Successive development, we may say, is the peculiar nature of 
independent, and more divisible among themselves. Thus the 
vegetable organism is a dividual, rather than an individual ; a 
multiplicity* rather than an unity; i.e. a whole whose parts hold 
€ same relation to each other as individuals to each other, but 
which present spheres as indivisible as the whole itself. This is 
the doctrine of the relative} individuality of plants, which Stein- 
il has especially noticed. According to this doctrine, different 
orders of vegetable individuals, as it were different powers of indi- 
Viduality, are distinguished. In the same manner DeCandollef 
distinguishes the cell-individual (Pindividu cellulaire, in which 
bourgeon, after Darwin); the slip-individual (?individu bouture) ; 
the stock-individual, or the vegetable individual (Cindividu végé- 
ag “Planta est multitudo.” Engelmann: de Antholysi, p. 12 ; 
,, | Steinheit : pecially p. 4 and p.17: “Les végétaux ne peuvent arriver a 
Vindividualité absolue ; ils se presentent a nous dans un état, won peut désigner par 
le nom @individualité relative ; ce qui distingue cette rtie de la eréation du régne 
Feiweing thy ott Vindividualité est nulle, et du régne animal, on elle est presque toujours 
DeCandolte : Physiologie Végét., p. 957. The author does not attach much im- 
: to his division, as he says he has assumed it for convenience of expression, 
and to avoid the usual confusion of language. His son Alphonse DeCandolle consid 
ers it quite an arbitrary matter which part of the plant we call the individual: “Les 
‘ sont éyi ment des étre og weet mais jusqu’ ot veut-on les décom- 
. Reser, pour que les élémens s’appellent des individus? C'est une chose arbitraire 
‘ui dépend de Vidée par laquelle on se laisse dominer” (after Steinheil, p. 6). 
