286 THE PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY 



the physiologist it is " something happening " ; but is 

 it not really both things, and are not the structure and 

 the functioning only two convenient, but arbitrary, 

 aspects from which we consider the organism ? We 

 ought not to think of diaphragm and lungs apart from 

 the movements of these organs, and we do not say that 

 the first breath drawn by the newly-born mammal is 

 an instinctive action, involving the use of inborn 

 bodily tools — the diaphragm, lungs, etc. We ought 

 not to think of the lips and mouth and pharynx of the 

 young baby apart from the actions of suckling the 

 mammae of its mother, but usually we say that this 

 action is an instinctive one. Where does the ordinary 

 functioning of an organ end and its instinctive function- 

 ing begin ? Are the muscular actions of the lobster 

 when it frees its body and appendages from the carapace 

 during the act of ecdysis instinctive ones ? Most 

 zoologists would say that they are not, any more than 

 the movements of the maxillipedes in respiration are 

 instinctive ones, yet they probably would not hesitate 

 to say that the action of the " soft " lobster in creeping 

 into a rock crevice is instinctive. Does a young child 

 really " learn " to walk ? It is more likely that the 

 actions of walking are potential in its limbs and that 

 they become actual when all the connections of nerve 

 tracts and centres in its brain and spinal cord become 

 established. What is the difference between the 

 acquirement of the ability to walk and to write ? 

 The latter series of actions are unfamiliar combina- 

 tions of nervous and muscular activities which are no 

 part of the organisation of the young child ; while 

 the former are simply the result of the complete 

 functional development of certain nervous and 

 muscular apparatus. 



It seems difficult, then, to express clearly what is 



