81. The terms Property and Function are not always used with desirable precision. There is, however, a marked distinction between the property which characterizes a tissue in whatever organ the tissue may be found, and the function which is exhibited by an organ composed of several tissues. We ought never to speak of a function unless we imply the existence of a correlative organ; and it is therefore incorrect to speak of the function of Nutrition, since all the tissues nourish themselves; but we may speak of certain organs as special instruments in facilitating Nutrition. Thus also with respiration, usually, but not accurately, spoken of as the function of the lungs; the lungs being simply the most effective of the instruments by which the interchange of gases (which also takes place in every tissue) is facilitated. If by Respiration we mean Breathing, then, indeed, Respiration is the function of the lungs; if we mean the absorption of oxygen and the exhalation of carbonic acid, Respiration is a general property of vital tissue. A fragment of muscle removed from the body respires, so long as its organization is intact; but it does not breathe—it has no accessory instruments, nor does it need them. The co-operation of nerve centres, diaphragm, ribs, circulating system, etc., necessary in the complex organism to bring the due amount of oxygen to the tissues, and convey away the carbonic acid, is here needless. In the ascending animal series we find this necessity growing with the complexity of the organism. The whole skin respires in the amphibia, and to some extent in man also: a frog will live for ten or fourteen days after extirpation of its lungs, the skin respiring sufficiently to keep up a feeble vitality. But the skin does not suffice; and, very early, certain portions are specialized into organs (at first in the shape of external gills, and finally as internal lungs), for the more energetic, because more specialized, performance of this office. In the simpler organisms the blood is easily reached by the air; therefore no instrument is needed. In primitive societies the transport of goods is effected by men and women carrying them; in civilized societies by the aid of horses and camels, and wagons drawn by oxen; till finally these are insufficient, and railways are created, whose power of transport transcends the earlier methods, as the breathing of a mammal transcends the respiration of a mollusc. Breathing is the special function of an organ—the lungs (or more strictly, the thoracic apparatus)—as Railway Transport is a special social function. Although each of the tissues forming this organ can, and does, exhale carbonic acid and absorb oxygen—and each of the railway servants can, and does, transport objects to and from the locomotive—yet the main work is thrown upon the special apparatus.

82. What is meant by properties of tissue and functions of organs may be thus illustrated. Let us suppose ourselves investigating the structure of a ship. We find it composed of various materials—wood, iron, copper, hemp, canvas, etc.; and these under various configurations are formed into particular parts serving particular purposes, such as deck, masts, anchor, windlass, chains, ropes, sails, etc. In all these parts the materials preserve their properties; and wherever wood or iron may be placed, whatever purpose the part may serve, the properties of wood and iron are unaffected; and it is through a combination of these properties that the part is effective; while through the connection of one part with another the purpose becomes realized. The purposes to which masts, ropes, or sails are subservient may be called their functions; and these of course only exist, as such, in the ship. It is the same with the organism. We find it composed of various Tissues, and these are combined into various Organs or Instruments.34 The properties of Tissues remain the same, no matter into what Organs they may be combined; they preserve and exert their physical, chemical, and vital properties, as wood and iron preserve their properties. Each Tissue has its characteristic quality; and the Organ which is constructed out of a combination of several Tissues, more or less modified, is effective solely in virtue of these properties,35 while the Function of that organ comes into play through its combination with other organs. For example, muscular tissue has a vital property which is characteristic of it, Contractility; and muscles are organs constituted by this tissue and several others;36 such organs have the general function of Contraction, but whether this shall be specially manifested in the beating of the heart, the winking of the eyelid, the movement of the chest, or the varied movements of the limbs, will depend on the anatomical connections. The reader unfamiliar with Biology is requested to pay very particular attention to this point; he will find many obscurities dissipated if he once lays hold of the “principal connections.”

