82 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNtlKE. [ill. 



organisms. If I were a zoologist, and particularly an 

 entomologist, I should hold strongly to the views of 

 Lamarck ; but, being a horticulturist, I must accept 

 largely, for the objects which come within the range of 

 ray vision, the principles of Darwin. In other words, I 

 believe that both Laraarckism and Darwinism are true; 

 and, in this connection, it is significant to observe that 

 Lamarck propounded his theory from studies of animals, 

 whilst Darwin was first led to his theorj^ from observa- 

 tions of plants. I am willing to admit, also, at least for 

 the sake of argument, that Weismannism, or the Neo- 

 Darwinian philosophj', may be true for some organisms, 

 but it seems to be wholly untenable for plants. 



There is one feature of this difference between the 

 animal and the plant to which I wish to call your atten- 

 tion on this occasion. It is the meaning of individual- 

 ity in the two. I must say, at the outset, that when I 

 speak of a plant or an animal I refer to those higher 

 forms which the layman knows by these names, for it is 

 not my purpose to discuss the original causes of diver- 

 gence so much as those phenomena of individuality which 

 are most apparent to the general observer. The animal 

 may be said to have complete autonomy. It has a more 

 or less definite span of life. It grows old and dies with- 

 out having been impaired by decay, and the period of 

 death may have no immediate relation to environment. 

 It has a definite number of parts, and each part or 

 organ is differentiated and performs one function, and 

 this function serves the whole animal and not the organ 

 itself. If any part is removed, the animal is maimed and 

 the part cannot be supplied, and the severed portion has 

 no power to reproduce either itself or the animal from 

 which it came. The only means by which the animal 



