▁comp ounds ▁could ▁be ▁made ▁only ▁by ▁living ▁things . ▁In ▁respond ing ▁to ▁W öh ler , ▁J ö ns ▁Jakob ▁Ber zel ius ▁clearly ▁acknowled ged ▁that ▁W öh ler ' s ▁results ▁were ▁highly ▁significant ▁for ▁the ▁understanding ▁of ▁organ ic ▁synth esis , ▁calling ▁them ▁a ▁" j ew el " ▁for ▁W öh ler ' s ▁" la ure l ▁w re ath ". ▁Both ▁men ▁also ▁recognized ▁the ▁work ' s ▁importance ▁to ▁the ▁study ▁of ▁is omer ism , ▁a ▁new ▁area ▁of ▁research . ▁▁ ▁W öh ler ' s ▁role ▁in ▁over turn ing ▁vital ism ▁is ▁right ly ▁argued ▁to ▁have ▁become ▁ex agger ated ▁over ▁time . ▁This ▁t endency ▁can ▁be ▁trac ed ▁back ▁to ▁Hermann ▁Ko pp ' s ▁History ▁of ▁Chem istry ▁( in ▁four ▁volumes , ▁ 1 8 4 3 – 1 8 4 7 ). ▁He ▁emphas ized ▁the ▁importance ▁of ▁W öh ler ' s ▁research ▁as ▁a ▁ref ut ation ▁of ▁vital ism , ▁but ▁ignored ▁its ▁importance ▁to ▁is omer ism , ▁setting ▁a ▁tone ▁for ▁subsequent ▁writers . ▁ ▁The ▁myth ▁that ▁W öh ler ▁single - hand edly ▁over turn ed ▁vital ism ▁also ▁gained ▁popular ity ▁after ▁it ▁appeared ▁in ▁a ▁popular ▁history ▁of ▁chem istry ▁published ▁in ▁ 1 9 3 1 , ▁which , ▁" ign oring ▁all ▁pre ten se ▁of ▁historical ▁accuracy , ▁turned ▁W öh ler ▁into ▁a ▁cr us ader ". ▁ ▁Final ▁days