220 LIFE AND DEATH. 



explosive destruction of a chemical reserve which is 

 built up again more or less slowly. 



Criticism of Le D anted s " Ne^v Theory of Life? 

 Let us now examine the antithesis of Claude 

 Bernard's views. There are evidently rudimentary 

 organisms in which the differentiation of the two 

 categories of phenomena is but little marked ; in 

 which, apart from the movement, it is impossible to 

 recognize intermittent, functional activities clearly 

 distinct from morphogenic activity. It is not in this 

 domain of the indistinct that \ve must seek the 

 touchstone of physiological distinctions. Clearly, we 

 must not choose these elementary plastids to test 

 the doctrine of functional assimilation and functional 

 destruction. But is not this exactly what Le Dantec 

 did when he began his researches on brewers' yeast? 

 When we try to examine things, we must choose the 

 conditions under which they are differentiated, and 

 not those in which they are confused. And this is 

 why, in the significant words of Auguste Comte, " the 

 more complex living beings are, the better known 

 they are to us." The philosopher goes still farther 

 in this direction, and adds "directly it is a question 

 of the characteristics of animality we must start from 

 the man, and see how those characteristics are little 

 by little degraded, rather than start from the sponge 

 and endeavour to discover how these characteristics 

 are developed. The animal life of the man assists 

 us to understand the life of the sponge, but the 

 converse is not true." 



When, moreover, we consider a vegetable organism 

 such as yeast, which derives its energy, not from 

 itself, not from the potential chemical energy of its 

 reserve- stuff, but directly from the medium that is 



