EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY . 193 
 inclosed within the other, the germs of all future 
living things, which is the hypothesis of “ embotte- 
ment ;” and the doctrine that every germ contains 
1 in ee ature all the organs of the adult, which is 
the ne hypothesis of evolution or development, in the 
p mary senses of these words, must be carefully 
distinguished. In fact, while holding firmly by 
, the former, Bonnet more or less modified the 
latter in his later writings, and, at length, he 
admits that a “germ” need not be an actual 
miniature of the organism; but that it may be 
merely an “original preformation” capable of 
producing the latter. 
_ But, thus defined, the germ is neither more nor 
ss than the “particula genitalis”’ of Aristotle, 
| or the “primordium vegetale” or “ovum” of 
| Harvey; and the “evolution” of such a germs 
rould not be distinguishable from “ epigenesis.” 
- Supported by the great authority of Haller, the 
doctrine of evolution, or development, prevailed 
roughout the whole of the eighteenth century, 
_ and Cuvier appears to have cibatnarelislly adopted — 
_ Bonnet’s later views, though probably he would 
' not have gone all lengths in the direction of 
—*emboitement.” In a_ well-known note to 
aaurillard’s “ Kloge,” prefixed to the last edition 
a me mot (germe) ne désignera pas seulement un corps 
y ee nisé rédwit en petit ; il désignera encore toute espece de preé- 
J y mation originelle dont un Tout organique peut résulter comme 
2 son principe immédiat.” —Palingénésie Philosophique, part x. 
ap. il. 
_ VOL. Il O 
