Comparative Morphology is the Foundation of All Biology

Introduction
The trend of ideas of the last few decades has led to--especially in bacteriology--a certain disparity between physiological/biological research and comparative morphology. Comparative morphology was regarded by many parties more and more as a minor matter, believing that its demotion represented an achievement favoring biology, although it is in actuality the very foundation of biology, and the source of all phylogenetic, ontogenetic and systematic knowledge of nature. The recognition of the rhythmic aspect of all organic processes is the foundation of knowledge in this area of research as well.The basic conditions for a morphological evolutionary investigation is the organic continuity of successive developmental conditions. During the course of systematic morphological studies of bacteria, I was forced to conclude that the practical side of bacteriology in particular in no way corresponded to these basic conditions, and indeed rested on a foundation that totally contradicted the actual situation. The main foci of this erroneous trend in knowledge can be indicated with three words: Monomorphism, Mutation Theory, MonocytismThe following treatment attempts to structure bacteriology on the basis of comparative morphological principles. That this attempt has met with some success can be seen in the results, which by no means lie in the theoretical sphere, but are in fact of a comparative morphological nature, while yet seeming to be suited to serve to orient entire areas of individual biological and physiological facts.It is difficult, in light of the varying interpretations of the enormous amount of observational material, to do justice to all requirements. Therefore, this work is recommended to the specialist's goodwill. In drawing up this sketch--it could not be otherwise, considering the scope of this area of endeavor--the main goals had always to be kept in mind as setting the course, so that many points may have possibly gotten short shrift. All of this is left to later additions and the checking-up of specialized research. Tips, from whatever quarter they may come, will always be gratefully welcomed by me.May a new comparative, morphologically clarified Pleomorphism arise from the dust of past decades, driving mutation theory and monocytism out of bacteriology and setting Cyclogeny and Pleocytism in its place, so that bacteriology can exit the province of theoretical explanation attempts and enter a state of absolute biological/morphological knowledge.Comparative morphologically sharply delineated concepts, so necessary for any clear discussion, elevate bacteriology to a comparative morphological discipline. The very nature of the task has made necessary the creation of an entire series of new terms, which might of course discourage many from trying to delve into this material. But the nature of recognized concepts crystallizes out as name. Without a precise comparative/morphological nomenclature, it is impossible to arrive at a clear conception of an organism's basic nature. Even biological concepts such as Mochlosis--for which a final clarification and insight was not possible--are fixed by naming, and one can then deal with them. "For it is just when terms are lacking that the right word comes along at the right time."Yet even this initially theoretical and vague-seeming concept of Mochlosis has over time become more clearly defined in my conception, and its comparative parallelism with Meloë's life-course--which I make reference to in the introductory pages of Chapter VII (Classification) in a much later entry--has completely swept away any remaining reservations and, even for this concept, dropped the theoretical remnants.Just as this nomenclature developed with progressive knowledge and was recognized as indispensable to a full understanding, so too will anyone who penetrates to a full understanding of Cyclogeny be convinced of its necessity. The structure of this nomenclature, which it has only been able to simplify once the work was completed, is thus carefully thought out and possesses largely organic relationships to its significance from a morphological and biological viewpoint, and is formed out of the synthesis of only a few words. To this end, the terms chosen for the morphological basic elements needed to be short words, monosyllabic wherever possible, so that the words compounded for morphologically complicated concepts would not get too long. So, for example, the term for the proto-nucleus is Mych (derived from to mucon = the innermost), and represents the starting-point for most of the compound concepts, whose derivation is usually recognizable at a glance. The instructions in Section XI explain the etymological structure.The essence of all sciences is the organization of the subject-matter, without which the overview that leads to deeper understanding is impossible. The main results are the following:
1. Finding the bacterial nucleus: Mych (proto-nucleus).
2. Establishing a comparative bacterial morphology.
3. Demonstrating the generality of Gonidie formation in all bacteria as the fundamental form of asexual fructification (Until now only established for some sheath bacteria--Crenothrix and some Spherotilides).
4. Demonstrating the sexual reproduction of bacteria.
5. Morphological demonstration of the Sporit (the so-called bacterial spore) as a small side-branch, a special form of Oit formation.
6. Establishing the Cyclogeny of bacteria and their diagnostic and therapeutic significance.
7. Establishing Mochlosis and Mochlolysis.
8. Demonstrating the cyclostatic moment of virulence and pathogenicity (Virulent stage).
9. As a practical result of the Cyclogenetic view, the polyetiological assessment of diphtheroid infections, regardless of whether found in the Basit, Phytit or Cystascit stage.
Stettin, October 1916