of Bathybius, of Jena,

living at great

he wrote:

and a dead Sphaeroroum

the generic

of Zoology

(1868)

and the transparent

masses

one of the masses of this deep-sea a new

‘On some

He interpreted this as and identified it as one

I propose

been

to confer

and to call it after

B. Hueckelii

as

so well upon

the eminent

‘7

Inside the gelatinous substance Huxley identified two types of coccoliths which he called Cyatholithi and Discolithi. These he interpreted to be skeletal components of Bathybius Haeckelii, like spicules in sponges (Fig. 2).

Figure 2 Bathybius Haeckelii (Huxley),

O-1 mm in dia (From

reference

10).

Studies

56

The

existence

Thompson ‘Challenger’ Atlantic

of Bathybius

who later expedition.

Ocean

floor

in History and Philosophy

was confirmed

of Science

by Sir Charles

Wyville

was to become the chief scientist to the Thompson examined an ooze sample from the

and he remarked

in a paper ‘On the depths of the

sea’ (1869): ‘This

mud was actially

egg mixed sarcode.

alive; it stuck

with it; and the glairy

Prof.

Huxley

regards

together

in lumps,

mass proved,

this as a distinct

as if there

were white

under the microscope, creature,

of

to be a living

and calls it Bathybius.

”

In more detail Wyville Thompson described Bathybius in his classic of oceanography The Depths of the Sea ( 1873).9 In his ‘BeitrZge zur Plastidentheorie’ (1870), Haeckel exaggerated Huxley’s report by interpreting it to mean ‘that the sea floor of the open ocean at greater depths (below 5000 ft) is covered with enormous masses of free living protoplasm’.” He enthusiastically remarked that the discovery of Bathybius had turned the ‘Urschleim’ of the German ‘Naturphilosophie’ into a complete truth. Haeckel had himself obtained one sample of deep-sea mud, dredged by Wyville Thompson and W. B. Carpenter off the south-west coast of Ireland. The sample had been sent to him preserved in alcohol. Haeckel also observed the gelatinous substance with its granular texture which he coloured with a carmine solution and interpreted as real protoplasm. He thought it likely, though not entirely certain, that the coccoliths were skeletal components of Bathybius. Huxley accepted Haeckel’s exaggeration of his 1868 report and he added to this an exaggerated account of Haeckel’s description of Bathybius in a speech before the Royal Geographical Society in 1870. He said with respect to his by now reputed discovery: ‘Evidence Atlantic, forms This

of its existence and wherever

one continuous opinion

had published

has been

had been found the Indian

scum

of living matter

confirmed

an admirable

Ocean

account

throughout had been

the whole surveyed,

North

girding the whole surface

in all its essential of specimens

details

obtained

and South

so that it probably

by Prof.

of the earth. Haeckel,

who

by him.’ l1

The existence of masses of free protoplasm or ‘Urschleim’ on the sea floor was even more suggestive of a form of life in statu nascendi than Protamoeba primitiva. In a speech on ‘Das Leben in den griissten Meerestiefen’ (1870) Haeckel expressed the belief that it ‘was virtually certain that Bathybius originated by process of abiogenesis. More in general he argued that the question of the origin of life could not be 7T. H. Huxley, Quart. J. Microsc. London 8, 203 (1868). *c. W. Thompson, Ann Mug. nut. Hist. 4, 112 (1869). gC. W. Thompson, The Depths of the Sea (London, 1873) p. 410. 10~. H. Haeckel, Jena. Z Med Naturw. 5, 492 (1870). 11~. H. Huxley, Proc. R geogrl. Sot. 15, 37 (1871).

Bathybius

Haeckeliiand

solved

by

through

the Psychology

experiment

(an

a philosophical

The discovery

of Scientific

apparent

57

Discovery

reference

to Pasteur),

but

only

approach. l2

of Bathybius

and of the other Monera

established

the

link between planetary evolution and organic evolution. In his widely read Natiirliche Sch6pf&zgsgeschichte (1870) Haeckel explicitly wrote: ‘Whenever result

previously

of the organic

at the time.

This main problem

the extremely that

are

one tried

important

not

and that

abiogenesis

has gained

between originates

Kant’s known

such

only since we have understood of

organs,

feed,

a degree

that

consist

and reproduce.

and Lamarck’s

is the marvellous

a single

of evolution. Bathybius

chemical

the hypothesis

as to entitle

one type exists which still today This

theory

of just

cosmogeny

to know

them as organisms

As a result,

of probability

faiied as a

that one knew

has been solved only since we have become

up till now,

by abiogenesis.

and described

up

still grow,

one immediately

abiogenesis,

of even the most simple organisms

Monera,

at all made

compound,

Monera

to visualize

composition

of

it to fill the gap

Already

probably Haeckelii,

among

the

continuously discovered

by Huxley.‘13

The Bathybius

bandwagon

The discovery of Bathybius Haeckelii generated a great deal of excitement in the life and earth sciences and a number of biologists and geologists continued the investigation of this Moneron. The German biologist 0. Schmidt reported in a paper ‘uber Coccolithen and Rhabdolithen’ (1870) that in the course of an oceanoLgraphic expedition in the Adriatic Sea he had found evidence of the existence of Bathybius there as well. In addition, he reported that he had observed Bathybius in ooze samples that had no alcohol added to them (‘Der frisch aus dem Meere gehobene Bathybius zeigt . . . genau jene Erscheinungen, welche die in Weingeist conservirten Proben wahrnehmen lassen.‘) l4 In addition to the coccoliths, he observed more rod-shaped particles which he called rhabdoliths. He however did not believe that they were part of Bathybius. In the same year, the German geologist C. W. von Gtimbel published the results of his study of a number of deep-sea mud samples, also In his preserved in alcohol. ‘Vorlaufige Mitteilungen iiber Tiefseeschlamm’ ( 1870) h e concluded, in support of the work by Huxley and Haeckel, that Bathybius with its coccoliths formed a living substance. In addition, he reported that its occurrence was not confined to the bathyal environment, but that it existed also in shallower marine environments and all around the world (‘. . . dass Coccolithen ’ 2E. I% Haeckel, Snmmlung Gemeinversth’ndlicher Wissenschaftlicher Vortriige, Heft 140, 1 (1870). t3E. H. Haeckel, Natiirliche SchGpfutagsgeschichte (Berlin, 1870), p. 306. Quote translated from the German. t40. Schmidt, Sitzungsber. Kaberl. Akad Wiss. Wien Math Natunu. K. 62. 669 (1870).

58

Studies

and Philosophy

of Science

in allen Meeren und in allen Meerestiefen vorkommen’).” of the fact that coccoliths occur in many limestones as had

(Bathybius) On account been

in History

established

emphasized

by

the

English

the lithogenetic

geologist

importance

H. C.

Sorby,

of Bathybius

Giimbel

in the geologic

record. Earlier on, immediately after Huxley’s discovery, Bathybius had been identified in the geologic record by the English geologist W. B. Carpenter. At that time a controversy existed with respect to an inorganic banded structure of ophicalcites in Precambrian rocks in Canada. The Canadian geologist J. W. Dawson interpreted these structures as organic, produced by a gigantic foraminifer, which he called

Eozoiin

In support

Canadense.

of Dawson’s

organic

interpret-

ation, Carpenter cited the discovery of Bathybius thinking it likely that it had existed through all of geologic time and that, if it had developed a shell, it would have resembled Eozoiin Canadense. (‘. . . if Bathybius, like the testaceous Rhizopods, could form for itself a shelly envelope, that envelope would closely resemble Eozoijn. Further, as Prof. Huxley has proved the existence of Bathybius through a great range, not merely of depth but of temperature, I cannot but think it probable that it has existed continuously in the deep seas of all geological epochs.‘)“j A still lower Moner than Bathybius was discovered in 1874 along the coast of Grinnell Land by the U.S. Arctic expedition aboard the ‘Polaris’. The discovery was made by the German E. Bessels, surgeon and naturalist to the expedition. It was characterized by the absence of coccoliths, and its movements were described as amoeboid. Bessels called it Protobathybius Robesonii and he reported his discovery in Nature (1874). A description of it was also included in A. S. Packard’s Life Histories of Animals (1876) (Figure 3): ‘It is mainly

distinguished

and the Cyatholithes. whence

the

intensily

name

drops,

given

by a solution

considerable soluble

particles

refracting in ether.

