544 APPENDIX A. 



The method is this Survey a portion of the facts, and draw from 

 them a general conception ; project this general conception back 

 into the objective world, as a mould in which Nature casts her 

 products ; expect to find it everywhere fulfilled ; and allege poten 

 tial fulfilment where no actual fulfilment is visible. 



If instead of imposing our ideal forms on Nature, we are con 

 tent to generalize the facts as Nature presents them, we shall find 

 no warrant for the morphological doctrine above enunciated. The 

 only conception of type justified by the logic of science, is that 

 correlation of parts which remains constant under all modifications 

 of the structure to be defined. To ascertain this, we must compare 

 all these modifications, and note what traits are common to them. 

 On doing so with the successive segments of a phsenogamic axis, 

 we are brought to a conclusion widely different from that of Goethe. 

 Axillary buds are almost universally absent from the cotyledons ; 

 they are habitually present in the axils of fully-developed leaves 

 higher up the axis ; they are often absent from leaves that are close 

 to the flower ; they are nearly always absent from the bracts ; absent 

 from the sepals ; absent from the petals ; absent from the stamens ; 

 absent from the carpels. Thus, out of eight leading forms which 

 folia assume, one has the axillary bud and seven are without it. 

 With these facts before us, it seems to me not difficult to &quot; realize 

 the idea &quot; &quot; of a node without a bud.&quot; If we are not possessed 

 by a foregone conclusion, the evidence will lead us to infer, that 

 each node bears a foliar appendage and may bear an axillary bud. 



Even, however, were it granted that the typical segment of a 

 Phaenogam includes an axillary bud, which must be regarded as 

 always potentially present, no legitimate counter-interpretation of 

 the montrosities above described could thence be drawn. If when 

 an umbellule is developed in place of a flower, the explanation is, 

 that its component rays are axillary to the foliar organs of the 

 flower superseded ; we may fairly require that these foliar organs to 

 which they are axillary, shall be shown. But there are none. In 

 the last specimen figured, the inner rays of each such umbellule are 

 without them ; most of the outer rays are also without them ; and 

 in one cluster, only a single ray has a bract at its point of origin. 

 There is a rejoinder ready, however : the foliar organs are said to 

 be suppressed. Though Goethe could not u realize the idea&quot; &quot; of 

 a node without a bud,&quot; those who accept his typical form appear to 

 find no difficulty in realizing the idea of an axillary bud without 

 anything to which it is axillary. But letting this pass, suppose we 

 ask what is the warrant for this assumed suppression. Axillary 

 buds normally occur where the nutrition is high enough to produce 

 fully-developed leaves ; and when axillary buds are demonstrably 

 present in flowers, they accompany foliar organs that are more leaf- 

 like than usual always greener if not always larger. That is to 



