REPRODUCTION. 245 



istry teaches, in fact, that the plant-bodies do not contain any other 

 elements than those which are found in lifeless matter. Whether 

 dead substances are capable of bringing forth simple vegetable 

 organisms at the 23resent time is of no great consequence. Science 

 at present denies any such origin of simple organisms, since all ex- 

 perimentation is in support of such a denial. This is to be especially 

 emphasized, because it is generally believed that to assume the aid 

 of a supernatural agency in forming living organisms from dead 

 matter is unscientific. In regard to higher plants, the agreement 

 is universal that there is no origin de novo. This being the case, 

 the question for discussion is, "Where do the higher vegetable 

 organisms come from? Are they specially created, or have they 

 descended in a natural way from pre-existing lower forms? 



Let us test the theory of natural descent, which teaches that all 

 plants have the same phylogenetic origin and firmly denies any 

 supernatural creation either now or in the past. We will present 

 and criticise the views of one of its strongest advocates, namely, 



J^AGELI. 



According to Niigeli, nothing is permanently fixed or unchange- 

 able — neither the variety, nor the species, nor the genus, family, 

 order, nor class, etc. The variety shows a certain constancy, leav- 

 ing out of consideration the ' ' modifications due to locality ; " a 

 greater constancy is noticeable in the species; the genus is still 

 more constant; and so on up. We maintain that a number of 

 forms or types, which need not correspond with any species of our 

 present classification, were created^ it is impossible to say whether 

 these created and, to a certain extent, variable forms corresponded 

 in the one case to a species, in another to a genus, or perhajjs to a 

 still more comprehensive group. The strong point in our position 

 lies in the fact that, since variability is not without limitations, the 

 constancy in time is absolute or real. 



Empiricism is again in otir favor, more so than casual ob- 

 servation would indicate. The question is. How do new sj^ecies 

 originate? According to Nageli's own statements,' it must be 

 admitted that observation and experiment have not demonstrated 

 the origin of a sjpecies., neither due to internal caiLses (idioplasm) 



of the aucient Hebrews iu support of his theory. They certainly are not author- 

 ity ou scientific subjects. — Trans. 

 1 See ref. 3 ou p. 244. 



