EPIGENESIS OR EVOLUTION. 123 



ception of the structure of a cell was erroneous and went far 

 to invalidate the completeness of the doctrine which was 

 founded on it ; I refer, of course, to the supposed mode of 

 cell formation, and the part played in it by the " cyto- 

 blastema ". Some parts of the cell theory remain unshaken ; 

 it would be very difficult to deny that "the cause of nutri- 

 tion and growth lies not in the organism as a whole, but in 

 the separate elementary parts — the cells ". Nor is it easy, 

 however one may regard it, to cavil at the statement that 

 " the whole organism subsists only by means of the recip- 

 rocal action of the single elementary parts". But that 

 "the organism consists morphologically of cells," and that 

 " organisation means cellular structure," are statements which 

 nobody would for a moment give his adherence to now, 

 nor am I aware that Schwann ever gave utterance to any 

 such propositions. Schwann appears to have been fully 

 aware of the complexity which must reside in cells, for he 

 speaks of "conglomerate molecules," "a peculiar mode of 

 union of the elementary atoms to form atoms of the second 

 order," but, he says, he has only to deal with the question 

 whether the cause of organic phenomena lies in the whole 

 organism or the separate elementary parts. He is not con- 

 cerned with making a hypothetical analysis of ultimate cell 

 structure, but he did not therefore deny it. Whitman is 

 anxious to establish a point which he calls the organism 

 standpoint, and in order to do it he makes use of the very 

 common method of exaggerating the erroneous views of a 

 few individuals into a prevailing belief among biologists. 

 Nobody who has ever considered the structure and develop- 

 ment of the capillaries, for instance, has ever made a. funda- 

 mental distinction between intracellular and intercellular 

 structure ; unicellular and multicellular organisms have been 

 contrasted it is true, and the contrast is striking, but who 

 has made a fundamental distinction between them ? Are 

 they not both known as organisms ? " The organism " used 

 as a term to express living bodies is not " fancied to carry 

 at least two distinct organisations, the organisation of the 

 separate cells and that of the cell united," at least not by 

 rational biologists of my acquaintance. This may be said of 



