246 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. I. No. 9. 



immediate future whicli will undoubtedly 

 throw much light on the behavior of pi-oto- 

 plasm through the investigation of its mole- 

 cular relations, its surface tensions, vortex 

 movements, chemotropism, chemotaxis, po- 

 larity, etc.; but many wiU doubt whether 

 this treatment of life phenomena 'as purely 

 physical and chemical problems' will do 

 away with the conception of some anage- 

 netic or organic growth force, some bathmic 

 energy, such as is assumed by Cope in his 

 consideration of the 'Origin of Stru^ctural 

 Variations.' 



That physical and chemical influences 

 tend to locate growth force is becoming more 

 and more evident, irom such studies as we 

 have presented to us in these lectures, and 

 in recent researches like those of Biitschli on 

 ' Protoplasm and Microscopic Forms,' Loeb 

 on ' Physiological Morphology,' and Vaug- 

 han, Halhburton and others on the ' ]Sruc- 

 leins.' There is no reason to doubt that sur- 

 face tensions may lie behiud all protoplas- 

 mic movements ; that polarity, gravity, 

 geotropism, heliotropism or thermotropism 

 may determine the direction of growth, and 

 that osmosis, metabolism, or the presence 

 of nuclein may explaiu the ability of cells 

 to utilize the pabulum within their reach, 

 but the explanation seems, somehow, to be 

 inadequate. 



Notwithstanding the brilliant achieve- 

 ments of experimental science, the oracular 

 dicta of the modern priests of monism 

 or materialistic empiricism carry little con- 

 viction. One turns away with a sense of 

 dissatisfaction and a lingering doubt wheth- 

 er mechanism and organism are after all 

 identical. Haeckelismus has by no means 

 proven itself infallible, and the reading of 

 these lectures will be much more interesting 

 to many, fi-om the fact that here and there 

 are to be found wide differences of opinion 

 on fundamental questions; while along with 

 the assurance that certain present state- 

 ments must be regarded as axiomatic ; long 



established theories are shown to be inade- 

 quate; long discarded theories are resusci- 

 tated and presented, rehabilitated and dis- 

 guised. The moneron no longer stands m 

 its integrity as the material basis and start- 

 ing point of life. The student of the cell 

 finds himself confronted with a microcosm, 

 not with an ultimate unit of life, and is 

 puzzled to know whether he may account 

 for this comj)lex organism by differentiation 

 fi'om some homogeneous Anlage or rudiment, 

 or whether nucleus and cj-toplasm repre- 

 sent dissimilar organisms, which ' by mutual 

 adaptation have given rise to a third organ- 

 ism, in which each of them serves as organ 

 to the whole.' 



As the facts of particulate iuheritance 

 have led to a rehabilitation of the old the- 

 ory of incasement, preformation or pangene- 

 sis, it seems not improbable that having 

 traced ' the secret of organization, gi'owth 

 and development ' beyond the cell to cer- 

 tain ' ultimate elements of living matter,' 

 'idiosomes,' or protoplasmic molecules, and 

 bearing in mind that these liAong molecules 

 must have a complex atomic organization, 

 inasmuch as ' function presupposes struc- 

 ture,' we find ourselves forced to ask what 

 determines the vipbuilding of atomic aggre- 

 gates combining the phj^sical and chemical 

 complexity essential to the phenomena of 

 growth and evolution. In reply we are 

 presented with a prepotent ' plastic power ' 

 (Schwann); a 'regenerative and formative 

 power, one and the same thing throughout 

 the organic world' (Whitman); this is prob- 

 ably the ' formative impulse ' of Schleiden. 

 Cope (loc. cit.) refers us to ' a special form 

 of energy known as growth energj^ or Bath- 

 mismel.' In what way does this 'plastic 

 power,' ' formative impulse ' and ' growth 

 energy ' differ fi-om the ' vital force ' of 

 Planck, Schelling, Schopenhauer and other 

 philosophers ? The physiological morphol- 

 ogist has carried us back to li^dng proto- 

 plasmic molecules varying greatly, and 



