81 



or in combination ; such a tliiug as a new element or gene can never be 

 produced. Their phenomenal appearances are, therefore, altered ; but their 

 real entities are unchangeable, and always remain the same as before. Con- 

 sistently with this idea, the mutual relation between species or organs becomes 

 explainable by tho participation theory, which I sliall explain later on. 

 GrOETHE's opinion, therefore, sometimes inclines to the evolution theory, and 

 sometimes to the participation theory ; but it is indisputable that his idea 

 that a leaf aud a petal are but modifications of one and the same organ comes 

 from his cherished " Einheit des Alles," and I think that his " Metamorphose 

 der Pflanzen " is, as I have stated above, an explanation of this idea as 

 iUustrated by the phenomena of the vegetable world. Tliis view of mine is 

 quite difterent from the interpretations of various authors who regard the 

 vegetable organs (leaf, sepal, stamen or pistil) as modifications of some ideal 

 or theoretical form, or of a foHage leaf. Goethe's thought is, so far as I can 

 judge, that the leaf and the petal are one and the same thing in real entity 

 but different in shape. He said, therefore, that a leaf is changeable iuto a petal 

 and a petal into a leaf, and even in the case where we see a leaf changiug 

 into a petal, we do not see any thing new which was not there before. Every 

 thing expressed in a leaf is here manifested in a petal, but in a different 

 shape. This idea of GrOETHE's has often been interpreted by later scholars as 

 an idea of the evohitionary theory.* But I can not agree with this position. 

 His thought is, at any rate, a " Eiuheitslehre " and is tliat which should be 

 explainable by a theory which I shall expound immediately further on. 



In order to interpret Goethe's idea in his " Metamorphose der Pflanzen", 

 I now desire to propose a theory which I will call the participation theory**. 

 It is in fact but one theory, yet for convenience' sake I shall treat it as two, 

 namely : — the theory of the mutual participation of the gene, and the theory 

 of the mutual sharing of the gene***. Literally speaking, the word " participa- 

 tiou " seems to express a united action of genes to produce a certain result. 



* CoHN, F. — Die Pflanzen (1896) p. 122. 

 ** In forraulating this theory, I have been influenced by a su^estion from Tendai's theory 

 of mutual participation. 



*** As to what is the gene, readers are requested to refer to two similes given on pp. 83-84 

 of the present paper. 



