128 The Unity of the Organism 



(b) Recognized Common Attributes But Not Identity of 

 Protoplasm in All Organisms 



It is clear that Schultze's central purpose was to com- 

 pare the contents of cells from widely different organisms 

 for the purpose of showing that as concerns some attributes 

 of these contents, that of contractility being foremost, the 

 substances agree with one another. We shall do well to be 

 attentive to the language in which this is expressed. As 

 to the protoplasmic movements within the hairs of Trades- 

 cantia and in the bodies of many rhizopods there can be no 

 doubt that we have to do with "contractile substance" "in 

 the same sense." For the point I wish to make I transfer 

 the emphasis from where the author placed it, namely on 

 "contractile substance," to "in the same sense." To affirm 

 or even to imply (neither of which the author's words do) 

 that the substances of two or more cells are the same in so 

 far as they are contractile, is very different from saying 

 that the substances are the "same" or "identical." And look 

 closely at another sentence: "The proofs for the relation- 

 ship of both substances have only multiplied by my own ob- 

 servations directed at this point." Note that a relation 

 between at least two substances, not a single substance, nor 

 yet two substances which are identical,, is here talked about. 



That there are other attributes than that of contractility 

 in which these substances agree is made sufficiently clear, and 

 it is on these attributes-in-common that the author bases 

 his proposal to attach to the word "protoplasm" an "en- 

 tirely definite conception," and have it displace the word 

 "sarcode," to which, he says, no such conception has been 

 attached. But that the attributes-in-common possessed by 

 the protoplasm of different organisms comprehend all the 

 attributes of protoplasm, Schultze neither says nor implies. 

 On the contrary, several facts and arguments on which he 

 lays no little emphasis ought, I believe, to be interpreted as 



