,,at ,,the ,,deathbed ,,of ,,darwinism ,a ,,series ,,of ,,papers ,by ,e4 ,,dennert1 ,ph4,d4 ,authorized ,translation ,by ,e4 ,v4 ,o',,harra and ,,john ,h4 ,,peschges #aijd ,,german ,,literary ,,board ,burlington1 ,iowa ,copyright #aijd ,by ,r4 ,,neumann ,,contents ,,preface #i ,,introduction #bg ,,chapter ,i4--,the ,return to ,wigand--,the ,botanist1 ,julius von ,sachs--,the ,vienna ,zoologist1 ,dr4 ,schneider #ce ,,chapter ,,ii4--,professor ,goethe on ,the ,present ,status of ,darwinism--,explains the ,reluctance of certain men of ,science to ,discard ,darwinism #da ,,chapter ,,iii4--,professor ,korchinsky ,rejects ,darwinism--,his ,theory of ,heterogenesis--,professor ,haberlandt of ,graz--,demonstration of a ,vital ,force--,its ,nature--,the ,sudden ,origination of a ,new ,organ--,importance of the ,experiment4 #di ,,chapter ,,iv4--,testimony of a ,palaeontologist1 ,professor ,steinmann--,on ,haeckel's ,family ,trees--,the ,principle of ,multiple ,origin--,extinction of the ,saurians--,darwinism ,not the ,alpha and ,omega of the ,doctrine of ,descent--,steinmann's ,conclusions #fj ,,chapter ,v4--,eimer's ,theory of ,organic ,growth--,definite ,lines of ,development--,rejects ,darwin's ,theory of ,fluctuating ,variations--,opposes ,weismann--,repudiates ,darwinian ,mimicry--,discards the ,romantic ,hypothesis of ,sexual ,selection--,transmutation is a ,physiological ,process1 a ,phyletic ,growth #fi ,,chapter ,,vi4--,admissions of a ,darwinian--,professor von ,wagner's ,explanation of the ,decay of ,darwinism--,darwinism ,rejects the ,inductive ,method1 ,hence ,unscientific--,wagner's ,contradictory ,assertions #ij ,,chapter ,,vii4--,haeckel's ,latest ,production--,his ,extreme ,modesty--,reception of the ,weltraetsel--,schmidt's ,apologia--,the ,romanes ,incident--,men of ,science ,who ,convicted ,haeckel of ,deliberate ,fraud #ajd ,,chapter ,,viii4--,grottewitz ,writes on ,darwinian ,myths--,darwinism ,incapable of ,scientific ,proof--,the ,principle of ,gradual ,development ,certainly ,untenable--,darwin's ,theory of ,chance a ,myth #aah ,,chapter ,,ix4--,professor ,fleischmann of ,erlangen--,doctrine of ,descent ,not ,substantiated--,missing ,links--,collapse of ,haeckel's ,theory--,descent ,hypothesis ,antiquated--,fleischmann ,formerly a ,darwinian--,haeckel's ,disreputable ,methods of ,defense #abd ,,chapter ,x4--,hertwig1 the ,berlin ,anatomist1 ,protests ,against the ,materialistic ,view of ,life--,no ,empiric ,proof of ,darwinism--,the ,impotence of ,natural ,selection--,rejects ,haeckel's ,biogenetic ,law #acg ,,conclusion4--,darwinism ,abandoned by ,men of ,science--,supplanted by a ,theory in ,harmony ,with ,theistic ,principles #adf ,,preface4 ,the general tendency of recent scientific literature dealing with the problem of organic evolution may fairly be characterized as distinctly and prevailingly unfavorable to the ,darwinian theory of ,natural ,selection4 ,in the series of chapters herewith offered for the first time to ,english readers1 ,dr4 ,dennert has brought together testimonies which leave no room for doubt about the decadence of the ,darwinian theory in the highest scientific circles in ,germany4 ,and outside of ,germany the same sentiment is shared generally by the leaders of scientific thought4 ,that the popularizers of evolutionary conceptions have any anti-,darwinian tendencies cannot1 of course1 be for a moment maintained4 ,for who would undertake to popularize what is not novel or striking8 ,but a study of the best scientific literature reveals the fact that the attitude assumed by one of our foremost ,american zoologists1 ,professor ,thomas ,hunt ,morgan1 in his recent work on ,evolution and ,adaptation1 is far more general among the leading men of science than is popularly supposed4 ,professor ,morgan's position may be stated thus3 ,he adheres to the general theory of ,descent1 i4e41 he believes the simplest explanation which has yet been offered of the structural similarities between species within the same group1 is the hypothesis of a common descent from a parent species4 ,but he emphatically rejects the notion--and this is the quintessence of ,darwinism--that the dissimilarities between species have been brought about by the purely mechanical agency of natural selection4 ,to find out what1 precisely1 ,darwin meant by the term natural selection let us turn for a moment1 to his great work1 ,the ,origin of ,species by ,means of ,natural ,selection4 ,in the second chapter of that work1 ,darwin observes that small fortuitous variations in individual organisms1 though of small interest to the systematist1 are of the highest importance for his theory1 since these minute variations often confer on the possessor of them1 some advantage over his fellows in the quest for the necessaries of life4 ,thus these chance individual variations become the first steps towards slight varieties1 which1 in turn1 lead to sub-species1 and1 finally1 to species4 ,varieties1 in fact1 are incipient species4 ,hence1 small fortuitous fluctuating1 individual variations--i4e41 those which chance to occur without predetermined direction--are the first-steps in the origin of species4 ,this is the first element in the ,darwinian theory4 ,in the third chapter of the same work we read3 ,it has been seen in the last chapter that amongst organic beings in a state of nature there is some individual variability4 99 99 99 ,but the mere existence of individual variability and of some few well-marked varieties1 though necessary as a foundation of the work1 helps us but little in understanding how species arise in nature4 ,how have all those exquisite adaptations of one part of the organization to another part1 and to the conditions of life1 and of one organic being to another being1 been perfected8 99 99 99 ,again it may be asked1 how is it that varieties1 which ,i have called incipient species1 become ultimately converted into good and distinct species1 which in most cases obviously differ from each other far more than do the varieties of the same species8 ,how do those groups of species which constitute what are called distinct genera arise8 ,all of these results follow from the struggle for life4 ,owing to this struggle1 variations1 however slight and from whatever cause proceeding1 if they be in any degree profitable to the individuals of a species1 in their infinitely complex relations to other organic beings1 and to their physical conditions of life1 will tend to the preservation of such individuals and will generally be inherited by the offspring4 ,the offspring also will thus have a better chance of surviving1 for of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born1 but a small number can survive4 ,i have called this principle by which each slight variation1 if useful1 is preserved1 by the term1 natural selection4 ,mr4 ,darwin adds that his meaning would be more accurately expressed by a phrase of ,mr4 ,spencer's coinage1 ,survival of the ,fittest4 ,it may be observed that neither natural selection nor survival of the fittest gives very accurate expression to the idea which ,darwin seems to wish to convey4 ,natural selection is at best a metaphorical description of a process1 and survival of the fittest describes the result of that process4 ,nor shall we find the moving principle of evolution in individual variability unless we choose to regard chance as an efficient agency4 ,consequently1 the only efficient principle conceivably connected with the process is the struggle for existence2 and even this has only a purely negative function in the origination of species or of adaptations4 ,for1 the surviving fittest owe nothing more to the struggle for existence than our pensioned veterans owe to the death-dealing bullets which did not hit them4 ,mr4 ,darwin has1 however1 obviated all difficulty regarding precision of terms by the remark that he intended to use his most important term1 struggle for existence in a large and metaphorical sense4 ,we have now seen the second element of ,darwinism1 namely1 the struggle for life4 ,the theory of natural selection1 then1 postulates the accumulation of minute fortuitions individual modifications1 which are useful to the possessor of them1 by means of a struggle for life of such a sanguinary nature and of such enormous proportions as to result in the destruction of the overwhelming majority of adult individuals4 ,these are the correlative factors in the process of natural selection4 ,in view of the popular identification of ,darwinism with the doctrine of evolution1 on the one hand1 and with the theory of struggle for life1 on the other hand1 it is necessary to insist on the ,darwinian conception of small1 fluctuating1 useful variations as the first-steps in the evolutionary process4 ,for1 this conception distinguishes ,darwinism from the more recent evolutionary theory1 e4g41 of ,de ,vries who rejects the notion that species have originated by the accumulation of fluctuating variations2 and it is quite as essential to the ,darwinian theory of natural selection as is the struggle for life4 ,it is1 in fact1 an integral element in the selection theory4 ,the attitude of science towards ,darwinism may1 therefore1 be conveniently summarized in its answer to the following questions3 #a4 ,is there any evidence that such a struggle for life among mature forms1 as ,darwin postulates1 actually occurs8 #b4 ,can the origin of adaptive structures be explained on the ground of their utility in this struggle1 i4e41 is it certain or even probable that the organism would have perished1 had it lacked the particular adaptation in its present degree of perfection8 ,on the contrary1 is there not convincing proof that many1 and presumably most1 adaptations cannot be thus accounted for8 ,the above questions are concerned with the struggle for life4 ,those which follow have to do with the problem of