104 ( 32 ) 



have suggested " that such and such things " probably 

 occur," or, while contemplating the nettle-sting, that 

 such "possible complexity" in other cases "dawns 

 upon one." On other occasions he expresses himself 

 to the effect that " perhaps it would not yet be safe to 

 say that all forms," etc. Nay, not only does he directly 

 say that " it is by no means his intention to suggest 

 that there is no difference between the lowest plant and 

 the highest, or between plants and animals," but he di- 

 rectly proves what he says, for he demonstrates in plants 

 and animals an essential difference of power. Plants can 

 assimilate inorganic matters, animals can not, etc. 

 Again, here is a passage in which he is seen to cut his 

 own " basis" from beneath his own feet. After telling 

 us that all forms of protoplasm consist of carbon, hy- 

 drogen, oxygen, and nitrogen " in very complex union," 

 he continues, " To this complex combination, the nature 

 of which has never been determined with exactness, the 

 name of protein has been applied." This, plainly, is 

 an identification, on Mr. Huxley's own part, of proto- 

 plasm and protein ; and what is said of the one being 

 necessarily true of the other, it follows that Mr. Huxley 

 admits the nature of protoplasm never to have been 

 determined with exactness, and that, even in his eyes, 

 the Its is still sub judice. This admission is strength- 

 ened by the words, too, " If we use this term" (protein) 

 " with such caution as may properly arise out of our -> 

 comparative ignorance of the things for which it stands ;" \ 

 which entitle us to recommend, in consequence " of our 

 comparative ignorance of the things for which it 

 stands," " caution" in the use of the term protoplasm. 

 In such a state of the case we cannot wonder that Mr. 

 Huxley's own conclusion here is : Therefore " all living 



