The (Jrcjaifism cnuj its Protopinsjn 139 



(d) ''No Unwersal Formula for Protoplasmic Structure'* 



Finallj^ summing up his own conclusions regarding these 

 tliree theories, Wilson says: "]\Iy own long-continued stud- 

 ies on various forms of protoplasm have likewise led to the 

 conclusion that no universal formula for protoplasmic struc- 

 ture can be given. ... It is impossible to resist the evi- 

 dence that fibrillar and granular as well as alveolar struc- 

 tures are of wide occurrence ; and while each may be char- 

 acteristic of certain kinds of cells or of certain physiological 

 conditions, none is common to all forms of protoplasm. If 

 this position be well groimded, we must admit that the 

 attempt to find in visible protoplasmic structure any ade- 

 quate insight into its fundamental modes of physiological 

 activity has thus far proved fruitless. We must rather 

 seek the source of these activities in the ultramicroscopical 

 organization, accepting the probability that apparently 

 homogeneous protoplasm is a complex mixture of substances 

 which may assume various forms of visible structure accord- 

 ing to its modes of activity." -^ 



And so we have this excellent authority's answer to the 

 first part of the question above formulated : The knowledge 

 we now possess derived from observational studies on the 

 minute structure of organic beings does not warrant the be- 

 lief that there is a single substance which is the basis of the 

 whole life of any one organism. 



But if the facts do not warrant such belief what possible 

 ground is there for the doctrine of the identity of proto- 

 plasm in all organic beings? Were there no other evidence 

 against it than this drawn from the microscopical morphol- 

 ogy of organisms, here alone is sufficient evidence to banish 

 the dogina completely and forever from scientific biology. 

 But as we see in other sections of this treatise, particularly 

 those on the organism and its chemical compounds, there 

 are even more compelling e^adences against the doctrine than 

 those here passed in review. 