variations4 #c4 ,is there any reason to believe that new species may originate by the accumulation of fluctuating individual variations8 #d4 ,does the evidence of the geological record--which1 as ,huxley observed1 is the only direct evidence that can be had in the question of evolution--does this evidence tell for or against the origin of existing species from earlier ones by means of minute gradual modifications8 ,we must be content here with the briefest outline of the reply of science to these inquiries4 #a4 ,darwin invites his readers to keep steadily in mind that each organic being is striving to increase in geometrical ratio4 ,if this tendency were to continue unchecked1 the progeny of living beings would soon be unable to find standing room4 ,indeed1 the very bacteria would quickly convert every vestige of organic matter on earth into their own substance4 ,for has not ,cohn estimated that the offspring of a single bacterium1 at its ordinary rate of increase under favorable conditions1 would in three days amount to #d1ggb billions of individuals with an aggregate weight of seven thousand five hundred tons8 ,and the #ai1jjj1jjj elephants which1 according to ,darwin1 should to-day perpetuate the lives of each pair that mated in the twelfth century--surely these would be a magna pars in the sanguinary contest4 ,when the imagination views these and similar figures1 and places in contrast to this multitude of living beings1 the limited supply of nourishment1 the comparison of nature with a huge slaughterhouse seems tame enough4 ,but reason1 not imagination1 as ,darwin observes more than once1 should be our guide in a scientific inquiry4 ,it is observed on careful reflection that ,darwin's theory is endangered by an extremely large disturbing element1 viz41 accidental destruction4 ,under this term we include all the destruction of life which occurs in utter indifference to the presence or absence of any individual variations from the parent form4 ,indeed1 the greatest destruction takes place among immature forms before any variation from the parent stock is discernible at all4 ,in this connection we may instance the vast amount of eggs and seeds destroyed annually irrespective of any adaptive advantage that would be possessed by the matured form4 ,and the countless forms in every stage of individual development which meet destruction through accidental causes which would not be in the least degree mitigated by certain changes of structure or of constitution which would otherwise be beneficial to the species4 ,this difficulty1 ,darwin himself recognized4 ,but he was of opinion that if even one-hundredth or one-thousandth part of organic beings escaped this fortuitous destruction1 there would supervene among the survivors a struggle for life sufficiently destructive to satisfy his theory4 ,this suggestion1 however1 fails to meet the difficulty4 ,for1 as ,professor ,morgan points out1 ,darwin assumes that a second competition takes place after the first destruction of individuals has occurred1 and this presupposes that more individuals reach maturity than there is room for in the economy of nature4 ,it presupposes that the vast majority of forms that survive accidental destruction1 succumb in the second struggle for life in which the determining factor is some slight individual variation1 e4g41 a little longer neck in the case of the giraffe1 or a wing shorter than usual in the case of an insect on an island4 ,the whole theory of struggle1 as formulated by ,darwin1 is1 therefore1 a violent assumption4 ,men of science now recognize that egoism and struggle play a very subordinate part in organic development1 in comparison with co-operation and social action4 ,what1 indeed1 but a surrender of the paramountcy of struggle for life1 is ,huxley's celebrated ,romanes lecture in which he supplants the cosmic process by the ethical8 ,the ,french free-thinker1 ,charles ,robin1 gave expression to the verdict of exact science when he declared3 ,darwinism is a fiction1 a poetical accumulation of probabilities without proof1 and of attractive explanations without demonstration4 #b4 ,the hopeless inadequacy of the struggle for life to account for adaptive structures has been dealt with at considerable length by ,professor ,morgan in the concluding chapters of the work already mentioned4 ,we cannot here follow him in his study of the various kinds of adaptations1 e4g41 form and symmetry1 mutual adaptation of colonial forms1 protective coloration1 organs of extreme perfection1 tropisms and instincts1 etc41 in regard to the origin of each of which he is forced to abandon the ,darwinian theory4 ,it will suffice to call attention to his conclusions concerning the phenomena of regeneration of organs4 ,by his research in this special field ,professor ,morgan has won international recognition among men of science4 ,it was while prosecuting his studies in this field that he became impressed with the utter bankruptcy of the theory of natural selection which ,darwinians put forward to explain the acquisition by organisms of this most useful power of regeneration4 ,it is not difficult to show that regeneration could not in many cases1 and presumably in none1 have been acquired through natural selection 7p4 #cgi74 ,if an earth worm 7allolobophora foctida7 be cut in two in the middle1 the posterior piece regenerates at its anterior cut end1 not a head but a tail4 ,not by the widest stretch of the imagination can such a result be accounted for on the selection theory4 ,quite the reverse case presents itself in certain planarians4 ,if the head of planaria lugubris is cut off just behind the eyes1 there develops at the cut surface of the head-piece another head turned in the opposite direction4 ,these and other reasons1 concludes ,professor ,morgan 7p4 #cha71 indicate with certainty that regeneration cannot be explained by the theory of natural selection4 ,the ingenuity of the ,darwinian imagination1 however1 will hardly fail to assign some reason why two heads are more useful than one in the above instance1 and thus reconcile the phenomenon with ,darwinism4 ,for1 according to ,professor ,morgan to imagine that a particular organ is useful to its possessor and to account for its origin because of the imagined benefit conferred1 is the general procedure of the followers of the ,darwinian school4 ,personal conviction1 mere possibility1 writes ,quatrefages1 are offered as proofs1 or at least as arguments in favor of the theory4 ,the realms of fancy are boundless1 is ,blanchard's significant comment on ,darwin's explanation of the blindness of the mole4 ,on this class of speculation1 says ,bateson in his ,materials for the ,study of ,variation1 referring to ,darwinian speculation as to the beneficial or detrimental nature of variations1 on this class of speculation the only limitations are those of the ingenuity of the author4 ,the general form of ,darwin's argument1 declared the writer of a celebrated article in the ,north ,british ,review1 is as follows3 ,all these things may have been1 therefore my theory is possible2 and since my theory is a possible one1 all those hypotheses which it requires are rendered probable4 #c4 ,we pass now to the question of the possibility of building up a new species by the accumulation of chance individual variations4 ,that species ever originate in this way is denied by the advocates of the evolutionary theory which is now superseding ,darwinism4 ,typical of the new school is the botanist ,hugo ,de ,vries of ,amsterdam4 ,the first-steps in the origin of new species according to ,de ,vries are not fluctuating individual variations1 but mutations1 i4e41 definite and permanent modifications4 ,according to the mutation theory a new species arises from the parent species1 not gradually but suddenly4 ,it appears suddenly without visible preparation and without transitional steps4 ,the wide acceptance with which this theory is meeting must be attributed to the fact that men of science no longer believe in the origin of species by the accumulation of slight fluctuating modifications4 ,to quote the words of ,de ,vries1 ,fluctuating variation cannot overstep the limits of the species1 even after the most prolonged selection--still less can it lead to the production of new1 permanent characters4 ,it has been the wont of ,darwinians to base their speculations on the assumption that an inconceivably long time could effect almost anything in the matter of specific transformations4 ,but the evidence which has been amassed during the past forty years leaves no doubt that there is a limit to individual variability which neither time nor skill avail to remove4 ,as ,m4 ,blanchard asserts in his work1 ,la vie des etres animes 7p4 #ajb71 ,all investigation and observation make it clear that1 while the variability of creatures in a state of nature displays itself in very different degrees1 yet1 in its most astonishing manifestations1 it remains confined within a circle beyond which it cannot pass4 ,it is interesting to observe how writers of the ,darwinian school attempt to explain the origin of articulate language as a gradual development of animal sounds4 ,it does not1 observes ,darwin1 appear altogether incredible that some unusually wise ape-like animal should have thought of imitating the growl of a beast of prey1 so as to indicate to his fellow monkeys the nature of the expected danger4 ,and this would have been a first step in the formation of a language4 ,but what a tremendous step6 ,an ape-like animal that thought of imitating a beast must certainly have been unusually wise4 ,in bridging the chasm which rational speech interposes between man and the brute creation1 the ,darwinian is forced to assume that the whole essential modification is included in the first step4 ,then he conceals the assumption by parcelling out the accidental modification in