288 
exists after death/' but its constituent elements are “in a 
state of combination not to be called chemical at all in the 
ordinary sense, but one that is utterly sui generis ." In fact, 
“ no albumen, fibrin, myosin, protagon, or fats exist at all in 
the living matter/' but “ the sum of the elements of all these 
is united into a compound, for which we have no chemical 
name, and of the complex mode in which the atoms are combined 
we can form no idea ; and it is only at the moment of death 
that those chemical compounds, with which we are familiar, 
take their origin." It would be impossible here to enter into 
any further exposition of this ingenious theory, or to attempt 
to criticise it. As before remarked, it evades the difficulty 
which has been above pointed out ; but it must be noted that 
it only does so at the expense of having to assume the existence 
in the living body of an entirely hypothetical form of matter. 
Whether or not such a matter really exists, it is clearly some- 
thing very different to that which is ordinarily known as 
“ protoplasm /' and it may, perhaps, be questioned whether 
it is not, from a philosophical point of view, much the same 
thing to postulate a form of matter “ of the complex mode 
in which the atoms are combined we can form no idea," as to 
assume the presence in the living organism of the much- 
ridiculed “ vital force." 
It remains only to say a few words as to the supposed rela- 
tions between life and organisation. It has been commonly 
assumed that an animal lives because it is “ organised," or 
consists of various definite organs, each of which discharges 
its appropriate function in the economy. Upon this view an 
animal is a kind of a machine, and “life" is the product of 
the working of its parts. Modern naturalists and physiolo- 
gists are, however, tolerably agreed that though the specialisa- 
tion of the vital functions can only be carried out by a cor- 
respondingly specialised set of organs in the animal, the 
essential phenomena of vitality are manifested by naked, and 
to all appearances structureless protoplasm. The existence of 
animals like the Monera, which are absolutely devoid of any- 
thing which could strictly be called “ organisation," but 
which, nevertheless, discharge all the fundamental functions 
of life, is sufficient proof that vitality is essentially independent 
of organisation or structure. Recently, however, it lias been 
maintained by one of our most illustrious naturalists * that the 
protoplasm of different organisms, though to all appearances 
identical, is really different in its “ molecular constitution." 
* Professor Allman, Inaugural Address to the British Association, Shef- 
field, 1879. 
