OBSERVATIONS

IN REPLY TO

WHARTON JONES'S STRICTURES.

By DR, MARTIN BARRY,

\Vrom. the London Medical Gazette for Any. 17, 1839.]

LONDON :
PRINTKD BY WILSON AND SON,

57, Skinner Street.

^ f» ]£>0

My claims to originality in my " First
Series" of Researches in Embryology*
are before the scientific public, and by
their deliberate opinion will be ulti-
mately decided. It is not out of any
anxiety to vindicate these^ claims that I
offer the present communication ; it is
to repel certain charges made by T.
Wharton Jones, in the Medical Ga-
zette, July 20, 1839, having a per-
sonal bearing, and calculated to induce
an impression of unfairness and want of
candour on my part, in alluding to the
works of other physiologists in general,
and his own in particular. My " pre-
tensions to novelty, originality, and
correctness," are before a tribunal on
whose intelligence and impartiality I
can rely, and from whose decision I will
not shrink.

The first accusatory remark of T.
Wharton Jones is an allusion to the
following passage, which he quotes
from my " First Series": —

M It may not be improper, in the first
place, to furnish an idea of what has
Deen already published on some branches
of the subject ; for it is one to which
the attention of physiologists in this
country has scarcely beyun to be di-
rected."

To this quotation T. Wharton Jones
appends the following note : —

" Had there been no other, the la-
bours of Dr. Allen Thomson in this
field ought to have been sufficient to
have obviated the reproach so sweep-
ing implied, in Dr. Barry's allega-
tion, against the physiologists of this
country." — hoc. cit. § 1.

I think it is obvious from the context
of the passage cited, when taken in con-
junction with what had preceded it —
and which T. Wharton Jones has not
quoted — that I meant to make no invi-
dious allusion whatever to the labours
of English physiologists on the subject
of embryology in general, but that the
remark objected to in that passage has
a reference only to that portion of the
science of embryology which regards
the existence of the microscopic ovum
in the ovary of mammals, as discovered
by Baer, and upon which so little had

* Philosophical Transactions, 1838, Part II.,
page 301.

been observed or written in this country
as compared with German research, that
I thought — and still think — m yself per-
fectly justified in stating, that the atten-
tion of physiologists in England had
scarcely begun to be directed to it*.

One of the objects of T. Wharton
Jones, in his communication above re-
ferred to, was to apprize me that a
paper of his — read before the Royal
Society in 1835, but not printed in the
Philosophical Transactions — was pub-
lished in the Medical Gazette for
Session 1837-38, pp. 680 88; London,
1838f . I was not previously aware that
the paper in question, by T. Wharton
Jones, had been published, or that it was
any where accessible, otherwise I should
have deemed it right to include some
statements made by that author along
with similar ones previously made by
others, which I noticed in my " First
Series," for the purpose of showing that
they differed from my own observa-
tions. I have now seen, in the Medical
Gazette, No. 18, 1838, the paper to
which T. Wharton Jones has directed
my attention ; and I refer him to my
" First Series" for the points of dif-
ference just alluded to.

I will here observe, that there is the
less necessity for going into the scienti-
fic part of the question at any length
with T. Wharton Jones, inasmuch as
I find in his paper no new fact what-
ever, with the single exception that he
has stated the Graafian vesicle of mam-
mals to be analogous to the capsule o£
birds|. With that one exception there
is, indeed, nothing that appears to me

* It affords me particular pleasure to quote the
following from an eminent German author: —
" The best and most condensed survey of the
whole doctrine of generation — based on his own
observations — has been given by Allen Thomson,
in the article ' Generation,' in Todd's Cyclopaedia
of Anatomy and Physiology, vol. ii. p. 424." — (Ru-
dolph Wagner, Lehrbuch der Physiologie, Erste
Abtheilung. Physiologie der Zeugung unci Ent-
wickelung, p. 6. Leipzig, 1839.) I may add my
belief, that no one is more competent to offer an
opinion on this subject than Professor Rudolph
Wagner.

t A considerable portion of it was republished
by him in the Mkdical Gazette, July 20, 1839.