a supposed series of transitional stages4 ,he endeavors to veil his inability to explain the first step1 as ,chevalier ,bunsen remarked1 by the easy but fruitless assumption of an infinite space of time1 destined to explain the gradual development of animals into men2 as if millions of years could supply the want of an agent necessary for the first movement1 for the first step in the line of progress4 ,how can speech1 the expression of thought1 develop itself in a year or in millions of years1 out of unarticulated sounds which express feelings of pleasure1 pain1 and appetite8 ,the common-sense of mankind will always shrink from such theories4 #d4 ,the hopes and fears of ,darwinians have rightly been centered on the history of organic development as outlined in the geological record4 ,it has been pointed out repeatedly by the foremost men of science that if the theory of genetic descent with the accumulation of small variations be the true account of the origin of species1 a complete record of the ancestry of any existing species would reveal no distinction of species and genera4 ,between any two well-defined species1 if one be derived from the other1 there must be countless transition forms4 ,but palaeontology fails to support the theory of evolution by minute variations4 ,darwinism has been shattered on the geologic rocks4 ,the complete absence of intermediate forms1 says ,mr4 ,carruthers1 and the sudden and contemporaneous appearance of highly organized and widely separated groups1 deprive the hypothesis of genetic evolution of any countenance from the plant record of these ancient rocks4 ,the whole evidence is against evolution 7i4e41 by minute modification7 and there is none for it4 7cf4 ,history of ,plant ,life and its ,bearing on ,theory of ,evolution1 #ahih74 ,similar testimony regarding the animal kingdom is borne by ,mr4 ,mivart in the following carefully worded statement3 ,the mass of palaeontological evidence is indeed overwhelmingly against minute and gradual modification4 ,the ,darwinian theory1 declared ,professor ,fleischmann of ,erlangen1 recently1 has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature4 ,it is not the result of scientific research1 but purely the product of the imagination4 ,on one occasion ,huxley expressed his conviction that the pedigree of the horse as revealed in the geological record furnished demonstrative evidence for the theory of evolution4 ,the question has been entered into in detail by ,professor ,fleischmann in his work1 ,die ,descendenstheorie4 ,in this book the ,erlangen professor makes great capital out of the trot-horse 7,paradepferd7 of ,huxley and ,haeckel2 and as regards the evolutionary theory1 easily claims a verdict of not proven4 ,in this connection the moderate statement of ,professor ,morgan is noteworthy3 ,when he 7,fleischmann7 says there is no absolute proof that the common plan of structure must be the result of blood relationship1 he is not bringing a fatal argument against the theory of descent1 for no one but an enthusiast sees anything more in the explanation than a very probable theory that appears to account for the facts4 ,to demand an absolute proof is to ask for more than any reasonable advocate of the descent theory claims for it4 7,professor ,morgan1 as we have already seen1 rejects ,darwinism1 and inclines to the mutation theory of ,de ,vries47 ,the vast majority of ,darwinians must1 therefore1 be classed as enthusiasts who are not reasonable advocates of the descent theory4 ,for has not ,professor ,marsh told his readers that to doubt evolution is to doubt science8 ,and similar assertions have been so frequently made and reiterated by ,darwinians that the claim that ,darwinism has become a dogma contains1 as ,professor ,morgan notes1 more truth than the adherents of that school find pleasant to hear4 ,more interesting1 however1 than ,huxley's geological pedigree of the horse is ,haeckel's geological pedigree of man4 ,one who reads ,haeckel's ,natural ,history of ,creation can hardly escape the impression that the author had actually seen specimens of each of the twenty-one ancestral forms of which his pedigree of man is composed4 ,such1 however1 was not the case4 ,quatrefages1 speaking of this wonderful genealogical tree which ,haeckel has drawn up with such scientific accuracy of description1 observes3 ,the first thing to remark is that not one of the creatures exhibited in this pedigree has ever been seen1 either living or in fossil4 ,their existence is based entirely upon theory4 7,les ,emules de ,darwin1 ii4 p4 #gf74 ,man's pedigree as drawn up by ,haeckel1 says the distinguished savant1 ,du ,bois-,reymond1 is worth about as much as is that of ,homer's heroes for critical historians4 ,in constructing his genealogies ,haeckel has frequent recourse to his celebrated ,law of ,biogenesis4 ,the ,law of ,biogenesis which is the dignified title ,haeckel has given to the discredited recapitulation theory1 asserts that the embryological development of the individual 7ontogeny71 is a brief recapitulation1 a summing up1 of the stages through which the species passed in the course of its evolution in the geologic past1 7phylogeny74 ,ontogeny is a brief recapitulation of phylogeny4 ,this1 says ,haeckel1 is what the fundamental ,law of ,biogenesis teaches us4 7,the reader of ,haeckel and other ,darwinians will frequently find laws put forward to establish facts3 whereas other men of science prefer to have facts establish laws74 ,when1 therefore1 as ,quatrefages remarks1 the transition between the types which ,haeckel has incorporated into his genealogical tree1 appears too abrupt1 he often betakes himself to ontogeny and describes the embryo in the corresponding interval of development4 ,this description he inserts in his genealogical mosaic1 by virtue of the ,law of ,biogenesis4 ,many theories have been constructed to explain the phenomena of embryological development4 ,of these the simplest and least mystical is that of ,his in the great classic work on embryology1 ,unsere ,koerperform4 ,his tells us3 ,in the entire series of forms which a developing organism runs through1 each form is the necessary antecedent step of the following4 ,if the embryo is to reach the complicated end-form1 it must pass1 step by step1 through the simpler ones4 ,each step of the series is the physiological consequence of the preceding stage1 and the necessary condition for the following4 ,but whatever theory be accepted by men of science1 it is certainly not that proposed by ,haeckel4 ,carl ,vogt after giving ,haeckel's statement of the ,law of ,biogenesis wrote3 ,this law which ,i long held as well-founded1 is absolutely and radically false4 ,even ,oskar ,hertwig1 perhaps the best known of ,haeckel's former pupils1 finds it necessary to change ,haeckel's expression of the biogenetic law so that a contradiction contained in it may be removed4 ,professor ,morgan1 finally1 rejects ,haeckel's boasted ,law of ,biogenesis as in principle1 false4 ,and he furthermore seems to imply that ,fleischmann merits the reproach of men of science1 for wasting his time in confuting the antiquated and generally exaggerated views of writers like ,haeckel4 ,antiquated and generally exaggerated views4 ,such is the comment of science on ,haeckel's boast that ,darwin's pre-eminent service to science consisted in pointing out how purposive adaptations may be produced by natural selection without the direction of mind just as easily as they may be produced by artificial selection and human design4 ,and yet the latest and least worthy production from the pen of this ,darwinian philosopher1 ,the ,riddle of the ,universe1 is being scattered broad-cast by the anti-,christian press1 in the name and guise of popular science4 ,it is therein that the evil consists4 ,for the discerning reader sees in the book itself1 its own best refutation4 ,the pretensions of ,haeckel's consistent and monistic theory of the eternal cosmogenetic process are best met by pointing to the fact that its most highly accredited and notorious representative has given to the world in exposition and defense of pure ,darwinian philosophy1 a work1 which1 for boldness of assertion1 meagerness of proof1 inconsequence of argument1 inconsistency in fundamental principles and disregard for facts which tell against the author's theory1 has certainly no equal in contemporary literature4 ,in the apt and expressive phrase of ,professor ,paulsen1 the book fairly drips with superficiality 7von ,seichtigkeit triefen74 ,if the man of science is to be justified1 as ,huxley suggested1 not by faith but by verification1 ,haeckel and his docile ,darwinian disciples have good reason to tremble for their scientific salvation4 ,,edwin ,v4 ,o',,hara4 ,st4 ,paul1 ,minn4 ,,introduction4 ,during the last few years ,i have published under this title short articles dealing with the present status of ,darwinism4 ,in view of the kind reception which has been accorded to these articles by the reading public ,i have thought it well to bring them together in pamphlet form4 ,indeed1 the ,darwinian movement and its present status are eminently deserving of consideration1 especially on the part of those before whom ,darwinism has hitherto always been held up triumphantly as a scientific disproof of the very foundations of the ,christian faith4 ,by way of introduction and explanation some general preliminary remarks may not be amiss here4 ,previous to twenty or thirty years ago1 it was justifiable to identify ,darwinism with the doctrine of ,descent1 for at that time ,darwinism was the only doctrine of ,descent which could claim any general recognition4 ,consequently1 one who was an adherent of the doctrine of ,descent was also a ,darwinian4 ,those to whom this did not apply were so few as to be easily counted4 ,the dispute then hinged primarily on ,darwinism2 hence1 for