87 



sepals or petals and so ou). But, this can by uo meaus be laid down as a 

 geuenil proposition ; it can only be maintained in cases wliere we have evidence 

 to that effect. Goethe's Knes should, therefore, be explained in the sense that 

 •when an entity, which could be a foliage leaf if conditioued to that effect, is 

 conditioned to become a floral leaf, it appears as the latter. Tliis imphes 

 imdoubtedly the basic identity of the foliage and the floral leaf. 

 lu § 32, he proceeds as follows : — 



I 32. DaB die BlJttter des Kelches eljen dieselbigen Organe seien, welclie sicli 

 bisher als Stengelbliitter au^ebildet sehen lassen, nun aber oft in sehr verknderter 

 Grestalt um einen gemeinschaftlichen Mittelpunct versammlet stehen, litsst sich, vde 

 uns diinkt, auf das deutlichste nachweisen. 



The above quotatiou is very interesting. The first half asserts on the oue 

 haud that a sejDal and a leaf are one aud the same thing and thereby points 

 out the idea of the uuiversal foundation yf all vegetable organs. But the 

 second half, on the other hand, recognizes the diflfereuce between a sepal and 

 a leaf and expresses the idea of the particular manifestations of the orgaus ; 

 aud the whole sentence uuites the two ideas, i. e. universal fouudation and 

 particular mauifestatiou into perfect oueuess. lu this case, aud iu all the 

 other cases as well, we must uot think of fouudation and manifestatiou as 

 separate and oue after auother, but must consider them as uuited aud simul- 

 taneous in oueness. Here we see, in the above case, the uuity of universal 

 fouudatiou and particular mauifestation. " Dieselbige Orgaue " in the above 

 Hues mean that the very same real eutity, which becomes a " Kelchblatt ' 

 when couditioned to be such, becomes a " Steugelblatt " wheu conditioned 

 to appear as such. We can not decide whether it is either ' Steugelblatt ' or 

 " Kelchblatt," unless it is definitely asceiiained to be one or the other. The 

 above quotation is, therefore, not to be uuderstood so as to ineau that a 

 sepal is chauged from a fohage leaf; but, it explaius the uuity of tlie fohage 

 leaf and the sepal. 



In § 33, GoETHE compares the verticillate aiTangement of sepals aud 

 cotyledons (of the Coniferse) and discusses the unity of the two. Viewed fi-om 

 the stand-point of modem systematic botauy and morphoiogy, the resemblauce 

 of the two (cotyledous and sepals) is not regarded as a' token of a real 



