THE CELL NOT A MASS OF PROTOPLASM. 97 



which forces the whole world living and not living has 

 resulted. " If this be true " (doubtfully suggests the Pro- 

 fessor) "it is no less certain that the existing world lay, 

 potentially, in the cosmic vapour and that a sufficient in- 

 telligence could, from a knowledge of the properties of the 

 molecules of that vapour, have predicted, say the state of 

 the Fauna of Britain in 1869, with as much certainty as one 

 can say what will happen to the vapour of the breath in 

 a cold winter's day."(!) Is this "Science" or "Philo- 

 sophy?" 



Some among those who study and think over these 

 matters doubt if many of Professor Huxley's assertions are 

 at all justified by his facts, and few are able to accept 

 arguments which by him seem to have been considered 

 quite conclusive. 



Up to this time all observers have agreed in opinion 

 that the cell or elementary part of the fully-formed organism 

 consists of different kinds of matter, or of matters to which, 

 by some, distinct offices have been assigned. The different 

 constituents of the cell have been variously named. Cell- 

 wall, cell-contents, nucleus, nucleolus, periplast, endoplast, 

 primordial utricle, protoplasm, living matter and formed 

 matter, are not all the terms that have been proposed. I 

 think Professor Huxley is the first observer who has spoken 

 of the cell in its entirety as a mass of protoplasm, and the 

 only one who has ever asserted that any tissue in nature is 

 composed throughout of matter which can properly be 

 regarded as one in kind. This view is quite irreconcilable 

 with many facts, some of which have been alluded to by 

 Mr. Huxley himself.* I doubt if in the whole range of 

 * " The original endoplast of the embryo cell," Huxley says, in 



H 



