The discovery of cells
- Related Topics:
- evolution
- philosophy of biology
- taxonomy
- microbiology
- omics
Of the five microscopists, Robert Hooke was perhaps the most intellectually preeminent. As curator of instruments at the Royal Society of London, he was in touch with all new scientific developments and exhibited interest in such disparate subjects as flying and the construction of clocks. In 1665 Hooke published his Micrographia, which was primarily a review of a series of observations that he had made while following the development and improvement of the microscope. Hooke described in detail the structure of feathers, the stinger of a bee, the radula, or “tongue,” of mollusks, and the foot of the fly. It is Hooke who coined the word cell; in a drawing of the microscopic structure of cork, he showed walls surrounding empty spaces and referred to the structures as cells. He described similar structures in the tissue of other trees and plants and discerned that in some tissues the cells were filled with a liquid while in others they were empty. He therefore supposed that the function of the cells was to transport substances through the plant.
Although the work of any of the classical microscopists seems to lack a definite objective, it should be remembered that these men embodied the concept that observation and experiment were of prime importance, that mere hypothetical, philosophical speculations were not sufficient. It is remarkable that so few men, working as individuals totally isolated from each other, should have recorded so many observations of such fundamental importance. The great significance of their work was that it revealed, for the first time, a world in which living organisms display an almost incredible complexity.
Work with the compound microscope languished for nearly 200 years, mainly because the early lenses tended to break up white light into its constituent parts. That technical problem was not solved until the invention of achromatic lenses, which were introduced about 1830. In 1878 a modern achromatic compound microscope was produced from the design of the German physicist Ernst Abbe. Abbe subsequently designed a substage illumination system, which, together with the introduction of a new substage condenser, paved the way for the biological discoveries of that era.
The development of taxonomic principles
In 1687 the English mathematician, physicist, and astronomer Isaac Newton published his great work Principia, in which he described the universe as fixed, with Earth and other heavenly bodies moving harmoniously in accordance with mathematical laws. That approach of systematizing and classifying was to dominate biology in the 17th and 18th centuries. One reason was that the 16th-century “fathers of botany” had been content merely to describe and draw plants, assembling an enormous and diverse number that continued to increase as explorations of foreign countries made it evident that every country had its own native plants and animals.
Aristotle began the process of classification when he used mode of reproduction and habitat to distinguish groups of animals. Indeed, the words genus and species are translations of the Greek genos and eidos used by Aristotle. The Swiss botanist Bauhin had introduced a binomial system of classification, using a generic name and a specific name. Most classification schemes proposed before the 17th century were confused and unsatisfactory, however.
The use of structure for classifying organisms
Two systematists of the 17th and 18th centuries were the English naturalist John Ray and the Swedish naturalist and explorer Carolus Linnaeus. Ray, who studied at Cambridge, was particularly interested in the work of the ancient compilers of herbals, especially those who had attempted to formulate some means of classification. Recognizing the need for a classification system that would apply to both plants and animals, Ray employed in his classification schemes extremely precise descriptions for genera and species. By basing his system on structures, such as the arrangement of toes and teeth in animals, rather than colour or habitat, Ray introduced a new and very important concept to taxonomic biology.
Reorganization of groups of organisms
Prior to Linnaeus, most taxonomists started their classification systems by dividing all the known organisms into large groups and then subdividing them into progressively smaller groups. Unlike his predecessors, Linnaeus began with the species, organizing them into larger groups or genera, and then arranging analogous genera to form families and related families to form orders and classes. Probably utilizing the earlier work of Grew and others, Linnaeus chose the structure of the reproductive organs of the flower as a basis for grouping the higher plants. Thus, he distinguished between plants with real flowers and seeds (phanerogams) and those lacking real flowers and seeds (cryptogams), subdividing the former into hermaphroditic (bisexual) and unisexual forms. For animals, following Ray’s work, Linnaeus relied upon teeth and toes as the basic characteristics of mammals; he used the shape of the beak as the basis for bird classification. Having demonstrated that a binomial classification system based on concise and accurate descriptions could be used for the grouping of organisms, Linnaeus established taxonomic biology as a discipline.
Later developments in classification were initiated by the French biologists Comte de Buffon, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, and Georges Cuvier, all of whom made lasting contributions to biological science, particularly in comparative studies. Subsequent systematists have been chiefly interested in the relationships between animals and have endeavoured to explain not only their similarities but also their differences in broad terms that encompass, in addition to structure, composition, function, genetics, evolution, and ecology.
The development of comparative biological studies
Once the opprobrium attached to the dissection of human bodies had been dispelled in the 16th century, anatomists directed their efforts toward a better understanding of human structure. In doing so they generally ignored other animals, at least until the latter part of the 17th century, when biologists began to realize that important insights could be gained by comparative studies of all animals, including humans. One of the first of such anatomists was the English physician Edward Tyson, who studied the anatomy of an immature chimpanzee in detail and compared it with that of a human. In making further comparisons between the chimpanzee and other primates, Tyson clearly recognized points of similarity between those animals and humans. Not only was this a major contribution to physical anthropology, but it was also an indication—nearly two centuries before Darwin—of the existence of relationships between humans and other primates.
Among those who gave comparative studies their greatest impetus was Georges Cuvier, who utilized large collections of biological specimens sent to him from all over the world to work out a systematic organization of the animal kingdom. In addition to establishing a connection between systematic and comparative anatomy, he believed that there was a “correlation of parts” according to which a given type of structure (e.g., feathers) is related to a certain anatomical formation (e.g., a wing), which in turn is related to other specific formations (e.g., the clavicle), and so on. In other words, he felt that a great deal of anatomical information could be deduced about an organism even if the whole specimen was not available. That insight was to be of great practical importance in the study of fossils, in which Cuvier played a leading role. Indeed, the 1812 publication of Cuvier’s Recherches sur les ossemens fossiles de quadrupèdes (translated as Research on Fossil Bones in 1835) laid the foundation for the science of paleontology. But in order to reconcile his scientific findings with his personal religious beliefs, Cuvier postulated a series of catastrophic events that could account for both the presence of fossils and the immutability of existing species.