254 Dr. A. Braun on the Vegetable Individual. 



From these considerations, and many others which might be 

 adduced, it is obvious that there are no determinate limits to a 

 purely physiological conception of the vegetable individual ; and 

 that we may expand the definition of the individual until it 

 coincides with that of the species itself. 



How then can we steer a middle course, between the mor- 

 phological view, which results in indefinite subdivision, and the 

 physiological, which ends in indefinite expansion ? The physio- 

 logical view has shown that none of the divisions or spheres of 

 formation, which have been regarded as the individual ones, fully 

 realizes the idea of the species ; and that each needs the others 

 to render this idea complete. The morphological view has 

 shown, in the same manner, that there are subordinate and com- 

 prehensive spheres of development, none of which exhibits com- 

 plete independence, since all appear in unequal degrees, as more 

 or less perfect members of the entire succession of the specific 

 development. If we would discover the individual under such 

 circumstances, we must not demand of it all that belongs to the 

 species ; for this is completely represented only in the totality of 

 the individuals, not in any single individual. We must answer 

 this question : Which member of the graduated potential series 

 in the sphere of development subordinate to that of the species 

 deserves pre-eminently the title of individual ? And we shall be 

 compelled to reply : That which exhibits the most complete in- 

 dependence and definiteness. Good use has decided in regard 

 to man (and the higher animals), and it justifies itself by the 

 fact, that what is usually termed an individual undoubtedly pos- 

 sesses great organic independence : and this is true both of its 

 subordinate spheres {i. e. the members of the organism, down to 

 the cells) and of those by which the individual is comprehended 

 (family, state, race, &c.). By means of comparison and analogy, 

 the signification of the more doubtful spheres of development 

 among the lower animals and plants may receive some new light 

 from such a view. I propose to attempt this in the second part 

 of this investigation, but now I will only subjoin a few general 

 remarks. 



In the conception of individuality, there are two elements ; that 

 of multiplicity and that of unity. Each development exhibits 

 multiplicity ; but this multiplicity is not equally subordinate to 

 the unity in every development. The more complete this sub- 

 ordination, the more perfect is the individuality ; for it is only 

 this subordination to the unity which binds up the multiplicity 

 of the conformation into an indivisible organism. The less com- 

 plete the subordination, the more perfect will be the independ- 

 ence of the parts, and the more indefinite will be the indivi- 

 duality of the whole. If we apply this view to plants, whatever 



