He contended that the course of any germ's development was dictated by
the habits of the germs from which it was descended and of whose identity
it had once formed part. If a germ found itself placed as the germs in
the line of its ancestry were placed, it would do as its ancestors had
done, and grow up into the same kind of organism as theirs. If it found
the circumstances only a little different, it would make shift
(successfully or unsuccessfully) to modify its development accordingly;
if the circumstances were widely different, it would die, probably
without an effort at self-adaptation. This, he argued, applied equally
to the germs of plants and of animals.
He therefore connected all, both animal and vegetable development, with
intelligence, either spent and now unconscious, or still unspent and
conscious; and in support of his view as regards vegetable life, he
pointed to the way in which all plants have adapted themselves to their
habitual environment. Granting that vegetable intelligence at first
sight appears to differ materially from animal, yet, he urged, it is like
it in the one essential fact that though it has evidently busied itself
about matters that are vital to the well-being of the organism that
possesses it, it has never shown the slightest tendency to occupy itself
with anything else.
Pages:
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321