OBJECT AND LIVING ORGANISM m 



And thus greater importance is ascribed to the position of 

 the organs in the animal body than to their function. 



If we were to try to classify our tools in the same sort of 

 way, the result would be sheer nonsense. 



On this ground alone a mechanistic theory of living things 

 should be rejected. 



It should be noted that, of all our sciences, morphology 

 has perhaps the most unsatisfactory theoretical basis, if 

 indeed one can speak of a basis at all. It is certainly not 

 admissible to speak of a theory of the structure of organisms 

 that can be linked up with the theory of the structure of 

 matter. It is understandable enough that, as a result of this 

 confusion of quite different things, fresh attempts are per- 

 petually being made to explain life as a further development 

 of crystallisation. 



It is not questioned that the rules of morphology relate 

 to the framework, and never to the material. We may say 

 that the framework of implements is judged from the point of 

 view of function, hut the framework of organisms both from 

 the functional and from the morphological. Of this, the re- 

 cognition of the two principles of analogy and homology takes 

 full account. Moreover, homology refers only to the arrange- 

 ment of the organs with regard to one another, but never 

 to the framework within the cells, which is exclusively 

 functional. i 



Discovery of the morphological principles in the archi-^ 

 tectural plan of the animal is mad^ possible by comparison. 

 For if we consider the architectural plan of an individual 

 animal taken by itself, all we shall be able to recognise at the 

 first glance are functional principles. 



This fact finds expression in our saying that morphology 

 also means " comparative anatomy." Striking though the 

 fact is, it was at one time taken quite as a matter of course, 

 without anyone seeking for the explanation that lay so near 



