THE LAW OF THE MEMBERS 151 



capacities and of valuable substances, in accordance with bio- 

 social rules, Prof. MacBride posits an " internal environment," 

 capable, in his opinion, of emitting " organ forming stimuli," 

 with the help or " specific organ forming substances," the discovery 

 of which substances he hails as the great epoch-making event in 

 experimental embryology. 



Such invocation and inversion of " environment " is an 

 alternative, but, in my opinion, an inadequate, way of stating the 

 case of the inter-connections of " semi-independent organisms " 

 (organs) connections closely associated in turn with those 

 between independent creatures, i.e., between organism and 

 organism in the bio-social and bio-economic sphere. The fact 

 of the appearance of " substances," however, coupled with the 

 fallacy that " environment " is a chiefly physic' 1 agency, helps 

 to weigh the scales against a due sociological view, and provides 

 justification in the eyes of our Biologists for emphasising physical 

 at the expense of sociological factors. 



So long as there are catchwords, and so long as there is 

 " substance," so it seems, the Cult of Physical Science is assured, 

 and, though there may be an occasional flirtation with Pauline 

 views, what one might describe as " spiritual law in the natural 

 world " is ordered out of court. 



As regards the suggestion of the " environment " (mainly 

 animate) entering the organism, we have seen that, in virtue of 

 due reciprocity, in some cases of attached Symbiosis a kind of 

 " garden " (in the shape of strenuous green cells) may indeed be 

 said to have entered the organism. We found that permanence 

 and success of organisms thus compounded depend entirely upon 

 the degree of biological righteousness inherent in the association. 

 Parasitism we found to represent the perversion of the fundamental 

 and righteous principle of organic association. We inferred that 

 on no account can the relation between organism and " environ- 

 ment " be regarded as a purely physical matter. We may say, 

 therefore, that " internal environment " at most can only mean 

 that the organism, as a result of its transactions with others, 

 has duly capitalised its experiences, its wealth of relations, 

 and has learnt to use its stored capital as though to some extent 

 independent of immediate external supplies. If the " internal 

 environment " is not to be another " entelechy," it can only mean 

 an acquisition on the part of the organism, purchased by its 

 " labours " not anything separate in accordance with the 



