FUNCTION DEPENDENT ON OllGAN. 393 



It is truly remarkable that the zoologist who claims the 

 merit of having originated this conception of the " division 

 of labour " as a law in the organic economy,* should be 

 among the stanchest defenders of the old metaphysical idea 

 that functions are not dependent on organs ; and as tMs 

 question is not o:ily important in itself, but of interest in 

 the present discussion, it may detain us for a moment. The 

 argument, as conducted by Milne Edwards, f is irresistible, 

 because in it he confines himself to showing that special 

 organs may disappear, and the general function nevertheless 

 remain ; for instance, that lungs and gills may be absent, 

 but the function of Eespiration will still be present : " C'est 

 una erreur grave de croire," he says, " qu'une faculte deter- 

 min^e ne puisse s'exercer qu'a I'aide d'un seul et meme 

 organe." The grave error appears to me wholly on the side 

 of those who hold the contrary opinion. The reader will 

 perceive that when Milne Edwards concludes, " que la fonc- 

 tiou ne disparait pas lorsque llnstrument special cesse 

 d'exister," the eminent zoologist is guilty of a logical mistake 

 very frequent in biological discussions — the mistake of con- 

 founding the general with the particular. Thus an animal 

 may possess the general function of Locomotion, without 



* Milne Edwards : See his Introduction d la Zoologie O&nirale. The con- 

 ception, however, belongs to GOETHE, Zur Morphologie, 1807 ; Werke, xxxv. 

 i. 7 — the French naturahst having the merit of application and abundant illus- 

 tration of the law. 



+ Loc. cit. p. 69, and Lemons sta- la Physiologic et I'Anatomie Compar6e, i. 

 22. "Les faits dont je viens vous entretenir montrent combien sont fausses 

 les opinions de queUxues naturalistes qui admettent comme une sorte d'axiomc 

 physiologique quo la fonctiou depend toujours do son organe." 



