Protoplasmic Theory Research Articles

Re-Envisioning the History of Cellular and Molecular Biology

Re-Envisioning the History of Cellular and Molecular Biology

Cell versus protoplasm: revisionist history

Recent investigations give reason to question anew the historical status of the 'cell theory' as the ultimate driving force in the development of our understanding of life's processes at the most fundamental level. A revisitation of critical research papers and commentaries from the 19th Century shows that the disregarded (and historically maligned) 'protoplasmic theory of life' played a more deterministic role in the early advancement of knowledge on cell structure and function.

Reply to “Letter to the editor: ‘Systemic cell theory, protoplasmic theory, and their logic of explanation’”

). He raises concerns regarding ourhistoriographical approach to the notions of “protoplasmictheory” and “cellular systems biology” that feature promi-nently in our treatise. We are a bit perplexed by the contentionthat “readers of the article are left alone to establish their ownconcepts of the theoretical backgrounds of systemic cell andprotoplasmic theory.” Judging from Muller-Strahl’s evocationthat

Systemic cell theory, protoplasmic theory, and their logic of explanation

the historical perspective recently elaborated by Welch and Clegg ([8][1]) for this journal deserves to receive general attention by physiologists and philosophers of science, since the task of these authors is an ambitious one: to deliver a reflection on the interplay of concepts related to either

From protoplasmic theory to cellular systems biology: a 150-year reflection

Present-day cellular systems biology is producing data on an unprecedented scale. This field has generated a renewed interest in the holistic, "system" character of cell structure-and-function. Underlying the data deluge, however, there is a clear and present need for a historical foundation. The origin of the "system" view of the cell dates to the birth of the protoplasm concept. The 150-year history of the role of "protoplasm" in cell biology is traced. It is found that the "protoplasmic theory," not the "cell theory," was the key 19th-century construct that drove the study of the structure-and-function of living cells and set the course for the development of modern cell biology. The evolution of the "protoplasm" picture into the 20th century is examined by looking at controversial issues along the way and culminating in the current views on the role of cytological organization in cellular activities. The relevance of the "protoplasmic theory" to 21st-century cellular systems biology is considered.

In the shadow of Darwin: Anton de Bary’s origin of myxomycetology and a molecular phylogeny of the plasmodial slime molds

In his Origin of Species (John Murray, London, 1859), Charles Darwin described the theory of descent with modification by means of natural selection and postulated that all life may have evolved from one or a few simple kinds of organisms. However, Darwin's concept of evolutionary change is entirely based on observations of populations of animals and plants. He briefly mentioned 'lower algae', but ignored amoebae, bacteria and other micro-organisms. In 1859, Anton de Bary, the founder of mycology and plant pathology, published a seminal paper on the biology and taxonomy of the plasmodial slime molds (myxomycetes). These heterotrophic protists are known primarily as a large composite mass, the plasmodium, in which single nuclei are suspended in a common 'naked' cytoplasm that is surrounded by a plasma membrane. Here we summarize the contents of de Bary's 1859 publication and highlight the significance of this scientific classic with respect to the establishment of the kingdom Protoctista (protists such as amoebae), the development of the protoplasmic theory of the cell, the introduction of the concept of symbiosis and the rejection of the dogma of spontaneous generation. We describe the life cycle of the myxomycetes, present new observations on the myxamoebae and propose a higher-order phylogeny based on elongation factor-1 alpha gene sequences. Our results document the congruence between the morphology-based taxonomy of the myxomycetes and molecular data. In addition, we show that free-living amoebae, common protists in the soil, are among the closest living relatives of the myxomycetes and conclude that de Bary's 'Amoeba-hypothesis' on the evolutionary origin of the plasmodial slime molds may have been correct.

The young Ramón y Cajal as a cell-theory dissenter.

The intellectual development of scientists normally traverses several different phases as they mature in their professions. In many cases, strong support of certain ideas and theories gives way to more critical, productive views that set the stage for major theories and discoveries. This appears to have been the case of Santiago Ramón y Cajal (1852-1934). In his youth, he supported the protoplasmic theory of life, and as he matured he maintained a critical, yet open view of the cell theory, which postulated that life phenomena could not take place below the cellular level. In later years, however, an older and wiser Ramón y Cajal abandoned all traces of dissent and joined in fully supporting a refined version of cell theory, to which his own discoveries significantly contributed.