82a. Although Bichat’s conception was of great value, it was not sufficiently disengaged from the metaphysical mode of viewing biological phenomena. Both he and his disciples will be found treating Properties as entities, and invoking them as causes of the phenomena instead of recognizing them simply as abstract expressions of the phenomena. Readers of my First Series will remember how often I have had occasion to point out this common error: men having baptized observed facts with a comprehensive name, forget the process of baptism, and suppose the name to represent a mysterious agency. The fact that gases combine is expressed in the term affinity; and then Affinity is understood to be the cause of the combinations. The fact that bodies tend towards each other is called their gravitation, and Gravitation is then said to cause the tendency. The doctrine of vital properties has been thus misunderstood. While no one imagines that he can operate on affinity otherwise than by operating on the known conditions under which gases combine, many a biologist and physician speaks as if he could operate on the Irritability of a tissue, or the Co-ordination of muscles, by direct action on these abstractions.

Let it be therefore once for all expressly stated that by the property of a tissue is simply meant the constant mode of reaction of that tissue under definite conditions. The property is not a cause, otherwise than the conditions it expresses are a cause. And these conditions are first those of the organized structure itself, and secondly those of the medium in which it lives. Oxygen unites with Hydrogen to form water, but only under certain pressures; so likewise muscles manifest Contractility on being stimulated (that is their mode of reaction), but only under certain degrees of temperature, humidity, and a certain chemical composition of the plasmode. The property is so truly an expression of the co-operant conditions, that it is found to vary with those conditions, and to vanish when they vary beyond a certain limit.

An attempt has been made to restrict the notion of a property to an ultimate fact. Whatever is not reducible to known conditions is to be accepted as a property. Combustion, for example, is reducible to the molecular combination of oxygen and some other gas; but this combination itself is not reducible, and it is therefore christened affinity. I cannot accept this view. Admitting our inability to say why gases combine under certain conditions (and in this sense all facts are inexplicable and ultimate, unless we take the how as ample explanation of the why), I must still say that since affinity itself depends on the co-operation of known conditions, it is not less explicable than combustion. But the point is unimportant: what we have here to settle is the meaning of a property of tissue,—and that is the mode of reaction which that tissue manifests under constant conditions, internal and external.

83. The evolution of Life is the evolution of special properties and functions from general properties and functions. The organism rises in power as it ramifies into variety. Out of a seemingly structureless germinal membrane, by successive differentiations certain portions are set apart for the dominant, or exclusive, performance of certain processes; just as in the social organism there is a setting apart of certain classes of men for the dominant or exclusive performance of offices, which by their co-operation constitute Society. The soldier fights, but ceases to build or reap, weave or teach; the mason builds; the agriculturist sows and reaps; the priest and thinker teach; the statesman governs. In simple societies each does all, or nearly all; but the social life thus manifested is markedly inferior to the energetic life of a complex society. So with organisms. An amoeba manifests the general properties of Nutrition, Reproduction, Sensibility, and Movement. But it has no special organs, consequently no special functions. The polype has a certain rudimentary specialization of parts: it has a simple alimentary cavity, and prehensile tentacles; and although by these it can seize and digest its prey, it can only do so in a limited way—all the manifold varieties and power of prehension and digestion observed in more complex organisms are impossible with such organs as the polype possesses.

84. Differences of structure and connection necessarily bring about corresponding differences in Function, since Function is the directed energy of the Properties of tissues. One organ will differ from another in structure, as the liver from the pancreas, or the kidney from the spleen; or one organ may closely resemble another but differ from it only in connections, as a sensory and a motor nerve, or an extensor and a flexor muscle. We must therefore always bear both points in mind. Every modification, structural or connectional, is translated by a corresponding modification in the office. The hand and the foot show this well. The tissues are the same in both, the properties are the same, and both have the same general function of Prehension; but their morphological differences carry corresponding differences in their uses.

Suppose we have a galvanic battery, we know that its electric force may be variously applied. Two pieces of charcoal fixed to the ends of its conducting wires give us the electric light; replacing the charcoal by a telegraphic apparatus we can transmit a message from one continent to the other; the wires dipped in a solution effect a chemical decomposition, dipped into a mixture of gases they effect a chemical composition. In these, and many other applications, the property of the battery is constant; but the functions it subserves have varied with the varying co-operants. So with the properties of tissue.37 Not only have we to bear in mind the organic connections of the tissues, but also the relation of the organs to their media. Swimming and Walking, for example, are both functions of the locomotive apparatus, but they are specially differenced by the media in which the animal moves.

