The Cornhill Magazine, February, 1860 (Vol. I, No. 2)Various
General
The Cornhill Magazine, February, 1860 (Vol. I, No. 2)
Various
England -- Periodicals; English literature -- Periodicals; Short stories, English -- Periodicals
Nor is this all. Those bright green specs which stud the surface,
if examined with high powers, will turn out to be not specs, but
animals,[20] and as Ehrenberg believes (though the belief is little
shared), highly organized animals, possessing a mouth, many stomachs,
and an eye. It is right to add that not only are microscopists at
variance with Ehrenberg on the supposed organization of these specs,
but the majority deny that the Volvox itself is an animal. Von Siebold
in Germany, and Professor George Busk and Professor Williamson in
England, have argued with so much force against the animal nature of
the Volvox, which they call a plant, that in most modern works you will
find this opinion adopted. But the latest of the eminent authorities
on the subject of Infusoria, in his magnificent work just published,
returns to the old idea that the Volvox is an animal after all,
although of very simple organization.[21]
The dispute may perhaps excite your surprise. You are perplexed at the
idea of a plant (if plant it be) moving about, swimming with all the
vigour and dexterity of an animal, and swimming by means of animal
organs, the cilia. But this difficulty is one of our own creation.
We first employ the word Plant to designate a vast group of objects
which have no powers of locomotion, and then ask, with triumph,
How can a plant move? But we have only to enlarge our knowledge of
plant-life to see that locomotion is not absolutely excluded from it;
for many of the simpler plants--Confervæ and Algæ:--can, and do, move
spontaneously in the early stages of their existence: they escape from
their parents as free swimming rovers, and do not settle into solid
and sober respectability till later in life. In their roving condition
they are called, improperly enough, “zoospores,”[22] and once gave rise
to the opinion that they were animals in infancy, and became degraded
into plants as their growth went on. But locomotion is no true mark
of animal-nature, neither is fixture to one spot the true mark of
plant-nature. Many animals (Polypes, Polyzoa, Barnacles, Mussels, &c.),
after passing a vagabond youth, “settle” once and for ever in maturer
age, and then become as fixed as plants. Nay, human animals not
unfrequently exhibit a somewhat similar metempsychosis, and make up for
the fitful capriciousness of wandering youth, by the steady severity of
their application to business, when width of waistcoat and smoothness
of cranium suggest a sense of their responsibilities.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account