VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 193 



inclosed within the other, the germs of all future 

 living things, which is the hypothesis of &quot; emboite- 

 ment ; &quot; and the doctrine that every germ contains 

 in miniature all the organs of the adult, which is 

 the hypothesis of evolution or development, in the 

 primary 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 &quot; germ &quot; need not be an actual 

 miniature of the organism; but that it may be 

 merely an &quot; original preformation &quot; capable of 

 producing the latter. 1 



But, thus defined, the germ is neither more nor 

 less than the &quot; particula genital is &quot; of Aristotle, 

 or the &quot; primordium vegetale &quot; or &quot; ovum &quot; of 

 Harvey ; and the &quot; evolution &quot; of such a germ 

 would not be distinguishable from &quot; epigenesis.&quot; 



Supported by the great authority of Haller, the 

 doctrine of evolution, or development, prevailed 

 throughout the whole of the eighteenth century, 

 and Cuvier appears to have substantially adopted 

 Bonnet s later views, though probably he would 

 not have gone all lengths in the direction of 

 &quot; emboitement.&quot; In a well-known note to 

 Laurillard s &quot; filoge,&quot; prefixed to the last edition 



1 &quot;Ce mot (germe) ne designera pas seulement un corps 

 organise r6duil en petit ; il designera eneore toute espece de pre- 

 formation originelle dont un Tout organique pent resultcr comme 

 de son principc immediat.&quot; Palingtnesie Philosophique, part x. 

 chap. ii. 



VOL. II O 