85. The properties of tissues are their peculiar modes of reaction, and each tissue has its dominant characteristic, such as the Contractility of the muscle, and the Neurility of the nerve. But there has of late years sprung up a misleading conception, partly a consequence of the cell-theory, and partly of the almost inevitable tendency of analysis to disregard whatever elements it provisionally sets aside; this conception is the removal of the property from its tissue, and the localization of it in one of the organites—cell or fibre. This has been conspicuously mischievous in the case of the nerve-cell, which has been endowed with mysterious powers, and may be said to have usurped the place of nerve-tissue. I shall have to speak of this in the next problem. Here I only warn the student against the common error. The properties of a tissue depend on the structure and composition of that tissue, together with its plasmode and products; they vary as these vary. To select any one element in this complex, and ascribe the reaction of the tissue to that, is only permissible as a shorthand expression.

86. What has just been expounded may be condensed in the following biological law:—

Identity of tissue everywhere implies identity of property; and similarity of tissue corresponding similarity of property. Identity of organic connection everywhere implies identity of function; and similarity of organic connection similarity of function.

87. This law, first formulated by me in 1859, and then applied to the interpretation of nervous functions, was so little understood that for the most part it met with either decided denial or silent neglect; no doubt because of the general disinclination to admit that the properties and functions of the spinal cord could be similar to those of the brain, in correspondence with the similarity of their tissues and organic connections. Even Professor Vulpian, who adopted it, as well as my principal interpretations, hesitated, and relapsed into the orthodox view in assigning three different properties to one and the same tissue in cord, medulla oblongata, and cerebrum.38 In the course of our inquiries we shall so frequently have to invoke this law that I earnestly beg the reader to meditate upon it, and ask himself upon what other grounds, save those of structure and connection, the properties and functions can possibly rest? If on no other, then similarity in structure and connection by logical necessity involves similarity in property and function.

DOES THE FUNCTION DETERMINE THE ORGAN?

88. Closely connected with this law, which simply formulates the self-evident principle that every action is rigorously determined by the nature of the agent, and the conditions under which the act takes place, is the surprising question whether functions are dependent upon organs, or organs dependent on functions?—a question which sometimes takes this shape: Is Life the result of organization, or is organization the result of Life?

The vitalist, who holds that Life is an extra-organic agent, is logical in declaring organization to be the consequence of Life;39 but there are many organicists who conclude from certain facts that organs are developed by functions, and that organization is a result of Life. There seems, however, to be some equivoque here. I cannot otherwise understand how Mr. Spencer should have written: “There is one fact implying that Function must be regarded as taking the precedence of Structure. Of the lowest rhizopods which present no distinctions of parts, and nevertheless feed and grow and move about, Professor Huxley has remarked that they exhibit Life without Organization.”40 The equivoque here arises from the practice of calling all living bodies “organisms,” even those destitute of the differentiations called organs; but if we substitute the term “living body” in lieu of “organism,” the equivoque will disappear, and Function no longer seem to precede Structure. Neither Mr. Spencer nor Mr. Huxley would affirm that Life can be manifested without a living body; and every living body must have a structure of some sort—unless by structure be meant a special configuration of parts. The properties of a body, whether it be simple or complex in structure, result from the properties of its components; and the vital phenomena vary with these varying components. The substance of a Rhizopod is indeed simple as compared with that of higher organisms, but is complex as compared with anorganisms; and corresponding with this simplicity of structure there is simplicity of vital function.41

89. The properties of steam are exhibited by the kettle on the fire, no less than by the gigantic engine which animates a manufactory; but the uses of steam (the functions of the engine) vary with the varying structure, and the applications of that structure to other structures. Precisely analogous is the case of the organ and its function, in relation to the living substance of which it is a peculiar modification. Vital actions are manifested by a lump of protoplasm; but these actions are as sharply demarcated from the actions of more highly organized animals, as the phenomena of a steam-engine are from those of a teakettle.

