Br. A. Braun on the Vegetable Individual. 237 



or not positively. Without at present discussing the question 

 whether the vegetable individual thus conceived is truly ana- 

 logous to the animal individual, we may here state, that this 

 conception carried out to its consequences, involves the assump- 

 tion that all the plant-stocks produced, not by sexual generation, 

 but by any mode of vegetable division, are not individuals, but 

 only parts of the primary individual to which they owe their 

 origin ; as Gallesio has in fact contended*. Botanists have often 

 asserted that it is the individual t alone, which is reproduced by 

 slips (branches, buds, tubercles, &c.), and their opinion coincides 

 with this view. Still, how are we to distinguish plant-stocks of 

 such an origin, from those derived from seeds ? The former 

 take root, ramify, blossom, ripen their fruit and seeds, just as 

 the latter do, so that in a physiological sense they are complete 

 individuals %. For example, let us cast a glance at the weeping- 

 willow {Salix Babylonica). It is well known that this tree, 

 which was originally brought from the banks of the Euphrates, 

 is always propagated by slips ; for with us it never bears seeds — 

 not because our climate is unfavourable, but because in our 

 gardens there is no fructifying male tree §. According to Lou- 



* Gallesio, Teoria della Riproduzione vegetale (1816), a work, which I 

 am sorry to say I have not been able to consult myself. Huxley (upon 

 Animal Individuality, in the Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. June 1852), hold- 

 ing corresponding views, regards all the animals which spring from an egg 

 by non-sexual increase, as one individual, or, as he expresses it, as a repre- 

 sentative of the individual by successive coexisting separable forms ; — re- 

 gards as such, for example, the sum total of all the Aphides, produced in 

 successive generations, by non-sexual increase, from the first "nurse" 

 which sprung from the egg. If we assume with Bonnet that one nurse 

 encloses one hundred young Aphides in the tenth generation (and accord- 

 ing to Kyber thev often reach even a higher number), the series would 

 amount to much more than a billion (1,010,101,010,101,010,101). Those 

 who regard sexual reproduction as the criterion of individuality must ad- 

 mit this as a perfectly legitimate consequence of their View. 



t *' Gemmae individuum continuant cum semina speciem propagent.'* 

 Link, Elem. Phil. Botan. ed. 2. vol. i. p. 332. " Continuant," in anti- 

 thesis to " propagent," cannot be mistaken. Again, Endlicher and linger, 

 Grundziige der Bot. p. 85, say : " lu these cases {i. e. when the buds drop 

 off) the bud-formation is a true propagation, by which the individual is 

 multiplied ; though we must distinguish this mode of propagation from 

 that of generation, by which the species is reproduced." Here the meaning 

 is obvious, though the expression is perfectly paradoxical ; for how can we 

 imagine that the individuals are multiplied without the s})ecies being re - 

 produced ? I have elsewhere attempted to show what is here meant, by 

 representing non-sexual propagation as a propagation subordinate to the 

 cycle of sexual reproduction (cf. Verjiingung, pp. 26, 27), 



X In many cases the experienced gardener can distinguish them, but 

 certainly not in all ; in some the difference is very remarkable : e. g. in 

 Araucarice raised from branches. 



§ This has the advantage of avoiding the disagreeable seed-down. For 

 the same reason, it is said, in China they cultivate the male tree only. 



