1 68 Morphology under the Doctrine of [BOOKI. 



large part of the results of the study of the history of develop- 

 ment were first brought into the true light by the consistent 

 application of the theory, or in the effort to disprove it. With 

 all its fundamental errors, Schimper's theory remains one of 

 the most interesting phenomena in the history of morpho- 

 logy, because it was carried out with thorough logical con- 

 sistency. We should as little wish to omit it from our 

 literature, as modern astronomy would wish to see the old 

 theory of epicycles disappear from its history. Both theories 

 served to connect together the facts that were known in their 

 time. 



The fundamental error of the theory lies much deeper than 

 appears at first sight. Here too we have the idealistic con- 

 ception of nature, which refuses to know anything of the 

 causal nexus, because it takes organic forms for the ever- 

 recurring copies of eternal ideas, and in accordance with this 

 platonic sphere of thought confounds the abstractions of the 

 mind with the objective existence of things. This confusion 

 shows itself in Schimper's doctrine, inasmuch as he takes the 

 geometrical constructions, which he transfers to his plants and 

 which, though they may be highly suitable from his point of 

 view, are nevertheless purely arbitrary, for actual characters 

 of the plants themselves, in other words, takes the subjective 

 connection of the leaves by a spiral line for a tendency 

 inherent in the nature of the plant. Schimper in making his 

 constructions overlooked the fact that, because a circle can be 

 described by turning a radius round one of its extremities, it does 

 not follow that circular surfaces in nature must really have been 

 formed in this way; in other words, he did not see that the 

 geometrical consideration of arrangements in space, useful as it 

 may otherwise be, gives no account of the causes to which they 

 are due. But this was not properly an oversight in Schimper's 

 case, for he would have scarcely admitted efficient causes in 

 the true scientific sense into his explanations of the form of 

 plants. How far Schimper was from regarding plants as some- 