those who did not admit the truth of that theory1 the doctrine of ,descent was for the most part also a myth4 ,i say1 for the most part2 for there were already even at that time a few clear-sighted naturalists 7,wigand1 ,naegeli1 ,koelliker and others7 who saw plainly the residue of truth that would result from the discussion4 ,but to the overwhelming majority1 the alternatives seemed to be3 ,either ,darwinism or no evolution at all4 ,today1 however1 the state of things is considerably altered4 ,the doctrine of ,descent is clearly and definitely distinguished from ,darwinism at least by the majority of naturalists4 ,it is therefore of the utmost importance that this luminous distinction should likewise become recognized in lay circles4 ,my object in these pages is to show that ,darwinism will soon be a thing of the past1 a matter of history2 that we even now stand at its death-bed1 while its friends are solicitous only to secure for it a decent burial4 ,out of the chaos of controversy which has obtained during the last four decades there has emerged an element of truth--for there lurks a germ of truth in most errors--which has gained almost universal recognition among contemporary men of science1 namely1 the doctrine of ,descent4 ,the fact that living organisms form an ascending series from the less perfect to the more perfect2 the further fact that they also form a series according as they display more or less homology of structure and are formed according to similar types2 and1 lastly1 that the fossil remains of organisms found in the various strata of the earth's surface likewise represent an ascending series from the simple to the more complex--these three facts suggested to naturalists the thought that living organisms were not always as we find them to-day1 but that the more perfect had developed from simpler forms through a series of modifications4 ,these thoughts were at first advanced with some hesitation1 and were confined to narrow circles4 ,they received1 however1 material support when1 during the fourth decade of the #aith century the splendid discovery was made 7by ,k4 ,e4 von ,baer7 that every organism is slowly developed from a germ1 and in the process of development passes through temporary lower stages to a permanent higher one4 ,even at that time many naturalists believed in a corresponding development of the whole series of organisms1 without of course being able to form a clear conception of the process4 ,such was the state of affairs when ,darwin in the year #ahei published his principal work1 ,the ,origin of ,species by ,means of ,natural ,selection4 ,in this work for the first time an exhaustive attempt was made to sketch a clear and completely detailed picture of the process of development4 ,darwin started with the fact that breeders of animals and growers of plants1 having at their disposal a large number of varieties1 always diverging somewhat from each other1 choose individuals possessing characteristics which they desired to strengthen1 and use only these for procreation4 ,in this manner the desired characteristic is gradually made more prominent1 and the breeder appears to have obtained a new species4 ,similar conditions are supposed to prevail in ,nature1 only that there is lacking the selecting hand of the breeder4 ,here the so-called principle of ,natural ,selection holds automatic sway by means of the ,struggle for ,existence4 ,all the various forms of life are warring for the means of subsistence1 each striving to obtain for itself the best nourishment1 etc4 ,in this struggle those organisms will be victorious which possess the most favorable characteristics2 all others must succumb4 ,hence those only will survive which are best adapted to their environment4 ,but between those which survive1 the struggle begins anew1 and when the favoring peculiarities become more pronounced in some1 7by chance1 of course7 these in turn win out4 ,thus ,nature gradually improves her various breeds through the continued action of a self-regulating mechanism4 ,such are the main features of ,darwinism1 its real kernel1 about which of course1--and this is a proof of its insufficiency1--from the very beginning a number of auxiliary hypotheses attached themselves4 ,darwin's theory sounds so clear and simple1 and seems at first blush so luminous that it is no wonder if many careful naturalists regarded it as an incontrovertible truth4 ,the warning voice of the more prudent men of science was silenced by the loud enthusiasm of the younger generation over the solution of the greatest of the world-problems3 the genesis of living beings had been brought to light1 and--a thing which admitted of no doubt--man as well as the brute creation was a product of purely natural evolution4 ,the doctrine which materialism had already proclaimed with prophetic insight1 had at length been irrefragably established on a scientific basis3 ,god1 ,soul and ,immortality were contemptuously relegated to the domain of nursery tales4 ,what further use was there for a ,god when1 in addition to the ,kant-,laplacian theory of the origin of the planetary system1 it had been discovered that living organisms had likewise evolved spontaneously8 ,how could man who had sprung from the irrational brute possess a soul8 ,and thus1 finally1 disappeared the third delusion1 the hope of immortality4 ,for with death the functions of the body simply cease1 as also do those of the brain1 which people had foolishly believed to be something more than an aggregation of atoms4 ,the body dissolves into its constituent elements and serves in its turn to build up other organisms3 but as a human body it all turns to dust nor 'leaves a wrack behind'4 ,thus ,darwinism was made the basis first for a materialistic1 and then for a monistic1 view of the world1 and hence came to be rigorously opposed to every form of ,theism4 ,but since1 at that time1 ,darwinism was the only theory of evolution recognized by the world of science1 the opposition of the ,christian world was directed not specifically against ,darwinism1 but against the theory of evolution as such4 ,the wheat was rooted up with the tares4 ,i will not discuss here which of the two views concerning creation2 the origin of the world in one moment of time1 or a gradual evolution of the world and its potentialities1 is the more worthy of the creative power of ,god4 ,manifestly the greatness and magnificence of creation will in no way be compromised by the concept of evolution4 ,this1 of course1 is simply my opinion4 ,any further statement would be out of place here4 ,but what is the ,darwinian position8 ,it is merely a special form of the evolutionary theory1 one of the various attempts to explain how the process of development actually took place4 ,darwinism as understood in the following chapters possesses the following characteristic traits3 7#a7 ,evolution began and continues without the aid or intervention of a ,creator4 7#b7 ,in the production of ,variations there is no definite law2 ,chance reigns supreme4 7#c7 ,there is no indication of purpose or finality to be detected anywhere in the evolutionary process4 7#d7 ,the working factor in evolution is ,egoism1 a war of each against his fellows3 this is the predominating principle which manifests itself in ,nature4 7#e7 ,in this struggle the strongest1 fleetest and most cunning will always prevail1 7the ,darwinian term fittest has been the innocent source of a great deal of error74 7#f7 ,man1 whether you regard his body or his mind1 is nothing but a highly developed animal4 ,a careful examination of ,darwinism shows that these are the necessary presuppositions1 or1 if you will1 the inevitable consequences of that theory4 ,to accept that theory is to repudiate the ,christian view of the world4 ,the truth of the above propositions is utterly incompatible1 not only with any religious views1 but with our civil and social principles as well4 ,the most patent facts of man's moral life1 however1 cannot be explained on any such hypothesis1 and the logic of events has already shown that ,darwinism could never have won general acceptance but for the incautious enthusiasm of youth which intoxicated the minds of the rising generation of naturalists and incapacitated them for the exercise of sober judgment4 ,to show that there is among contemporary men of science a healthy reaction against ,darwinism is the object of this treatise4 ,the reader may now ask1 ,what1 then1 is your idea of evolution8 ,it certainly is easier to criticise than to do constructive work4 ,an honest study of nature1 however1 inevitably leads us to the conclusion that the final solution of the problem is still far distant4 ,many a stone has already been quarried for the future edifice of evolution by unwearied research during the last four decades4 ,but in opposition to ,darwinism it may1 at the present time1 be confidently asserted that any future doctrine of evolution will have to be constructed on the following basic principles3 7#a7 ,all evolution is characterized by finality2 it proceeds according to a definite plan1 and tends to a definite end4 7#b7 ,chance and disorder find no place in ,nature2 every stage of the evolutionary process is the result of law-controlled factors4 7#c7 ,egoism and struggle among living organisms are of very subordinate importance in comparison with co-operation and social action4 7#d7 ,the soul of man is an independent substance1 and entirely unintelligible as a mere higher stage of development of animal instinct4 ,a theory of evolution1 however1 resting on these principles cannot dispense with a ,creator and ,conserver of the world and of life4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,it was a happy day that people threw off the straight-jacket of logic and the burdensome fetters of strict method1 and mounting the light-caparisoned steed of philosophic science1 