1. INTRODUCTION
13
was largely a collection of errors, probably attributable to a lack of
technical knowledge. In 1903, following a suggestion of Anton Dohrn,
Otto von Fürth published his "Vergleichende chemische Physiologie
der niederen Tiere," in which he endeavored to collect and systematize
the biochemical knowledge of invertebrates. His classification was based
upon the relationship of composition and function, as shown by the
chapter titles: blood, respiration, nutrition, excretion, muscle, support
substances, tissue pigments, reserve substances and ash constituents,
products of sexual glands, and chemical relationships with the environment. Under each heading, the different phyla were considered. The
same point of view is found in E. Baldwin's "Introduction to Comparative Biochemistry," published first in 1937, a third edition of which
appeared in 1949. Baldwin writes in his preface: "The task of the
biochemist is, after all, to study the physico-chemical processes associated with the manifestations of what we call life—not the life of
some particular animal or group of animals, but life in its more general
sense. From this point of view, a starfish or an earthworm, neither of
which has any clinical or economic importance per se, is as important
as any other living organism and fully entitled to the same consideration, and unless such forms do receive considerably more attention than
is accorded to them at present, biochemistry, as yet hardly out of its
cradle, will assuredly develop into a monster." In addition to his
emphasis on the Unitarian aspects of comparative biochemistry, Baldwin
gives attention to biochemical diversity according to the physiological
viewpoint already seen in von Furth's treatise.
One of us (M. F.) adopted a different point of view in his
"L'evolution biochimique" (1944), trying to associate homologies and
analogies in a study of biochemical unity and diversity. The author
collected a number of examples of biochemical adaptations on the one
hand, and on the other hand, of biochemical novelties among taxonomic
divisions.
In "The Microbe's Contribution to Biology" (7), A. J. Kluyver and
C. B. van Niel have compared systems of molecular dynamics within
microorganisms with those in other forms of life. They show that the
principles which appear to describe metabolism, mutation, and adaptation in microorganisms may apply to all forms of life.
III. The Scope of Comparative Biochemistry
Thus, the field of comparative biochemistry developed from roots
in organic and physical chemistry, as well as in the biological sciences.
What then is its scope?
At its most fundamental level, comparative biochemistry seeks to
13
was largely a collection of errors, probably attributable to a lack of
technical knowledge. In 1903, following a suggestion of Anton Dohrn,
Otto von Fürth published his "Vergleichende chemische Physiologie
der niederen Tiere," in which he endeavored to collect and systematize
the biochemical knowledge of invertebrates. His classification was based
upon the relationship of composition and function, as shown by the
chapter titles: blood, respiration, nutrition, excretion, muscle, support
substances, tissue pigments, reserve substances and ash constituents,
products of sexual glands, and chemical relationships with the environment. Under each heading, the different phyla were considered. The
same point of view is found in E. Baldwin's "Introduction to Comparative Biochemistry," published first in 1937, a third edition of which
appeared in 1949. Baldwin writes in his preface: "The task of the
biochemist is, after all, to study the physico-chemical processes associated with the manifestations of what we call life—not the life of
some particular animal or group of animals, but life in its more general
sense. From this point of view, a starfish or an earthworm, neither of
which has any clinical or economic importance per se, is as important
as any other living organism and fully entitled to the same consideration, and unless such forms do receive considerably more attention than
is accorded to them at present, biochemistry, as yet hardly out of its
cradle, will assuredly develop into a monster." In addition to his
emphasis on the Unitarian aspects of comparative biochemistry, Baldwin
gives attention to biochemical diversity according to the physiological
viewpoint already seen in von Furth's treatise.
One of us (M. F.) adopted a different point of view in his
"L'evolution biochimique" (1944), trying to associate homologies and
analogies in a study of biochemical unity and diversity. The author
collected a number of examples of biochemical adaptations on the one
hand, and on the other hand, of biochemical novelties among taxonomic
divisions.
In "The Microbe's Contribution to Biology" (7), A. J. Kluyver and
C. B. van Niel have compared systems of molecular dynamics within
microorganisms with those in other forms of life. They show that the
principles which appear to describe metabolism, mutation, and adaptation in microorganisms may apply to all forms of life.
III. The Scope of Comparative Biochemistry
Thus, the field of comparative biochemistry developed from roots
in organic and physical chemistry, as well as in the biological sciences.
What then is its scope?
At its most fundamental level, comparative biochemistry seeks to