NICOLAAS A. RUPKE

BATHYBIUS HAECKELII AND THE

PSYCHOLOGY OF SCIENTIFIC

DISCOVERY

THEORY INSTEAD OF OBSERVED DATA CONTROLLED THE LATE 19th CENTURY

‘DISCOVERY’ OF A PRIMITIVE FORM 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 discovery. Specifically, it records how confidence in the heuristic value of evolutionary theory in the second half of the 19th century produced the discovery of a fictitious primitive form of life, called Bathybius, 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 to the ‘Discovery’

Shortly after the publication 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 in History and Philosophy of Science

the conceptual need was felt by a number of Darwin’s 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 Morph-

ologie 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 (Berlin, 1866) p. 135. 6E. H. Haeckel, Jenu Z Med Naturw. 4,64 (1868).

Bathybius Haeckeliiand the Psychology of Scientific Discovery 55

expedition aboard the ‘Cyclops’ northwest 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 substance with a granular texture. He interpreted this as protoplasm in a primitive state of organization and identified it as one of Haeckel’s Moneru. In a paper ‘On some organisms living at great depths in the North Atlantic Ocean’ (1868) he wrote:

‘I conceive that the granule-heaps and the transparent gelatinous matter in which

they are imbedded represent masses of protoplasm. Take away the cysts which

characterise the Radiolaria, and a dead Sphaeroroum would very nearly resemble

one of the masses of this deep-sea “Urschleim”, which must, I think, be regarded as

a new form of those simple animated beings which have recently been so well

described by Haeckel in his “Monographie der Moneren”. I propose to confer upon

this new “Moner” the generic name of Bathybius, and to call it after the eminent

Professor of Zoology in the University of Jena, B. Hueckelii ‘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).

56 Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

The existence of Bathybius was confirmed by Sir Charles Wyville Thompson who later was to become the chief scientist to the ‘Challenger’ expedition. Thompson examined an ooze sample from the Atlantic Ocean floor and he remarked in a paper ‘On the depths of the sea’ (1869):

‘This mud was actially alive; it stuck together in lumps, as if there were white of

egg mixed with it; and the glairy mass proved, under the microscope, to be a living

sarcode. Prof. Huxley regards this as a distinct creature, 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 compon- ents 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 of its existence had been found throughout the whole North and South

Atlantic, and wherever the Indian Ocean had been surveyed, so that it probably

forms one continuous scum of living matter girding the whole surface of the earth.

This opinion has been confirmed in all its essential details by Prof. Haeckel, who

had published an admirable account of specimens obtained 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 the Psychology of Scientific Discovery 57

solved by experiment (an apparent reference to Pasteur), but only through a philosophical approach. l2

The discovery 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 previously one tried to visualize abiogenesis, one immediately faiied as a

result of the organic composition of even the most simple organisms that one knew

at the time. This main problem has been solved only since we have become to know

the extremely important Monera, only since we have understood them as organisms

that are not at all made up of organs, that consist of just a single chemical

compound, and that still grow, feed, and reproduce. As a result, the hypothesis of

abiogenesis has gained such a degree of probability as to entitle it to fill the gap

between Kant’s cosmogeny and Lamarck’s theory of evolution. Already among the

Monera known up till now, one type exists which still today probably continuously

originates by abiogenesis. This is the marvellous Bathybius Haeckelii, discovered

and described 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 expedi- tion 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 preserved in alcohol. In his ‘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 in History and Philosophy of Science

(Bathybius) in allen Meeren und in allen Meerestiefen vorkommen’).” On account of the fact that coccoliths occur in many limestones as had been established by the English geologist H. C. Sorby, Giimbel emphasized the lithogenetic importance of Bathybius 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 Canadense. In support 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 from Bathybius by the absence of both the Discolithes

and the Cyatholithes. For this reason I take it to be an older form than Bathybius,

whence the name given to it. It consists of nearly pure protoplasm, tinged most

intensily by a solution of carmine in ammonia. It contains fine gray granules of

considerable refracting power, and besides the latter a great number of oleaginous

drops, soluble in ether. It manifests very marked amoeboid motions and takes up

particles of carmine or other foreign substances suspended 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 of Scientific Discovery 59

Figure 3 Protobathybius Robesonii (Bessels), 0.1 mm in dia (From reference 17).

ZVutureZh (187 1),18 , and in K. A. von Zittel’s

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

60 Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

function in the nutrition of the Protozoa’ (1875) he expressed doubts about Huxley’s discovery based on the latter’s misinterpretation of the coccoliths.21

The definitive identification 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 Reports’ (1876) in which he detailed the experiments conducted aboard. The results were these:

‘When sea-water is treated with twice its volume of spirit or less, nearly the whole

of the amorphous precipitate assumes the crystalline form in a short time.

When treated with a great excess of spirit the precipitate remains amorphous, and

assumes a gelatinous aspect.

This gelatinous-like sulphate of lime colours with the carmine and iodine solutions,

and when mixed with the ooze has, under the microscope, the appearances so

minutely described by Haeckel.’

‘When it is remembered that the original describers worked with spirit-preserved

specimens of the bottom, the inference seems fair that Bathybius and the

amorphous sulphate of lime are identical, and that in placing it amongst living

things, the describers have committed an error.‘%

Together With 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

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 of Scientific Discovery 61

were recognized to be non-existent. 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, Protomonus, and Vumpurella, are either non-existent or false to the definition.’ 25 Copeland, and more recently Whittaker, have re- 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 conse- quently the ‘Challenger’ cruise had not been able to locate it.*’ 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 are found principally in the sea and in great masses at the bottom of

deep oceans, where they form a sort of living slime first described by Huxley in

1868, and called Bathybius.‘* 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, Science 163, 150 (1969). *‘E. H. Haeckel, Kosmos. Zeitschrift fiil. Einheitliche Weltanschauung auf Grund der

Entwicklungslehre 1, 293 (1877). 26s. Laing, Modem Science and Modern Thought (Chapman & Hall, London, 1902) p. 79. 29.4. de Lapparent, Rev. Quest. Sci 3, 67 (1878).

62 Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

Summary and Conclusions

1. The fictitious discovery of Bathybius in 1868 was based on a misinterpretation of the mineral calcium sulphate occurring in colloidal dispersion by the addition of alcohol to deep-sea ooze samples. A misinterpretation of such enormity by several of the foremost contemporary scientists, 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 primordial slime. Later reports of its wide distribution in both 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 for critical reading of the

manuscript.