According to the most recent estimates, the weight of the hydrogen molecule is somewhat less than that on which Errera based his calculations, namely about 16 × 10−22 mgms. and according to this value, our micrococcus would contain just about 27,000 albumin molecules. In other words, whichever determination we accept, we see that an organism one-tenth as large as our micrococcus, in linear dimensions, would only contain some thirty molecules of albumin; or, in other words, our micrococcus is only about thirty times as large, in linear dimensions, as a single albumin molecule[71].

We must doubtless make large allowances for uncertainty in the assumptions and estimates upon which these calculations are based; and we must also remember that the data with which the physicist provides us in regard to molecular magnitudes are, to a very great extent, maximal values, above which the molecular magnitude (or rather the sphere of the molecule’s range of motion) is not likely to lie: but below which there is a greater element of uncertainty as to its possibly greater minuteness. But nevertheless, when we shall have made all reasonable allowances for uncertainty upon the physical side, it will still be clear that the smallest known bodies which are described as organisms draw nigh towards molecular magnitudes, and we must recognise that the subdivision of the organism cannot proceed to an indefinite extent, and in all probability cannot go very much further than it appears to have done in these already discovered forms. For, even, after giving all due regard to the complexity of our unit (that is to say the albumin-molecule), with all the increased possibilities of interrelation with its neighbours which this complexity implies, we cannot but see that physiologically, and comparatively speaking, we have come down to a very simple thing.

While such con­si­de­ra­tions as these, based on the chemical composition of the organism, teach us that there must be a definite lower limit to its magnitude, other con­si­de­ra­tions of a purely physical kind lead us to the same conclusion. For our discussion of the principle of similitude has already taught us that, long before we reach these almost infinitesimal magnitudes, the {43} diminishing organism will have greatly changed in all its physical relations, and must at length arrive under conditions which must surely be incompatible with anything such as we understand by life, at least in its full and ordinary development and manifestation.

We are told, for instance, that the powerful force of surface-tension, or capillarity, begins to act within a range of about 1 ⁄ 500,000 of an inch, or say 0·05 µ. A soap-film, or a film of oil upon water, may be attenuated to far less magnitudes than this; the black spots upon a soap-bubble are known, by various concordant methods of measurement, to be only about 6 × 10−7 cm., or about ·006 µ thick, and Lord Rayleigh and M. Devaux[72] have obtained films of oil of ·002 µ, or even ·001 µ in thickness.

But while it is possible for a fluid film to exist in these almost molecular dimensions, it is certain that, long before we reach them, there must arise new conditions of which we have little knowledge and which it is not easy even to imagine.

It would seem that, in an organism of ·1 µ in diameter, or even rather more, there can be no essential distinction between the interior and the surface layers. No hollow vesicle, I take it, can exist of these dimensions, or at least, if it be possible for it to do so, the contained gas or fluid must be under pressures of a formidable kind[73], and of which we have no knowledge or experience. Nor, I imagine, can there be any real complexity, or heterogeneity, of its fluid or semi-fluid contents; there can be no vacuoles within such a cell, nor any layers defined within its fluid substance, for something of the nature of a boundary-film is the necessary condition of the existence of such layers. Moreover, the whole organism, provided that it be fluid or semi-fluid, can only be spherical in form. What, then, can we attribute, in the way of properties, to an organism of a size as small as, or smaller than, say ·05 µ? It must, in all probability, be a homogeneous, structureless sphere, composed of a very small number of albuminoid or other molecules. Its vital properties and functions must be extraordinarily limited; its specific outward characters, even if we could see it, must be nil; and its specific properties must be little more than those of an ion-laden corpuscle, enabling it to perform {44} this or that chemical reaction, or to produce this or that pathogenic effect. Even among inorganic, non-living bodies, there must be a certain grade of minuteness at which the ordinary properties become modified. For instance, while under ordinary circumstances cry­stal­li­sa­tion starts in a solution about a minute solid fragment or crystal of the salt, Ostwald has shewn that we may have particles so minute that they fail to serve as a nucleus for cry­stal­li­sa­tion,—which is as much as to say that they are too minute to have the form and properties of a “crystal”; and again, in his thin oil-films, Lord Rayleigh has noted the striking change of physical properties which ensues when the film becomes attenuated to something less than one close-packed layer of molecules[74].

