104 BULLETIN OF THE 



Biogen, or "soul-stuff," and it was defined as spirit in combination 

 with the minimum of matter necessary to its manifestation. The 

 analogy between biogen and luminiferous aether, or the hypothetical 

 substance of light, was discussed. The drift of the speaker's specu- 

 lation on the vital principle as an ens realissimum was toward a 

 restatement, in scientific terms, of the old anima mundi theory. 

 Modern materialistic and atheistic notions about life were denounced 

 as every one of them disguises of the monstrously absurd statement 

 that a self-created atom of matter could lay an egg that would 

 hatch. 



The whole matter being beyond the scrutiny of the physical 

 senses is remote from the scope of exact science ; but it is irrational 

 and unscientific to deny it, as is virtually done when science ex- 

 cludes it from any share in life-phenomena, by presuming to explain 

 life upon purely material considerations. No chemico-physical 

 theory of life is tenable that does not satisfactorily explain the 

 chemico-physical difference between, for example, a live amoeba and 

 a dead one ; an explanation which has never yet been, and probably 

 cannot be, given. 



A general discussion of the points involved in this paper fol- 

 lowed. Mr. Powell pointed out what he regarded as a funda- 

 mental and fatal error in the reasoning, viz., that the axiom that 

 the whole equals the sum of all its parts, had been assumed through- 

 out to be true qualitatively as well as quantitively. Furthermore, 

 he maintained that logical consistency required that those who be- 

 lieve in force should believe also in the vital principle, and vice versa. 

 As for himself, however, there was neither force nor vital principle, 

 but only matter in motion. Three relations are always to be borne 

 in mind, viz., quantity, quality, and succession, whereas the physi- 

 cist falls into error by considering only the quantitive relation. 



So much of the support of the views of Mr. Coues as might be 

 derived from the common consensus of mankind was criticised by 

 Mr. Gill as unsound, since the common consensus of mankind has often 

 been found at fault; the supposed flatness of the earth, the motion 

 of the sun around the earth, etc., are examples where this criterion 

 fails. Paraphrasing an eminent philosopher's dictum, he thought 

 there was a tendency of biologists ignorant of philosophy and philo- 

 sophers ignorant of biology to make a distinction belween or- 

 ganic and inorganic matter, and call in a " vital force." He likened 