X I was not aware that T. Wharton Jones had
asserted the analogy above-mentioned at the
time when my "First Series" was written, for
the reason before given. But it will presently be
seen how much he knew of the real nature of
either of the structures in question. As to the

to have been new at the time when
he presented his paper to the Royal
Society, in 1835; and to tread over
beaten ground for the mere sake of per-
sonal controversy, is neither pleasant
nor profitable. But there is one point
upon which T. Wharton Jones seems
to set up "pretensions to novelty, origi-
nality, and correctness,1' on which I
must be permitted to say a few words.

In 1835 this author presented to the
Royal Society an account of the germinal
vesicle discovered by him in the mam-
miferous ovum ; adding", in a postscript
in reference to this discovery, " it would
appear that M. Coste has anticipated
me/' The Memoir of T. Wharton
Jones not having been printed in the
Philosophical Transactions, the author
published it at full length in the
Medical Gazette, in 1838 (No. 18,
p. 680), with the same postscript in
which he had yielded the priority of dis-
covery to Coste. It is remarkable, how-
ever, that T. Wharton Jones had not
in the meantime heard that in 1834 a
thesis was published at Breslau, in
which ten quarto pages were devoted to
a description of the germinal vesicle
as existing in the ovum of all orders of
the class mammalia, and remarks con-
nected with it. This thesis was by
Bernhardt*, but the drawings are by
Valentin, who seems to have beeu the
discoverer of the vesicle in Germany.
This thesis was particularly referred to
in a translation I gave from the Ger-
man of Valentin, in the Edinburgh
Medical and Surgical Journal, No. 127,
1836. But farther, in the year 1834
R. Wagner sent to Muller's " Archiv" a
particular description of the germinal
jspot, discovered by him within the ger-
minal vesicle, a structure which he con-
sidered constantin the class mammalia —
so extended had been his observations.
This discovery by Wagner was men-
tioned in the Edinburgh Medical and
Surgical Journal, No. 126, 1836, above
alluded to, and it was at the same time
stated in that journal, on the authority
of Professor Johann Miiller, that the
account had been sent by Wagner to
the "Archiv" in 1834. Upon these
points T. Wharton Jones is silent.

T. Wharton Jones quotes two pas-

analogy between the ovum of the bird arid the
Baerian vesicle of the mammal, this was pointed
out by several authors in 1834.

* Symbolse ad Ovi Mammalium historiam ante
prsegnationcm.

sages from pages 312 and 314 of my
" First Series," in which I showed that
a vesicle, called by me the "ovisac," in
mammals, corresponded to one which
had been denominated the " chorion"
in other vertebrata ; and also, that it
was by those vesicles acquiring a cover-
ing susceptible of becoming1 highly vas-
cular, that the structure is produced,
usually termed a " Graafian vesicle" in
mammalia, and a " capsule" in other
vertebrata. T. Wharton Jones adds,
"All this is true; but I dissent from
the allegation that it was not clearly
stated before. I can answer for myself,;
that I am not one of the authors who
have mistaken the ovisac of birds for the
analogue of the chorion of mammals."
{hoc. ext. § 6.) I did not say that T.
Wharton Jones was one of the authors
who had mistaken the ovisac of birds
for the analogue of the chorion of mam-
mals. On the contrary, it does not ap-
pear from his papers that he ever saw
the vesicle which I denominated the
" ovisac" of birds, in its originally
independent state ; and as to the cor-
responding- vesicle, called by me the
" ovisac" in mammals, I am not aware
that any observer had described it
before myself. With what degree of
justice, therefore, T. Wharton Jones
made the above assertion, will now be
obvious.

T. Wharton Jones says (Med. Gaz.
1838, No. 18, p. 682), " I shall men-
tion the points most worthy of notice
in the structure of the hen's egg*, in the
first stage of its formation," and he then
describes the capsules, as " varying in
magnitude, from that of a millet-seed
to a full-sized yelk." In my " First
Series," (plate v. fig. 22), the ovisac—
i. e. the subsequent inner layer of the
capsule — of the bird was figured (hav-
ing the incipient ovum within it) of a
size so minute that some thousands of
such ovisacs might be contained within
a " millet-seed." Yet, according to
T. Wharton Jones, he described the
hen's egg in the " first stage" of its
formation.

