. 
The Vegetable Individual, in its relation to Species. 303 
ble examples of the goat of a singular peculiarity by 
non-sexual increase t even if such exceptions did not exist, 
and if in every case a series of peculiarities which are extin- 
guished in seminal propagation were continued by grafting, yet we 
cannot perceive how we can seriously refuse an individual pcm 
ence to such stocks as these, produced, it is true, by no 
propagation, but still completely separated externally, devalesicis 
in different places and under the most dissimilar relations, and ex- 
hibiting subordinate differences indefinitely, though with certain 
similar characteristics. But if we were to make any concessions 
on this point we should be carried irresistibly on to others. 
Most of the modes of non-sexual propagation thus far consid- 
ered agree in this particular; that some shoot of the plant, whether 
it be undeveloped (eye, bud), or developed (branch, sucker, layer, 
&c.), is separated from the parent-stock by natural development 
itself, or by artificial means. As the nature of the separable part 
| is not changed by the separation, it is no great step to attribute 
| individuality to the shoot, (or as it is commonly called, the bud, ) 
even when it is not separated from the stock. Each single plant- 
stock could then be no longer regarded as an individual in the 
usual meaning of the term, but as an united family of individual 
Shoots ;—a view which seems to be of high antiquity ; as passages 
i are found i in Aristotle* and Hippocrates}, which are interpreted 
| in this sense. In later times, this view has been more or less, ad- 
| vocated, especially by De la Hire a a Darwin$, Batsch, 
f Goethe, Roper, Schleiden|} and oth 
| é But, even in this narrower view of woreuble sesnkornguc 4 _ 
} Same difficulty meets us; for the shoot itself is divisible, and ne 
os rocks may be produced by its parts: i.e. by the pr a of the 
* CE Wimmer: Ph ats. a 3 pe ie ose $s nt go Ae tagti et 113. es cannot 
discover that e licit ackno ent individuality which 
is said by Schultz As “a ‘OSC te 24) to se found in Antote, either in nse’ 
ns, or even ollec in totle re- 
Iti is the: that Anistotle re mode speaks of the divisibility of 
parts s of plants may cotie to exist; that on this iba ount 
eines wate tion “Ge Ba ips 
), and by Iai 1 bud-forma 1 rapaBAacrévey 
tS ; ot state hie opinion of the which de- 
rk roa Ms plains vel ta a in a by saying that 
“Tandon: atologie, p. 5. 
pennies 233. De la Hire regards all 
oe irae baddon ovules. ‘vias of thew ovules, 
the asad the the wood; more or less of them come to ma- 
0 eire 
# — ce torn from the branch - a tree, or 
sty (1800), 1. “Ita it be inserted into the bark of 
iy misma a plant seni hecpec | ke its al This 
Nee a brad ge being, and parent there- 
individual 
ws of thes ators more at large in the next section, 
