Further Examination of the Cell-Theory 211 



able design, or composition; so much, that is, as is distinc- 

 tive of the organism in this period of its life. 



Nor can we let Horn's modification of the theory off 

 without looking at it from another and quite different angle. 

 The larva' and portions of larva; entering into the graft 

 com | ilexes have, lie shows, no correlative influence on one 

 another, nor is there any influence of the whole on the parts, 

 and therefore the wlwle is a mosaic work. But how about 

 the cellular and tissue elements composing the larvae and 

 parts of larvae within the complex? May we look upon these 

 elements also as comparable to stones in a mosaic picture? 

 Is not the fact that the portions of an organism entering 

 into a graft-complex maintain their specific if not individual 

 identity, peculiarly strong evidence of correlative influence 

 of the elements of thc.se portions upon one another? The 

 on/<ini::c(l and or<j(ini:;in</ power of living beings hardly 

 manifests itself in any way more strikingly than in the 

 lelity of grafts to their own kind whether in plants or 

 limals. But the very essence of organization and organ- 

 sing power is, as cvervbodv recognizes, correlative in- 

 lence or activity. A mosaic picture is about as near an 

 itithesis to an organization as can be found. So while 

 we may willingly grant that an organism made up of parts 

 of other organisms grafted together resembles to some ex- 

 tent a mosaic work, we must at the same time rccogni/e 

 that when looked at in its real nature it not only does not 

 support, hut. reallv refutes the mosaic theory if that theory 

 is held to any definite and significant meaning. 



77/6- "Promorplwlogy' of Germ-Cells 



Although a critical examination of the mosaic theory 

 found it to be of exceedingly little value at its best, and 

 downright noxious at its worst, yet we were led to recognize 

 a measure of foreordination in each of the first two cells 