soared into the empyrean1 high above the laborious path of ordinary mortals4 ,one may not take offense if even the most sedate citizen1 for the sake of a change1 occasionally kicks over the traces1 provided only that he returns in due time to his wonted course4 ,and now in the domain of ,biology1 one is led to think that the time has at length arrived for putting an end to mad masquerade pranks and for returning without reserve to serious and sober work1 to find satisfaction therein4 ,with these words did the illustrious ,wigand1 twenty-five years ago1 conclude the preface to the third volume of his large classical work against ,darwinism4 ,true1 he did not at that time believe that the mad campaign of ,darwinism had already ended to its own detriment1 but he always predicted with the greatest confidence that the struggle would soon terminate in victory for the anti-,darwinian camp4 ,when ,wigand closed his eyes in death in #ahif1 he was able to bear with him the consciousness that the era of ,darwinism was approaching its end1 and that he had been in the right4 ,today1 at the dawn of the new century1 nothing is more certain than that ,darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science4 ,it has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past4 ,a few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of ,descent1 they will confess that the years between #ahfj and #ahhj were in many respects a time of carnival2 and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel4 ,a justification of our hope that ,wigand's warning prediction will finally be fulfilled is to be found in the fact that to-day the younger generation of naturalists is departing more and more from ,darwinism4 ,it is a fact worthy of special mention that the opposition to ,darwinism to-day comes chiefly from the ranks of the zoologists1 whereas thirty years ago large numbers of zoologists from ,jena associated themselves with the ,darwinian school1 hoping to find there a full and satisfactory solution for the profoundest enigmas of natural science4 ,the cause of this reaction is not far to seek4 ,there was at the time a whole group of enthusiastic ,darwinians among the university professors1 ,haeckel leading the van1 who clung to that theory so tenaciously and were so zealous in propagating it1 that for a while it seemed impossible for a young naturalist to be anything but a ,darwinian4 ,then the inevitable reaction gradually set in4 ,darwin himself died1 the ,darwinians of the sixties and seventies lost their pristine ardor1 and many even went beyond ,darwin4 ,above all1 calm reflection took the place of excited enthusiasm4 ,as a result it has become more and more apparent that the past forty years have brought to light nothing new that is of any value to the cause of ,darwinism4 ,this significant fact has aroused doubts as to whether after all ,darwinism can really give a satisfactory explanation of the genesis of organic forms4 ,the rising generation is now discovering what discerning scholars had already recognized and stated a quarter of a century ago4 ,they are also returning to a study of the older opponents of ,darwinism1 especially of ,wigand4 ,it is only now1 many years after his death1 that a tribute has been paid to this distinguished savant which unfortunately was grudgingly withheld during his life4 ,one day recently there was laid before his monument in the ,botanical ,garden of ,marburg a laurel-wreath with the inscription3 ,to the great naturalist1 philosopher and man4 ,it came from a young zoologist at ,vienna who had thoroughly mastered ,wigand's great anti-,darwinian work1 an intelligent investigator who had set to work in the spirit of ,wigand4 ,another talented zoologist1 ,hans ,driesch1 dedicates to the memory of ,wigand two books in rapid succession and reprehends the contemporaries of that master of science for ignoring him4 ,o4 ,hammann abandons ,darwinism for an internal principle of development4 ,w4 ,haacke openly disavows ,darwinism2 and even at the convention of naturalists in #ahig1 ,l4 ,wilser was allowed to assert without contradiction that1 anyone who has committed himself to ,darwinism can no longer be ranked as a naturalist4 ,these are all signs which clearly indicate a radical revolution1 and they are all the more significant since it is the younger generation1 which will soon take the lead1 that thinks and speaks in this manner4 ,but it is none the less noteworthy that the younger naturalists are not alone in this movement4 ,many of the older men of science are swelling the current4 ,we shall recall here only the greatest of those whom we might mention in this connection4 ,julius von ,sachs1 the most gifted and brilliant botanist of the last century1 who unfortunately is no longer among us1 was in the sixties an outspoken ,darwinian1 as is evident especially from his ,history of ,botany and from the first edition of his ,handbook of ,botany4 ,soon1 however1 ,sachs began to incline toward the position assumed by ,naegeli2 and as early as #ahgg1 ,wigand1 in the third volume of his great work1 expressed the hope that ,sachs would withdraw still further from ,darwinism4 ,as years went by1 ,sachs drifted more and more from his earlier position1 and ,wigand was of opinion that to himself should be ascribed the credit of bringing about the change4 ,during his last years ,sachs had become bitterly opposed to ,darwinism1 and in his masterly ,physiological ,notes he took a firm stand on the internal factors of evolution4 ,during recent years ,i had the pleasure of occasional correspondence with ,sachs4 ,on the #afth of ,september1 #ahif1 he wrote me3 ,for more than twenty years ,i have recognized that if we are to build up a strictly scientific theory of organic structural processes1 we must separate the doctrine of ,descent from ,darwinism4 ,it was with this intention that he worked during the last years of his life and it is to be hoped that his school will continue his researches with this aim in view4 ,the tendency among naturalists to return to ,wigand is well exemplified in an article contributed to the ,preussischen ,jahrbuecher for ,january1 #ahig1 by ,dr4 ,karl ,camillo ,schneider1 assistant at the zoological ,institute of the ,university of ,vienna4 ,this article which is entitled ,the ,origin of ,species1 pursues ,wigand's train of thought throughout1 and whole sentences and even paragraphs are taken verbatim from his main work4 ,this1 at all events1 is a very instructive indication of the present tendency which deserves prominence3 and its significance becomes more evident when we recall how the work of ,wigand was received by the non-christian press a quarter of a century ago4 ,it was either ridiculed or ignored4 ,the two methods of treatment were applied to his writings which are always readily employed when the critic has nothing pertinent to say4 ,it is interesting to note that ,darwin himself employed this method4 ,wigand once told me that he had sent ,darwin a copy of his work and had addressed a letter to him at the same time merely stating that he had sent the book1 making no reference to the line of thought contained in it4 ,darwin answered immediately in the kindest manner that he had not as yet received the book1 but when it arrived he would at once make a careful study of its contents4 ,darwin did not write to him again1 and when a new edition of his works appeared1 the work of ,wigand1 the most comprehensive answer to ,darwin ever written1 was passed over without even a passing mention4 ,thus ,darwin completely ignored his keenest antagonist4 ,as has been said1 the majority of those who wrote about ,wigand ridiculed him3 very few regarded him seriously1 and even these indulged chiefly in personal recriminations4 ,thus matters stood twenty-five years ago4 ,wigand's prediction passed unheeded4 ,that a periodical not having a specifically ,christian circle of readers should now publish a condemnation of ,darwinism entirely in accordance with the views of ,wigand1 is a fact which indicates a notable change of sentiment during the intervening years4 ,i should not be at all astonished if many who sneered at ,wigand twenty years ago1 now read the article in the ,preussischen ,jahrbuecher with entire approval4 ,ill-will towards ,wigand has not altogether disappeared even to-day4 ,this is evident from the fact that as yet ,dr4 ,schneider does not venture to defend ,wigand publicly1 nor to acknowledge him as his principal authority4 ,we must be content1 however1 if only1 the truth will finally prevail4 ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,striking testimony relative to the present position of ,darwinism is borne by the ,strasburg zoologist1 ,dr4 ,goette1 who has won fame by his invaluable labors as an historian of evolutionary theory4 ,in the ,umschau1 ,no4 #e1 #ahih1 he discusses the ,present ,status of ,darwinism1 and the conclusions he arrives at1 are identical with mine4 ,at the outset ,goette indicates the distinction between ,darwinism and the doctrine of ,descent1 and then points out that the distinguishing features of the former consist not so much in the three facts of ,heredity1 ,variation1 and ,over-production1 but rather in ,selection1 ,survival of the ,fittest1 and also in that mystical theory of heredity--the doctrine of ,pangenesis--which is peculiarly ,darwinian4 ,since this theory of ,pangenesis has found no adherents1 the question may henceforth be restricted to the doctrine of natural selection4 ,this ,goette very well observes4 ,he points1 moreover1 to the fact that the misgivings that were entertained concerning the doctrine of natural selection on its first appearance1 were1 on the whole1 precisely the same as they are to-day2 only with this difference1 that formerly they were disregarded by naturalists whose clearness of vision was obscured by excessive