248 BIOLOGICAL LECTURES. 



ment and the beginning of en-velopment. The shuffling off of 

 this mortal coil is a restoration to the state of pure immortal 

 "essentials." Returned to its original state, the germ might 

 undergo a second development {Essai Analyt., p. 362); and 

 thus a theory of generation supplied a theory of the resurrec- 

 tion. 



The "essentials" are inconceivably minute "elementary 

 particles," supposed to represent on an infinitesimal scale the 

 entire "organic" foundation of the future plant or animal. 

 They are imperishable, gaining nothing by development, losing 

 nothing by death and decomposition. The whole difference in 

 bulk between the germ and the developed organism is made 

 up of non-essential, inorganic matter. Think of the shadowy 

 tenuity of a framework such as these "organic points" must 

 be imagined to represent in a state of maximum distension, 

 with their interstices stuffed with foreign matter. 



There is nothing in the whole scheme implying photo- 

 graphic likeness of form between the germ and the fully ex- 

 panded organism. No two stages in development need be char- 

 acterized by the same form. It was only necessary to assume 

 that the series would terminate in the form proper to the 

 species, provided the conditions of development were normal. 

 Supply the germ of the horse with proper nourishment and it 

 will become a typical horse ; vary the nutritive fluid that first 

 penetrates it in certain definite relations, and the series may 

 end in a mule. 



The theory was fully equal to all emergencies in the way of 

 form variation, as is more clearly seen in Bonnet's " conjectures 

 upon the second population of the earth" {Paling., pp. 184- 

 187). He imagines a "first world" reduced to chaos, out of 

 which the present world arose as a renewal. 



" Should I abuse the freedom of conjecture," he asks, "were 

 I to say that the plants and animals of to-day have arisen by a 

 sort of natural evolntion from the organized beings that peopled 

 the first world, which came directly from the hands of the 

 Creator.? . . . They were probably very dijferent then from 

 what they are to-day. They were as jnuch so as the first world 

 differs from the one we inhabit. We have no means of judging 