Thus, as Clerk Maxwell put it, “molecular science sets us face to face with physiological theories. It forbids the physiologist from imagining that structural details of infinitely small dimensions [such as Leibniz assumed, one within another, ad infinitum] can furnish an explanation of the infinite variety which exists in the properties and functions of the most minute organisms.” And for this reason he reprobates, with not undue severity, those advocates of pangenesis and similar theories of heredity, who would place “a whole world of wonders within a body so small and so devoid of visible structure as a germ.” But indeed it scarcely needed Maxwell’s criticism to shew forth the immense physical difficulties of Darwin’s theory of Pangenesis: which, after all, is as old as Democritus, and is no other than that Promethean particulam undique desectam of which we have read, and at which we have smiled, in our Horace.

There are many other ways in which, when we “make a long excursion into space,” we find our ordinary rules of physical behaviour entirely upset. A very familiar case, analysed by Stokes, is that the viscosity of the surrounding medium has a relatively powerful effect upon bodies below a certain size. A droplet of water, a thousandth of an inch (25 µ) in diameter, cannot fall in still air quicker than about an inch and a half per second; and as its size decreases, its resistance varies as the diameter, and not (as with larger bodies) as the surface of the {45} drop. Thus a drop one-tenth of that size (2·5 µ), the size, apparently, of the drops of water in a light cloud, will fall a hundred times slower, or say an inch a minute; and one again a tenth of this diameter (say ·25 µ, or about twice as big, in linear dimensions, as our micrococcus), will scarcely fall an inch in two hours. By reason of this principle, not only do the smaller bacteria fall very slowly through the air, but all minute bodies meet with great proportionate resistance to their movements in a fluid. Even such comparatively large organisms as the diatoms and the foraminifera, laden though they are with a heavy shell of flint or lime, seem to be poised in the water of the ocean, and fall in it with exceeding slowness.

The Brownian movement has also to be reckoned with,—that remarkable phenomenon studied nearly a century ago (1827) by Robert Brown, facile princeps botanicorum. It is one more of those fundamental physical phenomena which the biologists have contributed, or helped to contribute, to the science of physics.

The quivering motion, accompanied by rotation, and even by translation, manifested by the fine granular particles issuing from a crushed pollen-grain, and which Robert Brown proved to have no vital significance but to be manifested also by all minute particles whatsoever, organic and inorganic, was for many years unexplained. Nearly fifty years after Brown wrote, it was said to be “due, either directly to some calorical changes continually taking place in the fluid, or to some obscure chemical action between the solid particles and the fluid which is indirectly promoted by heat[75].” Very shortly after these last words were written, it was ascribed by Wiener to molecular action, and we now know that it is indeed due to the impact or bombardment of molecules upon a body so small that these impacts do not for the moment, as it were, “average out” to ap­prox­i­mate equality on all sides. The movement becomes manifest with particles of somewhere about 20 µ in diameter, it is admirably displayed by particles of about 12 µ in diameter, and becomes more marked the smaller the particles are. The bombardment causes our particles to behave just like molecules of uncommon size, and this {46} behaviour is manifested in several ways[76]. Firstly, we have the quivering movement of the particles; secondly, their movement backwards and forwards, in short, straight, disjointed paths; thirdly, the particles rotate, and do so the more rapidly the smaller they are, and by theory, confirmed by observation, it is found that particles of 1 µ in diameter rotate on an average through 100° per second, while particles of 13 µ in diameter turn through only 14° per minute. Lastly, the very curious result appears, that in a layer of fluid the particles are not equally distributed, nor do they all ever fall, under the influence of gravity, to the bottom. But just as the molecules of the atmosphere are so distributed, under the influence of gravity, that the density (and therefore the number of molecules per unit volume) falls off in geometrical progression as we ascend to higher and higher layers, so is it with our particles, even within the narrow limits of the little portion of fluid under our microscope. It is only in regard to particles of the simplest form that these phenomena have been theoretically investigated[77], and we may take it as certain that more complex particles, such as the twisted body of a Spirillum, would show other and still more complicated manifestations. It is at least clear that, just as the early microscopists in the days before Robert Brown never doubted but that these phenomena were purely vital, so we also may still be apt to confuse, in certain cases, the one phenomenon with the other. We cannot, indeed, without the most careful scrutiny, decide whether the movements of our minutest organisms are intrinsically “vital” (in the sense of being beyond a physical mechanism, or working model) or not. For example, Schaudinn has suggested that the undulating movements of Spirochaete pallida must be due to the presence of a minute, unseen, “undulating membrane”; and Doflein says of the same species that “sie verharrt oft mit eigenthümlich zitternden Bewegungen zu einem Orte.” Both movements, the trembling or quivering {47} movement described by Doflein, and the undulating or rotating movement described by Schaudinn, are just such as may be easily and naturally interpreted as part and parcel of the Brownian phenomenon.