T. Wharton Jones says (Med. Gaz.
1838, No. 18, p. 686), " I might
also add, that the granulary membrane,
proligerous disc, and granulary fluid of
the Graafian vesicle, are probably su-
peradded parts, of which there is no
trace within the capsule of the bird's
ovary." In my " First Series," it was
shown that a fluid containing " granules

5

essentially the same [as the very remark-
able ones in the ovisac of mammalia]
exist at an early period in the ovisac of
birds." — (L. c. p. 329, pi. v. fig-. 23 ;
pi. viii. fig. 76). It was also shown
(pp. 329, 330), that the situation of the
ovum in the Graafian vesicle had not
been understood by those who stated it
to be contained in a " disc." T.
Wharton Jones took some pains to point
out the resemblance between the
Graafian vesicle of the mammal and the
capsule of the bird. Yet now, when
made aware how much he knew of the
real nature of either of these objects,
he considers them " structures of secon-
dary importance in the economy of the
ovum — structures which, on that ac-
count, had been less carefully studied"
(Med. Gaz. July 20, 1839, § 9).

To vindicate my own motives and
conduct against charges of misrepre-
senting' or undervaluing- the labours of
others, or claiming* undue credit for my
own, being" my chief object, I have
no w ish to recriminate on T. Wharton
Jones; but when he chooses to quote a
passage from the abstract of a paper by
me, as an illustration of my opinion
upon an important subject of physiolo-
gical investigation, I cannot help ob-
serving1 that it was not quite fair to have
garbled it in the manner in which the
following" passage has been garbled : —
*' He (Dr. B.) has traced the chorion
from stage to stage, up to the period
when it becomes villous, and shows that
it is not, as he formerly supposed, the
thick transparent membrane itself of
the ovarian ovum, but a thin envelope
closely investing that membrane, and
not appreciable as a distinct structure
until the ovum has been crushed. * * *
The chorion subsequently thickens, and
imbibes a quantity of fluid, presenting
a gelatinous appearance." — (Loc. cit.
§ 7.) The asterisks certainly indicate
that something has been omitted, but
the reader would understand thereby
that what was omitted was not neces-
sary to the proper understanding of the
question in dispute between us. By
the omission, however, which T. Whar-
ton Jones thought proper to make,
he has got rid of the difficulty of no-
ticing' certain anatomical facts, the
" pretensions" of which " to novelty,
originality, and correctness," it was,
perhaps, easier to omit than answer*.

Another paragraph of T. Wharton
Jones (/. c. § 10) contains the following
passages, quoted from the abstract of
my " Second Series" of" Researches on
Embryology"* : —

"The knowledge at present supposed
to be possessed of the early stages in
the development of that ovum (the
mammiferous ovum) consists chiefly of
inferences from observations on the
ovum of the bird.

" But there exists a period in the
history of the ovum of the mammal re-
garding which we have hitherto scarcely
any direct or positive knowledge."

T. Wharton Jones then remarks—
" For a perfect and unqualified contra-
diction of this very bold assertion, I
would refer to my memoir, contained in
the Philosophical Transactions, Part II.
for 1837, page 339, already alluded to."

Now what is the " perfect and un-
qualified contradiction" of this " very
hold assertion" for which T. Wharton
Jones refers to his memoir? The con-
tradiction thus alluded to appears to be
certain inferences from observations on
the ova of the frog and newt ; conse-
quently, more conjectural than demon-
strative.

As to the "mode of origin of the
chorion, " another point on which T.
Wharton Jones dwells at some length,
my " Second Series," to appear in the
forthcoming volume of the Philosophical
Transactions, will show what are really
the differences between the results of his
observations and my own, on the relative
value of which 1 leave physiologists to
determine. I shall only farther remark,
that T. Wharton Jones's opportunities of
observation, as compared with my own,
may be stated as one to twenty -Jive —
that gentleman, on his own admission,
having examined four rabbits, whereas
the number devoted to anatomical in-
spection by myself exceeds a hundred ;
and also, that the paper in question will
show that T. Wharton Jones has only
renounced one erroneous" notion" — as to
" the mode of origin of the chorion" — to
fall into another.

admits of demonstration as a distinct structure,
the ovum consists of three membranes ; a &tate
which the author has seen in an ovum no farther
advanced than about an inch into the Fallopian
tube." — (Proceedings of the Royal Society, No.
38, 1839.)

* Proceedings of the Royal Society, No. 38, 1839.

* The words omitted to be quoted by T.Whar-
ton Jones: were these : — " When the chorion first

ANSWER TO THE

NOTE QF T. WHARTON JONES.

Br Br. Marttn Barry.

[From the London Medical Gazette,']

The observations of T. Wharton Jones,
contained in last week's number of the
Medical Gazette, reduce the whole
of the matter in dispute to a mere ques-
tion of priority as to the discovery in
the mammiferous ovum of the germinal
vesicle and the germinal spot. On
that question the Editor of the Medical
Gazette says, p. 805, " a comparison
of dates will determine the mere matter
of priority." I adopt his criterion, and,
giving" the dates, as proved by publi-
cation, I leave his readers to judge to
whom the priority rightfully belongs.
By a glance at those dates, every can-
did critic will be able to determine
whether any one in this country can
participate with the professors on the
continent in the honour of those dis-
coveries.

Valentin and Bernhardt, having pub-

lished an account of the germinal
vesicle in October 1834, and R.
Wagner having sent to Muller's
"Archiv" an account of the germi-
nal spot in the same year, the discovery
of both the vesicle, and the spot on the
inside of it, were made known to the
world previously to T.Wharton Jones's
publication of his discovery of the ger-
minal vesicle, and (the object he now
supposes to have been) the germinal
spot, in June 1835.

Yet T. Wharton Jones claims the
priority of discovery of both vesicle and
spot-— a claim which the dates above
stated satisfactorily refute.

One word more, with regard to the
object which T. Wharton Jones sup-
poses to have been the germinal
spot. The description he has given
seems to belong to a body, not within,
but external to the germinal vesicle,
and, if so, one that cannot in reality
have been the germinal spot. His de-
scription is this : — " On one side of the
vesicle there is a small elevation, which,
projecting among the grains composing
the walls of the granulary sac, fixes the
vesicle in its place*."

* Med. Gaz. Jan. 27, 1838, p. 684.

REPLY TO T. WHARTON JONES'S
REJOINDER,

By Dr. Martin Barry.
[From the Medical Gazette of Sept. Wth 1839.]

T. Wharton Jones, in a spirit more
controversial than courteous, accuses me
of "a pure invention" in alleging* that
he had claimed priority of discovery as to
the germinal vesicle and germinal spot in
the mammiferous ovum. Let us see whe-
ther the facts of the case justify him in the
use of such an imputation.

* Medical Gazette, Aug. 31, 1839, p. 848.

In the answer which T. Wharton Jones,
attempted to my former article, Med.
Gaz. Aug. 24, 1839, he quotes the words
of the Editor of that periodical, and adopts
them as part of his own statement, not
disclaiming or qualifying any thing there-
in alleged. Now the Editor, arguing on
behalf of T. Wharton Jones, and speaking
of the discovery of the germinal vesicle and
spot, says as follows: —

" Hence, it appears that, like many
other discoveries in science, the germinal
vesicle of the mammiferous ovum was dis-
covered about the same time in this
country and on the continent. But it
will be seen from Mr. Jones's memoir,

that he had investigated the subject so
fully and successfully as to be able to give
such a description of it as is only to be
drawn from the united labours of Coste,
Valentin, and Wagner*."

