87 



sepals or petals arid so on). But, this can by 110 means be laid doAvn as a 

 general proposition ; it can only be maintained in cases where we have evidence 

 to that effect. GOETHE'S lines should, therefore, be explained in the sense that 

 when tin entity, which could be a foliage leaf if conditioned to that effect, is 

 conditioned to become a floral leaf, it appears as the latter. This implies 

 undoubtedly the basic identity of the foliage and the floral leaf. 

 In 32, he proceeds as follows : 



$ 32. DaB (lie Blatter des Kelches eben dieselbigen Organe seien, welche sick 

 bisher als Stengelblatter ausgebilclet selien lassen, nun aber oft in sehr veranderter 

 Gestalt um einen gemeinsckaft lichen llittelpunct versammlet stehen, liisst sich, wie 

 iins diinlct, auf das deutlichste nnck\veisen. 



The above quotation is veiy interesting. The first half asserts on the one 

 hand that a sepal and a leaf are one and the same thing and thereby points 

 out the idea of the universal foundation of all vegetable organs. But the 

 second half, on the other hand, recognizes the difference between a sepal and 

 a leaf and expresses the idea of the particular manifestations of the organs ; 

 and the whole sentence unites the two ideas, i. e. universal foundation and 

 particular manifestation into perfect oneness. In this case, and in all the 

 other cases as well, we must not think of foundation and manifestation as 

 separate and one after another, but must consider them as united and simul- 

 taneous in oneness. Here we see, in the above case, the unity of universal 

 foundation and particular manifestation. " Dieselbige Orgaue " in the above 

 lines mean that the very same real entity, which becomes a " Kelchblatt ' 

 when conditioned to be such, becomes a " Steugelblatt " when conditioned 

 to appear as such. We can not decide whether it is either ' Stengelblatt ' or 

 " Kelchblatt," unless it is definitely ascertained to be one or the other. The 

 above quotation is, therefore, not to be understood so as to mean that a 

 sepal is changed from a foliage leaf; but, it explains the unity of the foliage 

 leaf and the sepal. 



In 33, GOETHE compares the verticillate arrangement of sepals and 

 cotyledons (of the Conifers) and discusses the unity of the two. Viewed from 

 the stand-point of modern systematic botany and morphology, the resemblance 

 of the two (cotyledons and sepals) is not regarded as a token of a real 



