Advertisement

Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 459–491 | Cite as

Spontaneous Generation and Disease Causation: Anton de Bary’s Experiments with Phytophthora infestans and Late Blight of Potato

  • Christina Matta
Article

Abstract

Anton de Bary is best known for his elucidation of the life cycle of Phytopthora infestans, the causal organism of late blight of potato and the crop losses that caused famine in nineteenth-century Europe. But while practitioner histories often claim this accomplishment as a founding moment of modern plant pathology, closer examination of de Bary’s experiments and his published work suggest that his primary motiviation for pursing this research was based in developmental biology, not agriculture. De Bary shied away from making any recommendations for agricultural practice, and instead focused nearly exclusively on spontaneous generation and fungal development – both concepts promoted through prize questions posted by the Académie des Sciences in the 1850s and 1860s. De Bary’s submission to the Académie’s 1859 Alhumbert prize question illustrates his own contributions to debates about spontaneous generation and demonstrates the practical applications of seemingly philosophical questions – such as the origin of life.

Keywords

Late blight Potato Anton de Bary Phytopthora (Peronospora) infestans Plant pathology Plant physiology Botany Spontaneous generation Mycology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Académie des Sciences. 1856. ‘Grand Prix des Sciences Physiques, proposé pour 1857.’ Comptes rendus 42: 161–163.Google Scholar
  2. Académie des Sciences. 1859. ‘Prix Alhumbert pour les sciences naturelles, proposé pour 1862.’ Comptes rendus 48: 535–537.Google Scholar
  3. 1861. “Rapport sur le concours pour le grand prix des sciences physiques. Question proposée en 1856 pour 1857, prorogée a1860. Nouvelle question proposée pour 1863.” Comptes rendus 52: 607–608Google Scholar
  4. Académie des Sciences 1862. Prix Alhumbert pour l’année 1862. Rapport sur ce concours fait dans le comité secret de la séance du 1er décembre. Comptes rendus. 55: 977–979.Google Scholar
  5. Arny, D. C., Moore, J. Duain, and Schwebke, Ruth N. (eds.). 1969. Investigations of the Brand Fungi and the diseases of plants caused by them with reference to grain and other useful plants. Trans. R.M.S. Heffner, D.C. Arny, and J. Duain Moore. Minneapolis: APS Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bergman, M. 1967. “The potato blight in the Netherlands and its social consequences (1845–1847).”International review of social history [Netherlands] 12: 390–431Google Scholar
  7. Berkeley, Miles J. 1846. ‘Observations, Botanical, and Physiological, on the Potato Murrain.’ Journal of the Horticultural Society of London 1: 9–34.Google Scholar
  8. Braun, Hans. 1965. Geschichte der Phytomedizin. Berlin:Paul Parey.Google Scholar
  9. de Bary, Anton. 1853. Untersuchungen über die Brandpilze und die durch sie verursachten Krankheiten der Pflanzen, mit Rücksicht auf das Getreide und andere Nutzpflanzen. Berlin:GWF Müller.Google Scholar
  10. de Bary, Anton. 1861. ‘Ueber die Geschlechtsorgane von Peronospora.’ Botanische Zeitung. 19(14): 89–91.Google Scholar
  11. de Bary, Anton 1862 and 1863. Die neuesten Arbeiten ueber Entstehung und Vegetation der niederen Pilze; insbesondere Pasteurs Untersuchungen. Flora, oder Allgemeine botanische Zeitung. 45: 355–365 and 46: 9–12, 17–24, 43–47.Google Scholar
  12. de Bary, Anton. 1863. ‘Recherches sur le développement de quelques champignons parasites.’ Annales des sciences naturelles, Botanique 20: 5–143.Google Scholar
  13. de Bary, Anton. 1876. ‘Researches into the nature of the potato fungus – Phytophthora infestans.’ Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England 12: 239–269.Google Scholar
  14. de Chadarevian, Soraya. 1993. ‘Instruments, Illustrations, Skills, and Laboratories in 19th-century German Botany.’ R Mazzolini (ed.), Non-Verbal Communication in Science Prior to 1900. Firenze:L.S. Olschke, pp. 529–562.Google Scholar
  15. de Chadarevian, Soraya. 1996. ‘Laboratory Science Versus Country-House Experiments: The Controversy Between Julius Sachs and Charles Darwin.’ British Journal for the History of Science 29: 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferdinand, Cohn. 1875. ‘Untersuchungen über Bacterien, II.’ Beiträge zur Biologie der Pflanzen 1: 141–207.Google Scholar