He goes on to say, t( A comparison of
dates will determine the mere matter of
priority." Priority for whom ? Not for
Valentin — not for Wagner; but for T.
Wharton Jones. How is this shown ?
The writer immediately tells us, that
" Mr. Wharton Jones's observations were
made in the beginning of September 1834,
and his memoir read before the Royal
Society, 18th June, 1835." Why are these
dates given at all ? To prove that which
the writer said a comparison of dates
would determine — the matter of priority : to
prove, in fact, that T. Wharton Jones was
not the last, but the first in the field, — and
thus was the priority of discovery set up
for T. Wharton Jones. This gentleman
adopted, as I have said, the very words in
which that claim was preferred, by repub-
lishing them as part of his own statement :
and yet, in the face of all this, he now says,
" This is a pure invention on the part of Dr.
Barry"— and then adds, " I am not aware
that any thing I ever wrote or said can
be construed into such a meaning; and I
do not perceive that you, Mr. Editor, in
the remarks reprinted in the last number
but one of the Mbdical Gazette, ad-
vanced any claim of priority in my behalf."
— So much for T. Wharton Jones's denial
of having advanced a claim of prior disco-
very, and so much for my "pure invention."

What I stated in answer to this claim
of priority set up for T. Wharton Jones,
was as follows: " Valentin and Bernhardt
having published an account of the germi-
nal vesicle in October 1834, and R.
Wagner having sent to Mullei's ' Archiv'
an account of the germinal spot in the
same year, the discovery of both the vesi-
cle, and the spot on the inside of it, was
made known to the world previously to T.
Wharton Jones's publication of his disco-
very of the germinal vesicle, and (the ob-
ject he now supposes to have been) the
germinal spot, in June 1835f."

As to observations made previously to
publication, they must, of course, have
been made previously in every case. T.
Wharton Jones says he made his in Sep-
tember 1834 : at what distance of time the
observations of Valentin and Wagner pre-
ceded their respective publications, I
know not; but I take it that the date of
publication, in each case, is an authentic
and correct criterion as to the question of
priority : it is the public evidence of the
fact; but as to the private transactions to
which T. Wharton Jones alludes connected
with his observations, I have now heard
of them for the first time. Since, however

* Med. Gaz. for Aug. 24, 183d.
t Ibid, for Aug. SI, 1839, p. 847.

T. Wharton Jones now disclaims priority
of discovery, I shall not dwell upon that
part of the subject any longer.

But T. Wharton Jones states that this
matter of the germinal vesicle and spot is
only an episode to the original question, and
then proceeds to say, " the main point in
dispute, I beg it to be remembered, is con-
tained in mv communication of the 20th
of July, the object of which was to disprove
the assertion, that the study of embryology
is * one to which the attention of physiolo-
gists in this country has scarcely begun
to be directed,' and to expose the un-
founded nature of the pretensions to
novelty, originality, and correctness,
which Dr. Barry has introduced into
both series * of his ' Researches.' " Here
T. Wharton Jones has only repeated
his first unwarranted construction of a pas-
sage of mine, which I explained in a
manner that showed it did not bear the
meaning he had chosen to put upon it.
When he thought fit to repeat his attack,
it would have been only candid in him to
have accompanied it with my explanation.
As he has not thought proper to do so, I
here subjoin it : —

u I think it is obvious from the context
of the passage cited, when taken in con-
junction with what had preceded it — and
which T. Wharton Jones has not quoted —
that I meant to make no invidious allusion
whatever to the labours of English phy-
siologists on the subject of embryology in
general, but that the remark objected to
in that passage has a reference only to
that portion of the science of embryology
which regards the existence of the micro-
scopic ovum in the ovary of mammals, as
discovered by Baer, and upon which so
little had been observed or written in this
country, as compared with German re-
search, that I thought— and still think —
myself perfectly justified in stating, that
the attention of physiologists in England
had scarcely begun to be directed to itf.''

Had T. Wharton Jones extracted more
than a sentence isolated from the context,
it would have shown that I had no inten-
tion of making a sweeping attack on
British physiologists in reference to em.
bryological science in general. I certainly
never suspected, until I saw how my
words had been misconstrued, that the
most perverted ingenuity could have attri-
buted to them a meaning so different from
the true one.

As to the invidious allusion to what he
is pleased to designate my " pretensions to
novelty, originality, and correctness,"!
shall only repeat what I before said+, that
they " are before a tribunal on whose intel-
ligence and impartiality I can rely, and
from whose decision I will not shrink."

* Phil. Trans, for 1838 nnd 18S9.
t Med. Gaz. for Aug 17, 1839.
t Ibid.