90. Mr. Spencer has nowhere defined what he means by Structure, nor given a definition of Organ, and this neglect makes it difficult rightly to appreciate his view. But whether we take structure to signify the substance of the living body, or the differentiations of that substance into separate tissues and organs, in either case the actions (functions) of which this structure is the agent must be rigorously determined by it. Mr. Spencer has avowed this in declaring that the “general physiologist may consider functions in their widest sense as the correlatives of tissue.” Is this true in the widest sense and not true in the narrowest? I am puzzled to find him insisting that “function from beginning to end is the determining cause of structure. Not only is this manifestly true where the modification of structure arises by reaction from modification of function; but it is also true where a modification of structure otherwise produced apparently initiates a modification of function.” Such language would be consistent were he a vitalist who believed in a Principle independent of Matter which shapes matter into organic forms; but as a positive thinker he can scarcely escape the admission that since Function is the activity of the Agent (Function in the widest sense being the action of the whole Organism, and in its narrowest sense the action of the special Organ) there cannot be an activity preceding the agent. I suspect that he does not always bear in mind the distinction between Property and Function, and consequently is led into statements at variance with the principles he professes. As far as I understand the course of his thought, it runs somewhat thus: With the increased use of an organ its volume may be increased, its structure altered; this alteration will, by reaction, cause alterations in other organs, and thus the result of a change in the habitual activities of an animal will be an alteration in the arrangement of its parts. 91. We speak loosely of an organ being developed by increased activity; but this is loose speech, and investigation shows that the organ is not developed by, but accompanies the increased activity, every increment of activity being necessarily preceded by a corresponding increment of structure. This is evident À priori: the force manifested is inherent in the structure manifesting it. Thus we ought not to say “the vascular system furnishes good instances of the increased growth that follows increased function”; we ought to say, “that permits increased function.” The muscle having a contractile power represented by 10, expends, we will suppose, 7 units of force in its normal activity, and these are replaced by its normal nutrition. If from an extra demand upon it 9 units are expended, the muscle becomes fatigued, if 10, exhausted, and it will no longer contract, the whole disposable sum of its contractility being dissipated. During all these stages the structure of the muscle—or to prevent all equivoque, let us say the substance of the muscle—has been changing, not indeed in any degree appreciable to the eye, but appreciable by the more decisive tests of chemical and physiological reactions. Yet inasmuch as in the ordinary course of things the waste is quickly repaired, the muscle in repose once more regains its original state, once more represents 10 units of contractility. Now let us consider what takes place when extra labor is thrown upon the muscle, when exercise causes growth. At the outset of a walking tour we may not be able to compass more than twenty miles a day, at its close we manage thirty. Is it the increased activity of the function which has caused this increase of structure? In one sense, yes; but let us understand it. Had the increase of activity been temporary, there would have been only a temporary increase of structure. But when the ordinary expenditure of 7 units rises to 9, on several successive days, this extra expenditure of tissue has had to be met by an extra nutrition—i.e. more plasmode has been formed and more protoplasm. It is a physiological law, easily explained, that, within due limits, extra waste brings about extra repair: as the channels are widened and multiplied, the derived currents become stronger, and the increased flow of nutrition which was temporary becomes permanent, because this increase is no longer dependent on an extra stimulus, but on an enlarged channel.42 When the channels have not become multiplied or enlarged, which must be the case whenever the extra stimulus is fluctuating and temporary, the extra expenditure is not followed by increased size of the muscle: the currents resume their old directions, no longer being diverted.

92. Let the social organism furnish us with an illustration. At the present moment there is a movement against the retail shopkeepers of London in favor of Co-operative Stores. The stimulus of getting better goods and cheaper, attracts the flow of custom from its old channels; and if this continue a certain time the new arrangements will be so thoroughly organized, and will work so easily, that Co-operative Stores will to a great extent supplant the retail shops. But if from any causes the stimulus slackens before this reorganization has passed from the oscillating into the permanent stage—if the goods are not found to be superior, or the cheapness not worth the extra trouble—the old influences (aiding our indolence) which have been long and continuously at work, will cause the social organism to resume its old aspect, and the co-operative “varieties” will disappear, or exist beside the ancient “species.”

