Philosophical Character of DecandoUe. 213 



to allude to that part of M. Decandolle's character, should I 

 be able to do justice to him in these respects, not having been 

 honoured with a sufficient degree of intimacy with him in the 

 privacy of his domestic circle, to learn his sentiments on those 

 gi'ave subjects. 



This, however, I may venture to assert, that whilst there is 

 no passage in any of his numerous works, which can even by 

 implication convey an impression of another kind, there are 

 many which evince a disposition, on his part, to apply, on every 

 suitable opportunity, the truths of his favourite science to the 

 advocacy of the eternal interests of mankind. 



The use which he and Lamarck have made of the doctrine 

 of rudimentary organs common to them both will serve to 

 illustrate this fact, and evince, not only the greater soundness 

 of JSI. Decandolle's judgment, but likewise the moral truth, 

 that food and poison may be extracted out of the very same 

 materials, according to the character of the recipient. 



The doctrine of rudimentary organs, that is, the notion 

 " that parts which exercise some important function in the or- 

 ganization of animals or of vegetables, may exist in some spe- 

 cies in so imperfect a condition, as to be apparently of no use 

 to the individual," is one that scarcely can admit of dispute 

 from those who take a wide survey of either of the two king- 

 doms of nature. 



The mammae of male animals in general, the stumps of 

 wings in birds, which, like the penguin, are unable to fly, 

 the eyes covered with skin belonging to the mole and the 

 Proteus anguinus, and the rudiments of toes concealed under 

 the skin of ruminant animals, are all familiar illustrations of 

 this position. 



But in the use which has been severally made of the above 

 principle, the genius of the two philosophers alluded to stands 

 remarkably contrasted. 



By Lamarck it was regarded as a confirmation of that ex- 

 travagant hypothesis of appetencies creating parts, by which, 

 though without directly denying the existence of a Deity, he 

 represented his agency as being as little exercised in the works 

 of creation, as that of the gods of Olympus were according to 

 the system of Epicurus. 



VOL. XXXIV. XO. LXVIII. APRIL 1843. P 