  17. Farley, John. 1977. The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin. Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Farley, John. 1982. Gametes and Spores: Ideas About Sexual Reproduction 1750–1914. Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Farley, John. 1992. ‘Parasites and the Germ Theory of Disease.’ Charles E Rosenberg, Janet Golden (eds.), Framing Disease: Studies in Cultural History. New Brunswick:Rutgers University Press, pp. 133–149.Google Scholar
  20. Farley, John, Geison, Gerald L. 1974. ‘Science, Politics and Spontaneous Generation in Nineteenth-Century France: The Pasteur-Pouchet Debate.’ Bulletin of the History of Medicine 48(2): 161–198.Google Scholar
  21. Gallegly, ME, Galindo, J. 1958. ‘Mating types and oospores of Phytophthora infestans in nature in Mexico.’ Phytopathology 48: 274–277.Google Scholar
  22. Gálvez, Antonio. 1988. ‘The Role of the French Academy of Sciences in the Clarification of the Issue of Spontaneous Generation in the Mid-Nineteenth Century.’ Annals of Science 45: 345–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Geison, Gerald. 1995. The Private Science of Louis Pasteur. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gliboff, Sandor. 1998. ‘Evolution, Revolution, and Reform in Vienna: Franz Unger’s Ideas on Descent and their Post-1848 Reception.’ Journal of the History of Biology 31: 179–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klemm, Margot. 2002. Ferdinand Julius Cohn 1828–1898. Pflanzenphysiologe, Mikrobiologe, Begründer der Bakteriologie, Gründer des ersten Pflanzenphysiologischen Instituts in Preußen. D. Phil. Thesis, Universität StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  26. Large, EC. 1940. The Advance of the Fungi. New York:Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  27. Mazumdar, Pauline M H. 1995. Species and Specificity: An Interpretation of the History of Immunology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mylott, Anne. 2002. Roots of cell theory in sap, spores, Schleiden. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana UniversityGoogle Scholar
  29. Pasteur, Louis. 1861. Mémoire sur les corpuscles organisés qui existent dans l’atmosphere. Examen de la doctrine des générations spontanées. Annales des sciences naturelles, zoologique. 16: 5–98, 494–504, 509–516.Google Scholar
  30. Pouchet, Félix-Archimède. 1859. Hétérogenie ou la Traité de la génération spontanée, basé sur de nouvelles expériences. Paris:J.B. Baillière et Fils.Google Scholar
  31. Roll-Hansen, Nils. 1979. ‘Experimental Method and Spontaneous Generation: The Controversy Between Pasteur and Pouchet, 1859–64.’ Journal of the History of Medicine 34: 273–292.Google Scholar
  32. Rosen, Felix. 1901. “Der Gründung des Pflanzephysiologischen Instituts.” Pauline Cohn (ed.), Ferdinand Cohn, Blätter der Erinnerung. Breslau: J.A. Kern’s VerlagGoogle Scholar
  33. Salaman, Redcliffe N. 1985. The history and social influence of the potato, second edition. J.G. Hawkes (ed.). Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  34. Speerschneider, J. 1857. Dass das Faulen der Kartoffelknollen bei der sogennanten Kartoffelkrankheit durch die ausgestreuten und keimenden Sporen des Blattpilzes (Peronospora devastatrix) verursacht wird, durch Experimente bewiesen von Dr. J. Speerschneider. Flora 6: 81–87.Google Scholar
  35. Strick, James. 2000. Sparks of Life: Darwinism and the Victorian Debates Over Spontaneous Generation. Cambridge:Harvard.Google Scholar
  36. Turner, Gerard L’E. 1980. Essays on the history of the microscope. Oxford: SenecioGoogle Scholar
  37. Unger, Franz. 1833. Die Exantheme der Pflanzen und einige mit diesen verwandte Krankheiten der Gewächse pathogenetisch und nosographisch dargestellt. Wien:C. Gerold.Google Scholar
  38. Waterhouse, Grace M. 1970. The Genus Phytophthora de Bary. Diagnoses (or descriptions) and figures from the original papers, second edition. Mycological Papers 122: 1–59.Google Scholar
  39. Woodham-Smith, Cecil. 1962. The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845–1849. London:Hamish Hamilton.Google Scholar

Archival Materials

  1. de Bary, Anton. Undated. de Bary Nachlass, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Google Scholar
  2. J.D. Hooker to Charles Darwin, 3 March 1874, Cambridge University Library, DAR 103: 189–192.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technical Communication ProgramUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations