human
We venture to think that the hypothesis that the same result is achieved by the
gpt
which are all of the same kind, is a weak supposition. Spencer said:
human
Reproduction of the lost part would seem to be a normal result of the proclivity towards the form of the entire organism. But it is difficult to see why
gpt
should bring about the regeneration of a tail here and a head there, a claw here and an eye there. But Spencer was too acute a thinker not to feel that if the theory of regenerative determinants was
human
his own theory, which interpreted regeneration as due to the activity of physiological units,
gpt
did not cover the facts; _e.g._ the establishment of
human
it is often seen that the components of an aggregate
gpt
human
A local group of units, determined by circumstances towards a certain structure, coerces its individual units into that structure. In an emigrant settlement,
gpt
In brief, we may say that each part is in chief measure autogenous.
human
Though all parts are composed of physiological units of the same nature, yet everywhere, in virtue of local conditions and the influence of its neighbours, each unit joins in forming the particular structure appropriate to its place. This conclusion is very interesting when compared with that reached more inductively by many embryologists (of the so-called epigenetic school), namely, that what a blastomere or cleavage-cell of an egg does, is determined by its intra-embryonic environment, by its relations, both statical and dynamical, to the whole organisation of which it forms a part. As Driesch puts it:
gpt
The relative position of a blastomere in the whole determines in general what develops from it; if its position be changed, it gives rise to something different; in other words, its prospective value is a function of its position.