Physiology and Physiology: Back to the Future

At some point in every well-adjusted life there comes a time when an individual needs to take stock of his or her parents’ legacy. All of us must decide with which of this legacy’s aspects we will continue to define ourselves and which we will choose to respect but redefine for ourselves. How,

Huxley, Haeckel, and the Oceanographers: The Case of Bathybius haeckelii

Previous articleNext article No AccessHuxley, Haeckel, and the Oceanographers: The Case of Bathybius haeckeliiPhilip F. RehbockPhilip F. Rehbock Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Isis Volume 66, Number 4Dec., 1975 Publication of the History of Science Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/351511 Views: 10Total views on this site Citations: 19Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1975 History of Science Society, Inc.PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:John R. Dolan Jacob Whitman Bailey (1811–1857): Ehrenberg's ambassador to America, European Journal of Protistology 85 (Aug 2022): 125907.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejop.2022.125907Helen M. Rozwadowski “Bringing Humanity Full Circle Back into the Sea”, Environmental Humanities 14, no.11 (Mar 2022): 1–28.https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-9481407Susannah Crockford Ocean Thinking, Environment and Society 11, no.11 (Sep 2020): 64–81.https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2020.110105Barend Vlaardingerbroek The Haeckelian hijack of Darwinian deism, Journal of Biological Education 54, no.44 (Apr 2019): 454–459.https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2019.1609548Rodolfo John Alaniz Before the “Black Box”: The Inputs and Outputs of Nineteenth-century Deep-sea Science, Science, Technology, & Human Values 45, no.44 (Oct 2019): 596–617.https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919881201Sophia Roosth Turning to stone: Fossil hunting and coeval estrangement in Montana, Res: Anthropology and aesthetics 69-70 (Jan 2019): 62–75.https://doi.org/10.1086/699900Hunter Dukes Samuel Beckett and the fantasy of lithic preservation, Irish Studies Review 25, no.11 (Nov 2016): 24–41.https://doi.org/10.1080/09670882.2016.1257971Hans-Curt Flemming EPS—Then and Now, Microorganisms 4, no.44 (Nov 2016): 41.https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms4040041Sophia Roosth Life, Not Itself: Inanimacy and the Limits of Biology, Grey Room 57 (Oct 2014): 56–81.https://doi.org/10.1162/GREY_a_00156W. Ford Doolittle Microbial neopleomorphism, Biology & Philosophy 28, no.22 (Dec 2012): 351–378.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-012-9358-7Radim Kočandrle, Karel Kleisner Evolution Born of Moisture: Analogies and Parallels Between Anaximander’s Ideas on Origin of Life and Man and Later Pre-Darwinian and Darwinian Evolutionary Concepts, Journal of the History of Biology 46, no.11 (Aug 2012): 103–124.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-012-9334-8Barend Vlaardingerbroek The Sorites Paradox, ?Life,? and Abiogenesis, Evolution: Education and Outreach 5, no.33 (Mar 2012): 399–401.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-012-0392-3Barend Vlaardingerbroek Abiogenesis in Upper Secondary Biology Curricula, Evolution: Education and Outreach 3, no.33 (Mar 2010): 432–435.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0209-1 Nick Hopwood Pictures of Evolution and Charges of Fraud:Ernst Haeckel’s Embryological Illustrations Hopwood, Isis 97, no.22 (Jul 2015): 260–301.https://doi.org/10.1086/504734G. Rickey Welch T.H. Huxley and the ‘protoplasmic theory of life’: 100 years later, Trends in Biochemical Sciences 20, no.1111 (Nov 1995): 481–485.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-0004(00)89106-9Steven Shapin History of Science and its Sociological Reconstructions, (Jan 1986): 325–386.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4498-5_18A. L. RICE Thomas Henry Huxley and the strange case of Bathybius haeckelii; a possible alternative explanation, Archives of Natural History 11, no.22 (Oct 1983): 169–180.https://doi.org/10.3366/anh.1983.11.2.169Frank N. Egerton The history of ecology: Achievements and opportunities, part one, Journal of the History of Biology 16, no.22 (Jan 1983): 259–310.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00124700Steven Shapin History of Science and its Sociological Reconstructions, History of Science 20, no.33 (Jul 2016): 157–211.https://doi.org/10.1177/007327538202000301

The protoplasmic theory of life and the vitalist-mechanist debate.

TN A LECTURE delivered in 1868 English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley 1(1825-1895) excited popular imagination by suggesting that a nitrogenous, semifluid substance, called protoplasm, was basis of life.' The notion was captivating. The basic attributes of Huxley insisted, are displayed by a sort of homogeneous ground substance which is common to both plants and animals and which should therefore be regarded as most compelling evidence for basic unity of all living forms. This conception, and Huxley's felicitous phrase the physical basis of life, won widespread approval, but Huxley's lecture was in reality only a popular exposition of results gained from a long series of studies by other observers. The substance which Huxley and his contemporaries called protoplasm had been observed for decades under a variety of other names. Even during eighteenth century, microscopists had described a stuff whose properties seem to agree more or less with those of protoplasm, and cyclosis (or protoplasmic streaming) had almost certainly been observed as early as 1774.2 The pathway from these early descriptions and observations to conclusion that there is a basic living substance common to plants and animals was long and tortuous, but conclusion had been reached nearly a decade, if not two, before Huxley delivered his lecture. The first clear statement of identity between plant and animal protoplasm was made in 1850 by a twenty-two-year old German botanist, Ferdinand Cohn (18281898) of Breslau. His achievement would have been impossible without earlier work of numerous investigators. Cohn was particularly indebted to French proto-

Electric Conductivity of Nerves

Electric Conductivity of Nerves