[12] They may not believe this, because they may be unaware of the fact of the invariable association of some organisms with some kinds of fermentations, and may consequently have never concerned themselves with the evidence bearing upon this part of the question. (See Gerhardt, loc. cit.)
[13] M. Pouchet and others had examined the dust which settles on objects, and amongst much débris of different kinds had found comparatively few ova or spores. He had not, however, up to this time, filtered the air, so as to see what germs might be detected floating about in the atmosphere.
[14] ‘Anat. et Physiol. compar.’ t. viii. p. 264.
[15] ‘Annales de Chimie et de Physique,’ 1862, t. lxiv. p. 24.
[16] Those which he believed to be eggs of ciliated infusoria, may be at once dismissed from consideration, as we are not at present concerned with the origin of organisms of this kind.
[17] Loc. cit. p. 34, note 1.
[18] Loc cit. p. 56.
[19] See p. 57.
[20] M. Pasteur’s use of this term, in which he is followed by others holding similar opinions, is much to be deprecated. Having said that he had found certain corpuscles which resembled spores of fungi, or ova of infusoria, he subsequently speaks of them as “germs,” and also applies the same name to the reproductive particles of Bacteria, which he merely assumes to be present in the atmosphere. Thus, having only proved that corpuscles resembling spores of some fungi, are to be found in the atmosphere, he subsequently speaks of the presence of a multitude of atmospheric germs as an established fact, without at all prominently pointing out that, so far as the most important of these are concerned—germs of Bacteria—their existence had only been inferred, and not proved.
[21] ‘Philosophical Transactions,’ 1866, pp. 616–619.