In the one case as in the other a glance at the process is enough to detect that the increase in the activity has been preceded by a corresponding increase in the structure. The muscle has not been enlarged by extra activity, but with it. The co-operative action has grown with each additional co-operator. Looking at the cases from afar we may justly say that development has been due to function; but looking to the process we see that each increment of activity was necessarily dependent on an increment of substance. When changes of habit or adaptation are said to produce modifications in structures, this is true in as far as one modification of structure necessarily brings with it correlative modifications, the growth of one part affecting the growth of all more or less; but we must remember that to render the structure capable of new adaptations corresponding modifications must have been going on. The retail shopkeepers might securely laugh at the co-operative movement if the respectable families would not or could not become co-operant. When Mr. Spencer urges that “not only may leaf-stalks assume to a great degree the character of stems when they have to discharge the functions of stems by supporting many leaves, and very large leaves, but they may assume the characters of leaves when they have to undertake the functions of leaves,” I would ask if he is not reversing the actual process? The stem cannot assume the functions of a leaf until it has first assumed the character of a leaf. The assumptions of both must be gradual, and pari passu.

93. The hand is an organ, its function is prehension. The performance of this function in any of its numerous applications is rigorously limited by the structure of the hand—the bones, muscles, nerves, circulating and absorbent vessels, connective tissue, fat, etc. Fatigue the nerve, and the function will be feebly performed; exhaust it, and the function ceases; diminish the action of the heart, tie an artery, or vitiate the structure of the blood, and the function will be correspondingly affected; stiffen the tendons, soften the bones, diminish the synovial fluid, or increase the fat—in short, make any alteration whatever in the structure of the hand, and an alteration is necessarily produced in its function. So rigorously is function dependent upon structure, that the hand of one man will execute actions which are impossible to another. The hand of a baby is said to be the same in structure as the hand of a man; and since the powers (functions) of the two are notoriously different, we might rashly conclude that here function was dissociated from structure. The case is illustrative. In baby and man the structure is similar, not the same; the resemblance is of kind, not of degree; and the function likewise varies with the degree. The penny cannon which delights the child is similar in structure to the ten-pounder which batters down walls; and though, speaking generally, we may say that the function of both is to fire gunpowder for human ends, no one expects the penny cannon to be employed in warfare. In physiology, as in mechanics, the effect varies with the forces involved.

There can be no doubt that an exaggerated activity will produce a modification in the active organ, for this is only the familiar case of increased growth with increased exercise, and this is the biological meaning in which Function can be said not, indeed, to create, but to modify an existing Organ. Preceding the activity there must be the agent. Every organ although having its special function has also the properties of all the tissues which constitute it. The function is only the synthesis of these properties to which a dominant tissue gives a special character. The eye, for example, though specially characterized by its retinal sensibility to light, is largely endowed with muscles, and its movements are essential to Vision. The intestinal canal, again, though specially characterized by its secretions for the decomposition of food, has muscles which are essential to Digestion. In many animals, especially vegetable-feeders, there is an exaggeration of the muscular activity in certain parts of the intestinal canal which is only possible through a corresponding development of the muscular tissue, so that in some birds, crustaceans, and molluscs we find a gizzard, which is wholly without a mucous membrane to secrete fluids, and which aids Digestion solely by trituration.

