304 



NATURE 



[November 19, 1914 



my phenomenon," so that there must be at least 

 one observer disting'uished from what is ob- 

 served. But in Hfe and practice we all know, 

 though we cannot prove, that there is a similar 

 ^'l" behind many of the objects which we per- 

 ceive, viz., our fellow men and women. How far 

 there is anything- similar to human personality 

 behind the other animals and behind plants he 

 would be a bold man who would say. So far, 

 indeed, as this argument is valid, it is valid 

 ag-ainst physical science as much as against 

 "mechanistic biology." The idealistic argument 

 is followed by a long chapter, the object of which 

 i.s to persuade us that there is something very 

 mysterious and unchemical about the synthesis of 

 carbohydrate by chlorophyll in the presence of 

 sunlight. 



We then reach the root of the matter, which is 

 the impossibility of explaining on chemical and 

 physical principles the growth of the organism 

 through the embryonic stage from the ^^^. This, 

 indeed, is the citadel of Driesch's position. We 

 have to try to account for the fact that a portion 

 of an ^^^ or of a blastula of an Echinoderm is 

 capable of giving rise to a whole organism, and 

 Driesch has no difficulty in showing that there is 

 no conceivable machine-like arrangement of parts 

 which will account for this. But, indeed, one has 

 only to read Weismann's hopeless attempts to 

 explain the regeneration of limbs on his " deter- 

 minant " theory to be convinced of this. The best 

 answer to Driesch is this : " Suppose we admit 

 that we cannot explain these phenomena by 

 physics, what alternative explanation have you to 

 offer?" Of course, we are all familiar with the 

 answer : " Living beings are inhabited by ' ente- 

 lechia,' which guide their activities towards pre- 

 determined ends." But such an answer does not 

 assist us. To put forward an unknown entity as 

 the cause of phenomena which we cannot un- 

 ravel is not to explain, but in reality to give up 

 the attempt at explanation. 



"Materialism," as known to practical biolo- 

 gists, is really only the modest and praiseworthy 

 attempt to penetrate a little into the working of 

 living things by comparing the processes which go 

 on in them with chemical processes in inorganic 

 nature. But if everything is due to an entelechy, 

 very many insoluble questions arise. Allied species 

 are believed to be genetically related to one 

 another; how are their different entelechies re- 

 lated? Is there a possibility of entelechies being 

 modified? Or, again, if by inverting a frog's egg 

 in the two-cell stage we can cause it to produce a 

 double-headed monster, how is it that the ente- 

 lechy is so easily baulked of its purpose? If, 

 however, we assume that there are in eggs 



organ-jorming substances — and in some cases 

 we can prove this by direct observation, we 

 may have to admit that these substances are very 

 remarkable and unparalleled in inorganic objects, 

 but at any rate we have hold of a concept with 

 which we can work. For a substance can be 

 divided into two, and it may be evenly distributed 

 throughout an egg as in Echinodermata or local- 

 ised as in Annelida and Mollusca, and thus we are 

 enabled to understand why a portion of an 

 Echinoderm egg will produce a whole organism, 

 but why a part of a MoUuscan egg will only pro- 

 duce a part of an organism. 



Other instances of similar hypotheses could be 

 mentioned which assist in binding together the 

 facts observed in the behaviour of living things ■ 

 and in elucidating the laws which govern them. 

 The use of such hypotheses may be regarded 

 as neither vitalistic nor mechanistic, but as plain 

 common-sense applications of the inductive 

 method. In this way, and in this way alone, it 

 seems to us, shall we ever make progress with 

 "explanations" of the phenomena of life, for all 

 "explanation" in the last resort consists merely 

 in putting together similar things. When, how- 

 ever, we have finished with the explanations of 

 Driesch, both as related by himself and as given 

 by his admirer, Mr. Johnstone, we are left in a 

 mental fog — no great guiding principles to bind 

 together vital phenomena emerge, and the convic- 

 tion grows that whatever be the right method of 

 tackling the phenomena of life it is not that of 

 Driesch. E. W. M. 



BRITANNIC GEOGRAPHY. 

 (i) The British Empire beyond the Seas: An 

 Introduction to World Geography. By Dr. 

 Marion I. Newbigin. Pp. xii + 351. (London: 

 G. Bell and Sons, Ltd., 19 14.) Price 3s. 6d. 



(2) The British Isles. By Dr. F. Mort. Pp. xi + 

 231. (Cambridge University Press, i9M-) 

 Price ^s. 



(3) Argyllshire and Buteshire. By P. Macnair. 

 Pp. X+161. (Cambridge University Press, 

 1 914.) Price 15. 6d. net. 



(4) Geological Excursions round London. By 

 G. MacDonald Davies. Pp. vi+156. London: 

 T. Murby and Co., n.d.). Price 3s. 6J. net. 



(i)1%/riSS NEWBIGIN'S work is always 

 iVl lucid, and she brings the facts of 

 geography into a happy correlation. The con- 

 tinental shelf of North America is thus connected 

 (p. no) with the accumulation of the Newfound- 

 land Banks, and through them with the cod- 

 fisheries. The size of Australian sheep-farms 

 (p. 147) is explained by the peculiarities of the 



