1890.] NEW-YORK MICROSCOPICAL SOCIETY. 31 



process of cooking. But these changes, whatever be their ex- 

 tent, have not rendered it incompetent to resume its old func- 

 tions as matter of life. A singular inward laboratory, which I 

 possess, will dissolve a certain portion of the modified proto 

 plasm, the solution so formed will pass into my veins ; and the 

 subtle inlUiences to which it will then be subjected will convert* 

 \.\iQ dead protoplasm into living protoplasm and transubstantiate 

 sheep into man. Nor is this all. If digestion were a thing to 

 be trifled with, [ might sup upon lobster, and the matter of life 

 of the crustacean would undergo the same wonderful metamor- 

 phosis into humanity. And were I to return to my own ])lace 

 by sea, and undergo shipwreck, the Crustacea might, and prob- 

 ably would, return the compliment, and demonstrate our com- 

 mon nature, by turning my protoplasm into living lobster. Or, 

 if nothing better were to be had, I might supply my wants with 

 mere bread, and I should find the protoplasm of the wheat-plant 

 to be convertible into man, with no more trouble than that of 

 the sheep, and with far less, I fancy, than that of the lobster. 

 Hence it appears to be a matter of no great moment what ani- 

 mal, or what plant, I lay under contribution for protoplasm, and 

 the fact speaks volumes for the general identity of that substance 

 in all living beings. I share this catholicity of assimilation with 

 other animals, all of which, so far as we know, could thrive 

 equally well on the protoplasm of any of their fellows, or of any 

 plant." 



This argument was taken up and commented upon somewhat 

 satirically and, as I think, in the main, reasonably, by Doctor 

 Sterling, who has said, with reference to it, " Is it true that every 

 organism can digest every other organism, and that thus a rela- 

 tion of identity is established between that which di<^ests and 

 whatever is digested ? * * * * It is very evident that there 

 is an end of the argument if all foods and all feeders are essen- 

 tially identical both with themselves and with each other. * * 

 * * It is not long since Mr. Huxley himself pointed out the 

 great difference between the foods of plants and the foods of 

 animals. * * * * Mr. Huxley talks feelingly of the pos- 

 sibility of himself feeding- the lobster quite as much as of the 

 lobster feeding him ; but such pathos is not always applicable ; 

 it is not likely that a sponge would be to the stomach of Mr, 

 Huxley any more than Mr. Huxley to the stomach of a sponge. 



