GERMINATION OF SEEDS. 605 



arrested ; in some cases potential life is retained, in others 

 it is lost. For the sake of illustration the former state may 

 be compared with that assumed according to Buddhistic 

 philosophy by an individual consequent upon his entering 

 Nirvana; once here all individuality is annihilated: the 

 state is existence without a single attribute of life. There 

 is however one essential difference between this state and 

 that of the dormant seed ; an individual after entrance into 

 Nirvana has lost even potential individuality, but the seed 

 retains this. In the case in which seeds have lost potential 

 life, death obtains. It is at present impossible in most 

 cases to distinguish between these two kinds of seed in 

 the naturally desiccated condition, no matter what agents 

 be invoked, except by testing the power of germination. 

 That there is a chemical, probably also a physical, differ- 

 ence is obvious ; the difference may be only slight, but it 

 suffices to determine whether resuscitation is possible or 

 not. 



It seems physiologically necessary to distinguish verbally 

 between this state of dormancy and that of life, on the one 

 hand, and death on the other. This can be adequately 

 done — as I venture to suggest — by the term hypnosis ; the 

 corresponding adjective is hypnotic, and the substantive, 

 hypnote. The cell-contents of a hypnote would then be 

 hypnoplasm ; hypnospore and hypnosperm are already 

 recognised phytological terms, and experiments of Pictet 

 have justified their existence, for he has found that these 

 spores are still hypnotic after exposure to a temperature at 

 which no chemical action is possible. It is true that some 

 of these terms have a different connotation in psychology, 

 but this need not militate against their employment in 

 phytology. The homologue of hypnoplasm in dead seeds, 

 etc., may be termed necroplasm, corresponding with the 

 established term necrosis. Bioplasm as an equivalent for 

 protoplasm has long ago been coined by Beale. 



The protoplast has often been compared with a machine; 

 this simile has been as often declared inappropriate. De 

 Candolle (2) has indeed shown that, as regards ordinary 

 machines, this is an inefficient comparison ; the same has 



