90 
nexus, as here in this case, in greater proportions, conditioned to present the 
genes causing petaloidal forms or staminodes, but in far lesser proportions, 
conditioned to present the genes causing the production of a stamen. When- 
ever we have secured actual evidence in the matter, concerning stamens 
turning into petaloidal organs, or petals changing to stamens, then we can 
arrive at some definite conclusion. But this will be the case only in the 
instance actually observed. It is not proper to extend the same conclusion 
to cases where we have no actual evidence, since it is a conclusion which we 
reached through limited experience. 
The stamen proper to the Counna (but not the ordinary one) is, so to 
speak, conditioned partly to be an ordinary stamen, and partly to be a 
petal. It represents a transitional form between a petal and a stamen, and 
therefore participates in the genes of an ordinary petal and of a stamen. The 
relation of the petal, stamen and staminode is, therefore, actually represented 
by the mutual sharing of the genes of the phenomenal appearance 
possessed by the three floral elements. The genes in the phenomenal appear- 
ance are partly different and partly similar in the different organs. But the 
genes in the real entity are all the same in every organ. Therefore, one who 
sees the universal foundation (basic unity) of organs is looking at the genes 
in their real entity; and one who sees the particular manifestations of 
organs is considering the mutual sharing of the genes in their phenomenal 
appearance in different organs. 
GorTHE in § 51, compares nectaries, foliage leaves, sepals and petals. He 
takes the ‘Nebenkrone’ of the Narcissus as an instance in point; in this, I 
think he is right. Although in §57 he explains an instance where nectaries 
turn into petals, he only intends to explain by this instance the unity of 
nectaries and petals; but not to decide that petals are necessarily metamor- 
phosed nectaries, or nectaries are exclusively transformed petals. 
Thus, he compares all vegetable organs such as the leaf, sepal, petal 
stamen, pistil, fruit and seed, and tries to explain the unity in their funda- 
mental characters. Some errors may have crept into the examples given by 
him, but the correct idea underlying his thought is justly to be interpreted 
as the doctrine of the unity of all organs. In $115, he says :— 