of carmine

from

Bathybius

For this reason

to it. It consists of carmine power,

foreign

of nearly

in ammonia.

and besides

It manifests

or other

by the absence

of both

I take it to be an older form

very

marked

substances

pure protoplasm,

It contains

the latter

the Discolithes than Bathybius,

a great

amoeboid suspended

tinged

most

fine gray granules

of

number

of oleaginous

motions

and takes up

in the water in which it

is kept.“’

This paper is not intended as a bibliography of Bathybius Haeckelii. Suffice therefore to mention that the discovery was reported in such influential publications as the Archives des Sciences Physiques et i ‘C. W. van Giimbel, N. Jb. Miner. Geol. Palaeont. 753 (1870). 16~. B. Carpenter, Proc. R. Sot. London 17 191 (1868). 1 ‘A. S. Packard, Life Histories of Animals (New York, 1876) p. 3.

Bathybius

Haeckelii

and the Psychology

Figure 3 Protobathybius

ZVutureZh (187 1),18,

Robesonii

and

of Scientific

Discovery

(Bessels), 0.1 mm in dia (From reference 17).

in

K. A.

Mon.J.Microsc. 1, 32 (1869).

von

Zittel’s

59

60

Studies

function about

in the nutrition

Huxley’s

of the Protozoa’

discovery

coccoliths.21 The definitive

in History

(1875)

based on the latter’s

identification

of

the

and Philosophy

of Science

he expressed

doubts

misinterpretation

of the

coccoliths

was made

by

the

German biologist H. Lohmann in a monograph published in 1902. He identified the coccoliths as the settled fragments of the calcareous envelope of a class of flagellates to which he gave the name of Coccolithophoridae. 22 At the end of the year 1872 the ‘Challenger’ expedition had begun its program of soundings and dredgings in the three major ocean basins. During the early part of the itinerary many attempts were made by all the naturalists aboard to detect the presence of Bathybius in the fresh samples of deep-sea ooze, but without any success. However, one of the naturalists, J. Murray, noticed that when alcohol had been added to the ooze samples, Bathybius appeared. Moreover, when the chemist to the expedition, J. Y. Buchanan, made a chemical analysis of Bathybius, he failed to detect organic matter. Instead he found that Bathybius was composed of calcium sulphate which under certain conditions would crystallize as gypsum. He therefore suspected that Bathybius was nothing but calcium sulphate occurring in an amorphous colloidal state by the addition of alcohol to the ooze. This view was expressed by the chief scientist Wyville Thompson in a letter to Huxley dated June 1875.23 A full account was published by Murray in the ‘Preliminary in which he detailed the experiments conducted Reports’ (1876) aboard. ‘When

The results were these:

sea-water

is treated

of the amorphous When treated assumes

precipitate

with a great

a gelatinous

when

minutely

mixed

assumes excess

its volume

of spirit

the crystalline

of spirit

or less, nearly

the whole

form in a short time.

the precipitate

remains

amorphous,

and

aspect.

This gelatinous-like and

with twice

sulphate with

described

the

of lime colours ooze

has,

under

with the carmine the microscope,

and iodine solutions, the appearances

so

by Haeckel.’

‘When it is remembered that the original describers worked with spirit-preserved the inference seems fair that Bathybius and the specimens of the bottom, amorphous sulphate of lime are identical, and that in placing it amongst living things,

the describers

have committed

an error.‘%

Bathybius, Protobathybius Robesonii made its exit. The group of the Monera as such was retained in the zoological literature for several decades after. Gradually, however, forms such as Protamoeba primtiva became eliminated from the literature as they Together

With

2rG. C. Wallich, Ann Mag. nat. Hist. 16, 322 (1875). 22H. Lohmann, Arch. Protistenk. 1, p. 89 (1902). 23Quart. J. Microsc, SC. 15, 390 (1875). 24Proc. my. Sot. London 24,471 (1876).

