ON THE MOKPHOLOCilCAL VIEW OF NATURE. 2G9 



Whewell, in various passages of his ' History ' and of his 

 • I'hilosopliy of the Inductive Sciences,' argues that the 

 explanation of organic forms is to be found in the study 

 of the functions which each organ is destined to perform, 

 and brings morphology back under the guidance of physi- 

 ology, from which De Candolle and others had only 

 recently liberated it.^ Alexander Braun, the great German 

 liotanist, wrote about the same time : " Although the 

 organism in its growth is subject to physical conditions, 

 the real causes of its morphological and biological speci- 

 ality lie, nevertheless, not in these conditions : its laws 

 Ijelong to a higher grade of development of reality, to a 

 sphere in which the capacity for spontaneous self-deter- 

 mination becomes evident." ' Even Johannes ^liiller. 



mould it in subserviency to the 

 exigencies of the resulting specific 

 form" (p. 172). Huxley attributes 

 these theoretical views of Owen to 

 the influence of Lorenz Oken, the 

 l)rincipal scientific representative 

 of the school of the " Natur- 

 philosophie.'" In this respect Owen 

 left the direction of study initiated 

 and so successfully followed by 

 Cuvier. In fact, though opposed 

 to Darwinism, Owen did not, like 

 Cuvier, believe in special creation, 

 as is clearly shown in a passage 

 frequently quoted, taken from the 

 conclusion to the third volume of 

 Owen's great work ' On the An- 

 atomy of Vertebrates' (1868), p. 

 807 : " Ho, Vjeing unable to accept 

 the volitional hypothesis, or that 

 of impulse from within, or the 

 .selective force exerted by outward 

 circumstances, I deem an innate 

 tendency to deviate from parental 

 type, operating through ])eriods of 

 adequate dui-ation, to be the most 

 {)ri)bable nature, or way of opera- 

 tion, of the .secondary law, whereby 



species have been derived one from 

 another." 



' De Candolle is very clear ou 

 this point ; he says (' Theorie 

 <51(5mentaire,' p. 170) : " L'usage des 

 organes est une con.sdquence de leur 

 structure, et n'en est nullement la 

 cause, comme certains ecrivains irre- 

 flechis semblent I'indiquer ; Tu-sage, 

 quelque soit son importance dans 

 I'dtude physiologique des etres, n'a 

 done en lui-meme qu'une mi^diocre 

 importance dans I'anatomie, et ne 

 pent en avoir aucune dans la tax- 

 onomie ; quelquefois .seulement on 

 pent s'en servir comme d'un indice 

 de certaines structures Ji nous en- 

 core inconnues ; ainsi lorsque je vois 

 la surface unie d'un pctale suinter 

 une liqueur, j'en conclus que cette 

 partie est glandulaire, et je I'assimile 

 aux nectaires ; mais cette assimila- 

 tion, bien que reconnue par I'iden- 

 titi5 de l'usage, est rcellement 

 otablie sur I'identitc prusumee de 

 la structure." 



- Quoted by Sachs (' Gesch. d. 

 Botanik,' p. 188). 



