GERM DOCTRINE OF BONNET. 265 



may result as from its immediate principle. The youno- of 

 polyps do not originate precisely like the shoots of a tree ; 

 they are not enclosed at first, like those, in a bud, which o-rad- 

 ually increases in size and then opens, disclosing all the parts 

 of the new production folded over one another. Nothing like 

 this is observed at the first appearance of the shoot of a polyp. 

 It seems to be only a protuberance, or simple continuation of 

 the skin of its mother. But it is qtiite indifferent to the phi- 

 losophy which we seek to establish in this work, whether the 

 young polyp springs from a germ properly so called, or tvhether it 

 origijiates from a secret preojganization of certain parts of the 

 polyp-mother.'' {Corps Organ., p. 271.) 



These footnotes are among the very latest writings of Bon- 

 net, and they are especially important as showing precisely 

 what organism he had in mind in his modified definition of the 

 germ, and how closely his first conclusions with reference to 

 Hydra agree with his latest. 



Bonnet was compelled, as we have seen, to make an excep- 

 tion of microscopic organisms, conceding that they might not 

 arise from proper germs or eggs ; and he finally allowed that 

 Hydra might also be so far an exception among animals as to 

 arise from a secret preorganization, "an organic preordination" 

 or "preformation," doubtfully entitled to be called a "proper 

 germ." 



It was not necessary to suppose — so Bonnet seems to have 

 reasoned — that the Hydra-bud was a germ containing the 

 animal as perfectly framed as the plant in the seed or the chick 

 in the ^gg ; but it was necessary to assume that it was an 

 original creation, so fashioned that it would evolve, without 

 any new formation, into the perfect animal. Just where the 

 soul-bearing element was located, did not matter. It was suf- 

 ficient to have shown that "the phenomena of its reproduction 

 did not militate the least in the world against the doctrine of 

 the im^nateriality Q>i the soul." ( Tableau, p. 71.) 



But has not the definition of the germ, as modified for Hydra, 

 brought us to the very verge of epigenesis, and does it not dis- 

 close a fatal inconsistency that sinks the whole speculative 

 fabric below the dignity of a "romance " } 



