GERM DOCTRINE OF BONNET. 2 6? 



ism, and to be capable of developing as wholes, or only to the 

 extent of replacing parts lost by the containing whole. 



Further reflection seemed to make it necessary to admit 

 germs of organs, or "dissimilarity of germs in the same indi- 

 vidual." The consolation was that preformation was not 

 endangered, 1 and the consequence was a multiplication of germs 



little organized beings which entered into its composition, superior to all these 

 assaults, are set at liberty and disperse in all directions. Continuing to follow them, 

 I see them soon enter into other organic compounds, and become successively 

 fly, snail, serpent, carp, nightingale, horse, etc. What shall I say then ? The air, the 

 water, the earth, appear to me to be only a mass of germs, only a vast organic whole. 



" Struck with astonishment at the sight of this perpetual circulation of germs, and 

 these immense riches which have been stored in reserve in all bodies, I contem- 

 plate with delight this wonderful economy. I behold the ages pile themselves one 

 on the other, the generations accumulate like the waves of the sea, without the 

 number of germs used to produce them sensibly diminishing the organic mass that 

 they compose. 



"The last point of view under which I have just presented the system of germs 

 would seem to approximate much to the system of organic molecules if I had 

 not defined what I understand by germs, and if I had not indicated the manner in 

 which they may be conceived as entering into bodies." (/. c. p. 76.) 



1 " Whether regeneration depends on germs that contain precisely what is to be 

 repaired, or whether it depends on germs that contain an entire animal, and of 

 which only a part develops exactly similar to that which has been removed, ;'/ 

 amounts to the same thing ; it is never a generation, properly so called ; it is the sim- 

 ple evolution of what was already engendered. So many positive facts that I have 

 collected in this work concur so plainly in establishing this great principle that he 

 must have the strongest predilection for new ideas who could undertake to combat 

 it." (/. r. p. 243.) 



" Now that I have reflected more on the matter, I see no objection to supposing, 

 in these sorts of worms, germs of anterior and germs of posterior parts. This 

 hypothesis appears to me at least open to fewer difficulties than that of the obliter- 

 ation of a part of the germ. If we concede particular germs for the production of 

 the teeth, why should we refuse to concede them for the production of parts that 

 are much more composite, and the formation of which is still more irreconcilable 

 with mechanical explanations ? 



" An observation taken from vegetables seems to confirm this diversity of germs 

 in the same individual. The seed, which effects the natural multiplication of the 

 vegetable, incloses an entire plant .... A bud, on the contrary, incloses only the 

 plumule .... The roots arise as little eminences which seem to perform the 

 office of buds. Such a bud contains only the radicles. There are therefore, in 

 the vegetable, germs of plumules and germs of radicles, as there are those that 

 contain at once both plumule and radicle. 



" In the worms that multiply by budding, germs that contain only anterior or 

 posterior parts maybe compared to vegetable germs that contain only plumules or 

 radicles. Germs destined to effect the natural multiplication of the worm may 

 likewise be compared to germs contained in seeds." (/. c. p. 241-2.) 



