"If I may be pardoned for pursuing this digression further, I would say that it is the plants, and not we, who are the heretics. There can be no question about this; we are perfectly justified, therefore, in devouring them. Ours is the original and orthodox belief, for protoplasm is much more animal than vegetable. It is much more true to say that plants have descended from animals than animals from plants. Nevertheless, like many other heretics, plants have thriven very fairly well. There are a great many of them, and, as regards beauty, if not wit—of a limited kind, indeed, but still wit—it is hard to say that the animal kingdom has the advantage. The views of plants are sadly narrow; all dissenters are narrow-minded; but within their own bounds they know the details of their business sufficiently well—as well as though they kept the most nicely-balanced system of accounts to show them their position. They are eaten, it is true; to eat them is our intolerant and bigoted way of trying to convert them: eating is only a violent mode of proselytizing, or converting; and we do convert them—to good animal substance of our own way of thinking. If we have had no trouble we say they have 'agreed' with us; if we have been unable to make them see things from our point of view, we say they 'disagree' with us, and avoid being on more than distant terms with them for the future. If we have helped ourselves to too much, we say we have got more than we can 'manage.' And an animal is no sooner dead than a plant will convert it back again. It is obvious, however, that no schism could have been so long successful without having a good deal to say for itself.
"Neither party has been quite consistent. Whoever is or can be? Every extreme—every opinion carried to its logical end will prove to be an absurdity. Plants throw out roots and boughs and leaves: this is a kind of locomotion; and as Dr. Erasmus Darwin long since pointed out, they do sometimes approach nearly to what is called travelling; a man of consistent character will never look at a bough, a root, or a tendril, without regarding it as a melancholy and unprincipled compromise. On the other hand, many animals are sessile; and some singularly successful genera, as spiders, are in the main liers-in-wait."
This exquisitively written passage the writer was quite unaware of having read, though he possessed and had perused the work quoted, nor can he understand how such an admirable exposition could have escaped notice. Had he read it: had he assimilated it so thoroughly as to be unconscious of its existence; is this a case of rapid growth of automatism? He cannot say.
To return to the main point, it would seem that specialization is directly proportionate to activity, and when we compare the infinitely diverse organization of the animal with the comparative simplicity of the vegetable world, this conclusion seems to be inevitable.
[CHAPTER VI.]
Spots and Stripes.
B
BEARING in mind the great tendency to repetition and symmetry of marking we have shown to exist, it becomes an interesting question to work out the origin of the peculiar spots, stripes, loops and patches which are so prevalent in nature. The exquisite eye-spots of the argus pheasant, the peacock, and many butterflies and moths have long excited admiration and scientific curiosity, and have been the subject of investigation by Darwin,[11] the Rev. H. H. Higgins,[12] Weismann,[13] and others, Darwin having paid especial attention to the subject.