enthusiasm2 whereas1 to-day men have again returned to their sober senses and lend their attention more readily to objections4 ,goette recalls the fact that ,m4 ,wagner tried to supplement natural selection with his ,law of ,migration1 and that later on1 ,romanes and ,gulick endeavored to supply the evident deficiencies in ,darwin's theory1 by invoking other principles2 and that even at that time1 ,askenasy1 ,braun1 and ,naegeli--and more recently1 the lately deceased ,eimer--insisted on the fact of definitely ordered variations1 in opposition to the theory of ,selection4 ,many naturalists recognize the difficulties but do not abandon the theory of ,selection1 thinking that some supplementary principle would suffice to make it acceptable3 many others refuse to decide either for or against ,darwinism and maintain towards it an attitude of indifference4 ,the younger investigators1 however1 are utterly opposed to it4 ,there can be no doubt that since its first appearance the influence of ,darwinism on men's minds has notably diminished1 although the theory has not been entirely discarded4--,but the very fact that the younger naturalists are hostile to it1 makes it evident that ,darwinism has a still darker future in store for it3 that sooner or later it will come to possess a merely historical interest4 ,the present position of ,darwinism1 says ,goette1 is characterized especially by the uncertainty of criticism which is unable to declare definitely in favor of either side4 ,goette finds the chief cause of this uncertainty in the fact that men of science 7even ,darwin himself7 have widened the concept of selection as a means of originating new species through the interaction of individuals in the same species1 so as to express the mutually antagonistic relations existing between several such species4 ,the latter alone is subject to experimental verification1 but it can only cause the isolation of existing forms and is not a species-originating selection--with which alone we are here concerned4 ,this kind of selection can enfeeble the existing flora and fauna1 but cannot produce a new species4 ,selection productive of new species is not actually demonstrable2 it is a purely theoretical invention4 ,goette next points out that the investigator is everywhere confronted by definitely-directed variation3 a fact which does not harmonize with the theory of selection1 nor1 consequently with ,darwinism4 ,if some scientists have not as yet accepted ,eimer's presentation of this doctrine1 their action is most probably to be attributed to the fear lest they should have to accept not merely1 variation according to definite laws1 but likewise a principle of finality and other causes lying beyond the range of scientific investigation4 ,the rejection of the theory of selection often promotes1 as ,goette rightly observes1 a reactionary tendency towards a priori explanations of phenomena with which we are but slightly acquainted4 ,there are naturalists who do not discard the theory of selection simply because it seems to furnish a much-desired mechanical explanation of purposive adaptions 7a momentous admission to which we shall have occasion to revert74 ,others have broken entirely with selection and the principle of utility and extend the idea of finality to the general capacity of organisms to persist4 ,thus adaptation becomes a principle which transcends the limits of natural science and pervades the whole domain of life4 ,goette observes that ,darwin spoke of useful1 less useful and indifferent organisms1 by which he meant those adaptations destined for particular vital functions which tend to make the organs more and more specialized4 ,since the ability to live is threatened by this specialization it cannot be purposive4 ,this is not wholly true1 because the more specialized the individual organ becomes1 the more perfect is the whole organism which is composed of these specialized organs4 ,the functions of the individual organ may be restricted1 but the power of the entire organism is notably increased1 according to the law of the division of labor4 ,goette therefore has not sufficient grounds for rejecting this expression4 ,he considers that a real and permanent purpose for the individual living forms is out of the question1 but that this purpose may be sought for in the development and history of the collective life of nature4 ,definitely ordered variation1 he thinks1 a scientific explanation of which is indeed yet forthcoming1 will explain adaptation equally as well as does selection4 ,after what has been said this statement of ,goette must come as a surprise1 for one would think that according to his view definite variation explains adaptations better than selection4 ,goette sums up his main conclusion in the following words3 ,the doctrine of ,heredity or of ,descent1 which comes from ,lamarck though it was first made widely known by ,darwin1 has since continually gained a broader and surer foundation4 ,but ,darwin's own doctrine regarding the causes and process of ,descent which alone can be called ,darwinism1 has on the other hand doubtlessly waned in influence and prestige4 ,this is exactly what we also maintain3 ,the establishment of the theory of ,descent in general1 and the continual retrogression of ,darwinism in particular4 ,wigand was entirely right when he said that ,darwinism would not live beyond the century4 ,we may1 however1 derive from the discussions of ,goette something else that is of the highest importance1 namely1 an admission in which is to be found the real and fundamental explanation of the conduct of the majority of naturalists who still cling to ,darwinism4 ,it does not consist in the fact that they are convinced of the truth of ,darwinism but in their reluctance to give up the mechanical explanation of finality proposed by ,darwin1 or rather in the fear of being driven to the recognition of theistic principles4 ,with commendable candor ,goette attacks this method of keeping up a system notwithstanding its recognized deficiencies4 ,goette furthermore points out especially that this recognition is more widespread than one might be able to gather from occasional discussions on the subject4 ,from the account which ,goette gives of the present status of ,darwinism we may safely conclude that ,darwinism had entered upon a period of decay2 it is in the third stage of a development through which many a scientific doctrine has already passed4 ,the four stages of this development are the following3 #a4 ,the incipient stage3 ,a new doctrine arises1 the older representatives of the science oppose it partly because of keener insight and greater experience1 partly also from indolence1 not wishing to allow themselves to be drawn out of their accustomed equilibrium2 among the younger generation there arises a growing sentiment in favor of the new doctrine4 #b4 ,the stage of growth3 the new doctrine continually gains greater favor among the young generation1 finding vent in bursts of enthusiasm2 some of the cautious seniors have passed away1 others are carried along by the stream of youthful enthusiasm in spite of better knowledge1 and the voices of the thoughtful are no longer heard in the general uproar1 exultingly proclaiming that to live is bliss4 #c4 ,the period of decay3 the joyous enthusiasm has vanished2 depression succeeds intoxication4 ,now that the young men have themselves grown older and become more sober1 many things appear in a different light4 ,the doubts already expressed by the old and prudent during the stage of growth are now better appreciated and gradually increase in weight4 ,many become indifferent1 the present younger generation becomes perplexed and discards the theory entirely4 #d4 ,the final stage3 the last adherents of the new doctrine are dead or at least old and have ceased to be influential1 they sit upon the ruins of a grandeur that even now belongs to the good old time4 ,the influential and directing spirits have abandoned this doctrine1 once so important and seemingly invincible1 for the consideration of living issues and the younger generation regards it as an interesting episode in the history of science4 ,with reference to ,darwinism we are in the third stage which is characterized especially by the indifference of the present middle-aged generation and by growing opposition on the part of the younger coming generation4 ,this very characteristic feature is brought into prominence by the discussion of ,goette4 ,if all signs1 however1 are not deceptive1 this third stage1 that of decay1 is drawing to an end2 soon we shall enter the final stage and with that the tragic-comedy of ,darwinism will be brought to a close4 ,if some one were to ask me how according to the count of years1 ,i should determine the extent of the individual stages of ,darwinism1 this would be my answer3 #a4 ,the incipient stage extends from #ahei 7the year during which ,darwin's principal work1 ,the ,origin of ,species1 appeared7 to the end of the sixties4 #b4 ,the stage of growth3 from that time1 for about #bj years1 to the end of the eighties4 #c4 ,the stage of decay3 from that time on to about the year #aijj4 #d4 ,the final stage3 the first decade of the new century4 ,i am not by choice a prophet1 least of all regarding the weather4 ,but ,i think it may not be doubted that the fine weather1 at least1 has passed for ,darwinism4 ,so having carefully scanned the firmament of science for signs of the weather1 ,i shall for once make a forecast for ,darwinism1 namely3 ,increasing cloudiness with heavy precipitations1 indications of a violent storm1 which threatens to cause the props of the structure to totter1 and to sweep it from the scene4 ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,as further witnesses to the passing of ,darwinism1 two botanists may be cited2 the first is ,professor ,korschinsky who in ,no4 #bd1 #ahii1 