[86] Even in Vöchting’s experiments (see page 174, note 1), in which adaptations are mixed with true restitutions in the closest possible manner, a few phenomena of the latter type could most clearly be separated. The stimulus which called them forth must have been one of the hypothetic sort alluded to in a former chapter (see page 113). The best instances of true restitutions were offered in those cases, where, after the removal of all the bulbs, typical starch-storing cells were formed without the presence of any starch. And there has been advocated still another view in order to amplify the sphere of adaptation: all individual morphogenesis, not only restitution, is adaptation, it has been said. In its strictest form such an opinion of course would simply be nonsense: even specific adaptive structures, such as those of bones, we have seen to originate in ontogeny previous to all specific functions, though for the help of them, to say nothing of the processes of the mere outlining of organisation during cleavage and gastrulation. But they are “inherited” adaptations, it has been answered to such objections. To this remark we shall reply in another chapter. It is enough to state at present that there *is* a certain kind of, so to speak, architectonic morphogenesis, both typical and restitutive, previous to specific functioning altogether. If now we try to resume the most general results from the whole field of morphological adaptations, with the special purpose of obtaining new material for our further philosophical analysis, we have reluctantly to confess that, at present at least, it does not seem possible to gather any new real proof of life-autonomy, of “vitalism,” from these facts, though of course also no proof against it. We have stated that there is in every case of both our types of adaptive events a correspondence between the degree of the factor to which adaptation occurs, and the degree of the adaptive effect. We here may speak of an *answering* between cause and effect with regard to adaptation, and so perhaps it may seem as if the concept of an “answering reaction” (“Antwortsreaktion”), which was introduced into science by Goltz[87] and which is to play a great part in our discussions of next summer, may come into account: but in our present cases “answering” only exists between a simple cause and a simple effect and relates almost only to quantity and locality. There is therefore lacking the most important feature, which, as will be seen, would have made the new concept of value. [87] *Beiträge zur Lehre von den Functionen der Nervencentren des Frosches*, Berlin, 1869.