( 57 ) 129 



Mr. Huxley, that is, almost in his very last word on this 

 part of the argument, seems to become aware of the 

 bearing of this on what relates to materiality, and he 

 would again stamp protoplasm (and with it life and in- 

 tellect), into an indifferent identity. In order that there 

 should be no break between the lowest functions and 

 the highest (the functions of the fungus and the func- 

 tions of man), he has " endeavored to prove," he says, 

 that the protoplasm of the lowest organisms is " essen- 

 tially identical with, and most readily converted into 

 that of any animal." On this alleged reciprocal con- 

 vertibility of protoplasm, then, Mr. Huxley would again 

 found as well an inference of identity, as the further 

 conclusion that the functions of the highest, not less 

 than those of the lowest animals, are but the molecular 

 manifestations of their common protoplasm. 



Plainly here it is only the consideration, not of func- 

 tion, but of the alleged reciprocal convertibility that is 

 left us now. Is this true, then ? Is it true that every 

 organism can digest every other organism, and that 

 thus a relation of identity is established between that 

 which digests and whatever is digested ? These ques- 

 tions place Mr. Huxley's general enterprise, perhaps, 

 in the most glaring light yet ; for it is very evident that 

 there is an end of the argument if all foods and all 

 feeders are essentially identical both with themselves 

 and with each other. The facts of the case, however, 

 I believe to be too well known to require a single word 

 here on my part. It is not long since Mr. Huxley him- 

 self pointed out the great difference between the foods 

 of plants and the foods of animals ; and the reader 

 may be safely left to think for himself of ruminantia 

 and carnivora, of soft bills and hard bills, of molluscs 