of the ,naturwissenschaftliche ,wochenschrift published an article on ,heterogenesis and ,evolution1 which was to be followed later by a large work on this subject4 ,with precision and emphasis he points to the numerous instances in which there occurs on or in a plant1 suddenly and without intervention1 a variation which may become hereditary under certain circumstances2 thus during the last century a number of varieties of garden plants have been evolved4 ,on the basis of such experiments ,korschinsky developed the theory which had been proposed by ,koelliker in ,wuerzburg thirty years earlier1 namely1 the theory of heterogeneous production or heterogenesis1 as ,korschinsky calls it4 ,when one understands that a plant gives rise suddenly and without any intervention to a grain of seed1 which produces a different plant1 it becomes evident that all ,darwinistic speculations about selection and struggle for existence are forthwith absolutely excluded4 ,the effect can proceed only from the internal vital powers inherent in the specified organism acting in connection1 perhaps1 with the internal conditions of life1 which suddenly exert an influence in a new direction4 ,korschinsky distinguishes clearly and definitely between the principles of ,heterogenesis and ,transmutation 7gradual transformation through natural selection in the struggle for existence71 and in so doing comes to a complete denial of ,darwinism4 ,the other naturalist who has dealt ,darwinism a telling blow is the botanist of ,graz1 ,professor ,haberlandt4 ,he published some very interesting observations and experiments in the ,festschrift fuer ,schwendener 7,berlin #ahii1 ,borntraeger74 ,they are concerned with a ,liane javas of the family of mulberry plants 7,conocephalus ovatus47 ,the free leaves possess under the outer layer1 a tissue composed of large1 thin-walled1 water-storing cells2 flat cavities on the upper side1 having1 furthermore1 organs that secrete water1 which the botanist calls hydathodes4 ,these are delicate1 small1 glandular cells over which are the bundles of vascular fibres 7leaf-veins7 that convey the water to them2 over these in the top layer are so-called water-crevices through which the water can force itself to the outside4 ,it is unnecessary to enter upon a closer explanation of the anatomical structure of these peculiar organs4 ,the water which is forced upward by the root-pressure of the plant is naturally conveyed through the vascular fibres into the leaves and at every hydathode the superfluous water oozes out in drops1 a phenomenon which one can also very nicely observe e4g4 on the ,lady's cloak 7,alchemilla vulgaris7 of the ,german flora4 ,a portion of the night-dew must be attributed to this secretion of water4 ,on the ,liane1 then1 ,haberlandt observed a very considerable secretion of water3 a full-grown leaf secreted during one night #b4gf g4 of water 7that is #bf per cent4 of its own weight47 ,through this peculiarity the water supply within the plant is regulated and the danger avoided that any water should penetrate the surrounding tissue in consequence of strong root-pressure1--which would naturally obstruct the vital function of the entire leaf4 ,besides it is to be noticed that in this way an abundant flow of water is produced3 the plant takes up large quantities of water from the earth1 laden with nutritive salts1 and the distilled water is almost pure 7it contains only #j4jde g4 salts71 so that the nutritive salts are absorbed by the plant4 ,from these considerations it necessarily appears that the hydathodes are of great biological importance to the plant4 ,haberlandt then poisoned the plant1 by sprinkling it with a #j4a per cent sublimate solution of alcohol4 ,the purpose of this experiment was to ascertain whether in the secretion of water there was question of a merely physical process or of a vital process4 ,in the first case the action of the hydathode should continue even after the treatment with the sublimate solution1 while in the latter case it should not4 ,as the secretion ceased the obvious conclusion to be deduced from this experiment is that the hydathodes do not act as purely mechanical filtration-apparatuses1 as one might have thought1 but that there is here evidence of an active vital process in the plant2 the unusual term poisoning is therefore really justified under present circumstances4 ,let me dwell for a moment on this result1 for1 although it may be somewhat foreign to our present purpose and to the further observations of ,haberlandt1 it is very significant in itself4 ,the water moves in the plant in closed cells1 as the cells of the aqueous gland are entirely closed1 but the organic membrane1 as every one knows1 has the peculiar physical property of allowing water to pass through1 the pressure1 of course1 being applied on the side of least resistance2 when therefore the water is forced into the cells by root-pressure1 it is easily intelligible that according to purely physical laws it should come to the surface of the leaf on the side of the least resistance1 that is1 by way of the water-crevices4 ,even the defenders of vital force would not find any reason in this for not considering the phenomenon of distillation in this case a purely physical phenomenon4 ,and still according to ,haberlandt's experiments it is not4 ,the sublimate could at most only impede the process of filtration1 but should under no circumstances have destroyed it4 ,but it does destroy it1 and the hydathode dies4 ,the conclusion certainly follows from this that this process is connected with some vital function4 ,even if the hydathode is treated with sublimate solution1 all the conditions for mechanical filtration still remain3 the earth has moisture which can be taken up by the roots so that root-pressure still exists4 ,the water is in all cases conveyed to the hydathodes through the vascular fibres1 the cell walls of the hydathodes are still adapted for filtration1 and yet they do not filter4 ,hence some other factor must join itself to the physico-mechanical process of filtration and affect or destroy it1 and this factor can be found only in the protoplasm1 the vital element of the cells2 for we know that the sublimate acts with pernicious effect on it and in such a manner that it destroys its entire power of reaction2 it kills it1 as we say4 ,the experiment under discussion has1 therefore1 great significance for our view of the vital processes in the plant2 it proves beyond doubt that these processes are in no way of a purely mechanical nature1 but that there is something underlying all this1 a hitherto inexplicable something1 which we call life4 ,in all vital activities1 physical and chemical processes certainly do occur2 they do not1 however1 take place spontaneously but are made use of by the vital element of the plant to produce an effect that is desirable or necessary for the vital activity of the plant4 ,if the vital element is dead1 no matter how favorable the conditions may be for chemical and physical processes1 these do not take place and the effect necessary for life is not obtained4 ,it is very remarkable after all that according to the experiment of ,haberlandt this peculiar relation should become apparent in a process that is so open to our investigation as the filtration of water through the cell-wall of a plant4 ,after what has been said ,i consider this simple experiment of ,haberlandt of great significance2 for it is a direct proof of the existence of a vital force4 ,one may resist to his heart's content1 but without avail2 vital force is again finding its way into science4 ,more and more cognizance is being taken of the fact that #fj and #gj years ago people jumped at conclusions very imprudently when they believed that the first artificial preparation of organic matter 7urea1 by ,woehler7 had proven the non-existence of a vital force4 ,since then there has been great rejoicing in the camp of materialists who scoffed at the ignorant who would not as yet forsake vital force4 ,behold1 they said1 in the chemist's retort the same matter is produced chemically that is produced in the body of the animal1 without the direction of a hidden vital force1 which1 if it is not necessary in the one case1 neither is it necessary in the other4 ,any one who had given the matter careful consideration could even at that time have known where the ignorant really were4 ,that in both cases chemical processes take place is clear and undisputed1 but the materialists forgot entirely that even in the laboratory it was not the mere contact of the elements that produced the urea2 a chemist was needed and in this case not any one arbitrarily chosen1 but a man of the genius and knowledge of a ,woehler to watch over the process1 and utilize and partly direct the laws of chemistry in order to obtain the desired result4 ,hence it was even then absurd to deny vital force as a consequence of that experiment4 ,since1 however1 it was well-adapted for materialistic purposes1 this denial was proclaimed with the sound of trumpet throughout the land1 and repeated again and again with surprising tenacity1 with the result that even thoughtful investigators rejected vital force almost universally in the seventies and eighties4 ,it has always been a problem to me how this could have happened4 ,it can1 indeed1 be explained only on the supposition that naturalists were adverse to the introduction of anything into nature1 that appeared to them mystical and mysterious4 ,nor is such a procedure at all necessary3 vital force is by no means a mysterious1 ghostly power that soars above nature1 but a force of nature like its other forces1 as mysterious and as definite as they are1 only that it dominates a specified group of beings1 namely1 living organisms4 ,it may readily be compared with any other natural phenomenon4 ,for instance1 the phenomenon of