tion to various vital”phenornenapt^^rrevenxp^CT ' reTTrp- 
preciating its imperfections, especially in modes of expression, I did not 
have the boldness to offer it to any medical journal for publication ; but at 
the same time believing that it contained the germ of a great truth, I had 
it published on my own responsibility, knowing that if I was not mistaken 
it would bear fruit, though after many days. I then and there determined 
to devote myself to that line of study, that I might some day be able to 
present it to the world in a form worthy of the subject and of the audience. 
I now propose to establish that my animadversions in regard to Dr. 
Carpenter, to which he objects in his letter, were not made hastily or 
“ in ignorance of the facts;” but that they are justified in every particular 
by the records. The argument will contain just four points, which I will 
state briefly: 
First. From my thesis, published in 1851, and from a series ofarticles 
subsequently published in the St. Fouis Medical and Surgical Journal, I 
shall reproduce sufficient to show my annunciation and elucidation of the 
position that life and decay are reciprocal; that the form or organization 
determines the direction of those peculiar actions called vital, while those 
same actions are reciprocal with a “ do-iynvjard” process, as in machines 
of art 
Botanical: Garden 
Ge.'RGS iNGELMANN PAPERS* 