Bathybius

Haeckelii

and the Psychology

were recognized

of Scientific

to be non-existent.

61

Discovery

H. F. Copeland

wrote in 1938

with

reference to Haeckel and the Monera: ‘He is said to have postulated, rather than to have recognized or assembled, such a group, because most of the organisms which he assigned to it, Protumoeba, and

Protomonus, definition.’

25

Vumpurella, and

Copeland,

are either non-existent or false to the have remore recently Whittaker,

assigned the term Monera to designate a Kingdom of procaryotic organisms, with unicellular or simple colonial organization. Reaction After receipt of Wyville Thompson’s letter, Huxley felt inclined to drop Bathybius as an imaginary discovery. Haeckel, however, refused to accept the results of the ‘Challenger’ expedition and he insisted on the actual existence of Bathybius. In a paper on ‘Bathybius und die Moneren’ (1877) he argued that its geographic distribution apparently was more limited than had been originally thought, and that consecruise had not been able to locate it.*’ quently the ‘Challenger’ Nevertheless, Haeckel eliminated Bathybius from his later publications. Little publicity was given to the Bathybius story after it had come to an end. This may explain why for example in a popular book on Modern Science and Modern Thought (1885; second edition 1886) written by S. Laing almost a decade after the ‘Challenger’ results had been obtained, Bathybius remained listed as the most primitive Moner. In the 1902 printing of this book the following paragraph occurs: ‘These monera deep 1868,

oceans,

are found where

and called

they

principally form

Bathybius.‘*

in the sea and in great masses at the bottom

a sort

of living slime first

described

by Huxley

of in

8

I have come across only one contemporary critical account of the Bathybius story, written by the French geologist A. de Lapparent who was an opponent of the theory of organic evolution. In his ‘Bathybius. Histoire d’un protoplasm’ (1878) he used the story to caution against biased research.2g In a more recent reference to Bathybius and Haeckel, W. Seifriz in his book on Protoplasm (1936) wrote with less caution: ‘Though his find was not what he though it to be, yet Haeckel’s philosophical idea is nevertheless sound, for we cannot escape the conviction that life began in a relatively undifferentiated mass of protoplasm.‘30 *5H_ F. Copeland Q. Rev. BioL 13, 383 (1938). 26 R H. Whittaker, *‘E. H. Haeckel, Entwicklungslehre 1, 26s. Laing, Modem 29.4. de Lapparent,

Science 163, 150 (1969). Kosmos. Zeitschrift fiil. Einheitliche Weltanschauung auf Grund der 293 (1877). Science and Modern Thought (Chapman & Hall, London, 1902) p. 79. Rev. Quest. Sci 3, 67 (1878).

Studies in History and Philosophy

62

Summary 1. The

fictitious

misinterpretation

discovery

contemporary

and Conclusions of Bathybius

of the mineral

dispersion by the addition misinterpretation of such scientists,

of Science

calcium

of alcohol enormity

in 1868

sulphate

was based

occurring

on a

in colloidal

to deep-sea ooze samples. A by several of the foremost

the quick and wide acceptance

of Bathybius

in

the life and earth sciences, the reconfirmation of its existence on several occasions, and the additional discovery of F’rotobathybius Robesonii, all could occur because the discovery was a corollary to the respected superstructure of evolutionary theory. 2. The original discovery of Bathybius was based on only a few samples of ooze dredged in the same general locality in the North Atlantic Ocean. The early reports that Bathybius had a near universal deep-sea distribution were based on the belief that it represented of its wide distribution in both primordial slime. Later reports present-day oceans and in the geologic record were based on the misinterpretation of coccoliths as tests of Bathybius. 3. The psychological factor of confidence in the heuristic value of evolutionary theory structured the discovery, the acceptance, and the silent exit of Bathybius Haeckelii.31

3O W. Seifriz, Aotoplasm (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1936) p. 11. 31Thanks go to Messrs. Hackmann, Ha&, Kuhn and McKerrow manuscript.

for critical reading of the