322 INVOLUTION. 



which unites them, the more rich and rational the 

 Cosmos which comprehends them. For &quot;the unity 

 which we see in Nature is that kind of Unity which 

 the Mind recognizes as the result of operations similar 

 to its own not a unity which consists in mere same 

 ness of material, or in mere identity of composition, 

 or in mere uniformity of structure ; but a unity which 

 consists in the subordination of all these to similar 

 aims, not to similar principles of action that is to 

 say, in like methods of yoking a few elementary forces 

 to the discharge of special functions, and to the pro 

 duction, by adjustment, of one harmonious whole.&quot; 1 



Yet did Sigillaria grow out of Stigmaria ? Did Mind, 

 Morals, Men, evolve out of Matter ? Surely if one is 

 the tree and the other the root of that tree, and if 

 Evolution means the passage of the one into the other, 

 there is no escape from this conclusion no escape 

 therefore from the crassest materialism? If this is 

 really the situation, the lower must then include the 

 higher, and Evolution, after all, be a process of the 

 clay? This is a frequent, a natural, and a wholly 

 unreflecting inference from a very common way of 

 stating the Evolution theory. It arises from a total 

 misconception of w r hat a root is. Because a thing is 

 seen to have roots, it is assumed that it has grown out 

 of these roots, and must therefore belong to the root- 

 order. But neither of these things is true in Nature. 

 Are the stem, branch, leaf, flower, fruit of a tree roots? 

 Do they belong to the root-order? They do not 

 Their whole morphology is different ; their whole 

 physiology is different ; their reactions upon the world 

 around are different. But it must be allowed that 

 1 Duke of Argyll, The Unity of Nature, p. 44. 