94. Mr. Spencer, as I have already suggested, seems to have been led into his view by not keeping distinctly present to his mind the differences between Properties of tissue and Function, the activity of an organ. “That function takes precedence of structure,” he says, “seems implied in the definition of Life. If Life consist of inner actions so adjusted as to balance outer actions—if the actions are the substance of Life, while the adjustment constitutes its form; then may we not say that the actions formed must come before that which forms them—that the continuous change which is the basis of function must come before the structure which brings the function into shape?” The separation of “actions formed” from “that which forms them” is inadmissible. An action cannot come before the agent: it is the agent in act. The continuous change, which is the basis of Vitality, is a change of molecular arrangements; and the organ which gives a special direction to the vital activity, e.g. which shapes the property of Contractility into the function of Prehension, this organ must itself be formed before it can manifest this function. It is true that in one sense the organs are formed by, or are differentiated in, a pre-existent organism; true that the general activity of living substance must precede the special activity of any organ, as the expansions of steam must precede any steam-engine action; but the general activity depends on the general structure; and the special actions on the special structures. If by Organization we are to understand not simply organized substance, but a more or less complex arrangement of that substance into separate organs, the question is tantamount to asking whether the simplest animals and plants have life? And to ask the question, whether Life precedes organic substance? is tantamount to asking whether the convex aspect of a curve precedes the concave! or whether the motions of a body precede the body! To disengage ourselves from the complicated suggestions of such a word as Life, let us consider one of the vital phenomena, Contraction. This is a phenomenon manifested by simple protoplasm, and by the highly differentiated form of protoplasm known as muscle. In one sense it would be correct to say that Contractility as a general property of tissue precedes Contraction, which is specialized in muscle. But it would be absurd to say that muscular contraction preceded the existence of muscle, and formed it. The contractions of the protoplasm are not the same as muscular contractions any more than the hand of a baby is the same as a man’s; the general property which both have in common depends on the substance both have in common; the special property which belongs to the muscle depends on its special structure. An infinite activity of the contractile protoplasm would be incompetent to form a muscle, unless it were accompanied by that peculiar change in structure which constitutes muscle. The teakettle might boil forever without producing a steam-engine or the actions of a steam-engine. That which is true of one function is true of all functions, and true of Life, which is the sum of vital activities.

95. It is this haziness which made Agassiz “regret to observe that it has almost become an axiom that identical functions presuppose identical organs. There never was a more incorrect principle leading to more injurious consequences.”43 And elsewhere he argues that organs can exist without functions. But this is obviously to pervert the fundamental idea of an organ. “The teeth of the whale which never eat through the gums, and the breasts of the males of all classes of mammalia,” are cited by him as examples of such organs without functions; but in the physiological significance of the term these are not organs at all. It is no more to be expected that the breasts of the male should act in lactation, than that the slackened string of a violin should yield musical tones; but the breasts of the male may be easily stimulated into yielding milk, and the slackened string of the violin may be tightened so as to yield tone. Even the breasts of the female do not yield milk except under certain conditions, and in the absence of these are on a par with those of the male.

96. Organized substance has the general properties of Assimilation, Evolution, Sensibility, and Contractility; each of the special tissues into which organized substance is differentiated manifests a predominance of one of these properties. Thus although the embryo-cells all manifest contractility, it is only the specialized muscle-cell which continues throughout its existence to manifest this property, and in a dominant form; the muscle-cell also assimilates and develops, but besides having these properties in common with all other cells, it has the special property of contracting with an energy not found in the others. All cells respire; but the blood-cells have this property of absorbing oxygen to a degree so far surpassing that of any other cell that physiologists have been led to speak of their containing a peculiar respiratory substance. In like manner all, or nearly all, the tissues contain myeline—which indeed is one of the chief constituents of the yolk of eggs—but only in the white sheath of the nerves is it detached and specialized as a tissue.

97. But while Sensibility and Contractility are general properties of organized substance, specialized in special tissues; Sensation and Contraction are functions of the organs formed by such tissues; and these organs are only found in animal organisms. It is a serious error, which we shall hereafter have to insist on, to suppose that Sensation can be the property of ganglionic cells, or, as it is more often stated, the property of the central gray matter. Sensation is the function of the organism; it varies with the varying organ; the sensation of Touch not being the same as the sensation of Sight, or of Sound.

98. We may consider the organism under two aspects—that of Structure and that of Function. The latter has two broad divisions corresponding with the vegetal and animal lives; the one is Nutrient, the other Efficient. The one prepares and distributes Food, the other distributes Motion. Of course this separation is analytical. In reality the two are interblended; and although the neuro-muscular system is developed out of the nutritive system, it is no sooner developed than it plays its part as Instrument in the preparation and distribution of Aliment.

This not being a treatise on Physiology, there can be no necessity for our here considering the properties and functions in detail. What is necessary to be said on Sensibility and Contractility will find its place in the course of future chapters; for the present we will confine ourselves to Evolution on account of its psychological, no less than its physiological, interest.