crystallization has its well determined sphere of activity1 viz41 the mineral world4 ,it employs definite mathematico-physical laws to obtain a specified result1 and even acts differently in different mineral substances in so far as it produces in the one case this1 in the other case that form2 but still it should be a similarly directed force which has the effect of producing these peculiar forms4 ,precisely similar is it with vital force4 ,it has its determined sphere of activity1 the kingdom of living organisms2 it acts according to definite physico-chemical laws in producing a specified result2 it acts differently in different living organisms2 it is therefore a force of nature as clear yet as mysterious as the force of crystallization or as any other force of nature4 ,hence one has no cause to complain of its mysteriousness1 for all other forces of nature are just as much1 or if you will1 just as little mysterious as vital force4 ,the only thing to be maintained is this1 that living organisms are dominated by a special force with special phenomena and special activities1 even as in mineral substances there is a special dominant force which produces special phenomena and exercises special activities4 ,it is possible to produce crystals in the laboratory1 but no one will be so foolish as to maintain that in nature crystals are not formed in consequence of a very definite force inherent in the mineral-substances2 nor will any one deny the existence of the force of crystallization because it does not appear in living organisms4 ,nor have ,i ever despaired of a return of the theory of vital force4 ,a change of opinion has really taken place during this decade2 at present the voices for a vital force are constantly growing stronger and it will most probably not be very long before it will be again universally recognized1 not as something preternatural1 of course1 but as a force of nature on an equal footing with the other forces of nature1 with activities1 just as mysterious and just as well-attested as the activities of the other forces of nature4 ,haberlandt's experiment1 however1 had also an indirect consequence that is of far-reaching importance4 ,he observed that within a few days new water-secreting organs of an entirely different structure and of different origin were formed on the leaves that had been sprinkled with sublimate4 ,over the bundles of vascular fibres1 little knots as large as a pin head arose in larger numbers out of a tissue underlying the top layer2 out of these the water now oozed every morning4 ,closer investigation disclosed the fact that these organs develop only on young immature leaves where groups of peculiar1 perishable gland-hairs are found2 beneath these dead mucous glands the substitute secretive organs originate in the inner tissue4 ,it is of no importance to state in what particular cells they originate4 ,suffice it to say that they are colorless capillary tubes originating in various cells2 projecting like the hairs of a brush1 containing living protoplasm and evanescent chlorophyll4 ,it is also important to note that this new organ is immediately connected with the water-conducting system consisting of bundles of vascular fibres4 ,haberlandt furthermore indicates especially that these organs when viewed in connection with the process of secretion give evidence of an active vital principle as well as of simple mechanical filtration4 ,these substitute organs are all indeed well adapted to their purpose and adequately replace the old secretive organs1 but they so easily dry out and are so little protected that after a week they become parched and die because wound-cork forms under them4 ,the leaf no longer produces new hydathodes1 but on its lower side it produces growths that function as vesicles1 by means of which it continues to sustain itself4 ,haberlandt furthermore records a phenomenon perhaps analogous to this on the grape-vine1 but with this exception the case described by him is unique4 ,in order to pass any further judgment regarding it1 we should have to ascertain whether the whole phenomenon is not a case of so-called adaptation2 if so1 processes should be found in nature1 analogous to the poisoning of the hydathodes in this experiment1 which result in the destruction of the hydathodes so that in consequence the plant would have gained the power of making good the loss1 by means of the substitute organs4 ,such processes1 however1 7even through poisoning or through parasites7 would be very highly improbable4 ,equally incredible is the alternative possibility that the new organs would be produced by the plant not as a substitute but as a supplementary apparatus when the old ones would not suffice for secretion in case of very large absorption of water4 ,this also must doubtlessly be rejected1 as ,haberlandt has observed4 ,powers of adaptation should1 of course1 according to ,darwinism1 be gradually acquired in the struggle for existence1 as in that case they should also have stability2 but since this is not possessed by the new organs1 the presumption is that they do not possess the character of adaptation4 ,they are therefore new organs that originated after an entirely unnatural and unforeseen interference with the normal vital functions and in consequence of a self-regulating activity of the organism4 ,what then is there in the whole phenomenon worthy of notice with regard to the theory of ,descent8 #a4 ,an immediately well adapted new organ has here originated very suddenly without any previous incipient formation1 without gradual perfection and without stages of transition4 #b4 ,in its formation struggle for existence and natural selection are entirely excluded1 neither can find any application whatever even according to the newer exposition of ,weismann4 ,haberlandt himself draws this conclusion4 #c4 ,if this phenomenon of a suddenly appearing change can take place in the course of the development of the individual1 there can be no obvious reason why it should not take place in the same manner 7without natural selection or struggle for existence7 in the course of the phylogenetic development4 ,it is manifestly of the greatest importance that in this case a direct1 experimental proof has been given that an organ has originated suddenly and without the aid of ,darwinian principles4 ,haberlandt's article is nothing less than a complete renunciation of ,darwinism on the part of ,haberlandt1 a renunciation which we greet with great satisfaction4 ,in fact one such observation would really suffice to set aside ,darwinism and prove the utter insufficiency of its principles to give explanation of the origin of natural species4 ,on the other hand1 this observation plainly proves two things3 first1 that the above mentioned doctrine of ,koelliker1 now held by ,korschinsky is a move in the right direction for the discovery of the causes of descent2 and secondly1 that the principal cause of the evolution is not to be sought in environment and blind forces but in the systematically working1 internal vital principle in plants and animals4 ,with that1 however1 an important part of the foundation of the mechanical-materialistic view of the world is demolished4 ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,since we have heard the verdict of zoologists and botanists concerning ,darwinism1 it is but right that we should now listen to a palaeontologist1 a representative of the science1 which investigates the petrified records of the earth's surface1 and strives to collect information regarding the world of life during remote1 by-gone ages of the earth4 ,it is evident to every-one that the verdict of this science must be of very special importance in passing on the question of the development of living organisms4 ,darwin himself recognized this at the outset4 ,he and his followers1 however1 soon perceived that1 while the revelations of palaeontology were on the whole favorable to the doctrine of ,descent1 in so far as they proved the gradual change of organization1 in consecutive strata1 from the simple to more complex forms1 palaeontology revealed nothing that would sustain the ,darwinian theory as to the method of that development4 ,as soon as the ,darwinians1 and first of all ,darwin himself1 perceived this1 they at once brought forward a very cheap subterfuge4 ,since ,darwinism postulates a very gradual1 uninterrupted development of living organisms1 there must have been an immense number of transition-forms between any two animal or plant species which to-day1 although otherwise related1 are separated by characteristic features4 ,consequently1 on the ,darwinian hypothesis1 all of these transition-forms must have perished for the singular reason that other better organized forms overcame them in the struggle for existence4 ,if therefore the millions of transition-forms were still missing1 and the known petrified forms of older strata of the earth did not reveal them1 the ,darwinians were able to console themselves until from #bj to #dj years ago1 with the assertion that our knowledge was still too deficient1 that a more thorough investigation of the earth's surface and especially of out-of-the-way parts would eventually bring to light the supposed transition forms4 ,such assertion affords very poor consolation1 and is anything but scientific4 ,the method of natural science consists in establishing general principles on the basis of the materials actually furnished by experiments and observation and not in excogitating general laws and then consoling oneself with the thought that while our knowledge of nature is as yet extremely imperfect1 time will furnish the actual material necessary to substantiate our guesses4 ,but since then many a year has come and gone and ,darwinism has caused1 and for that alone it deserves credit1 a diligent research in every field of natural science1 and has promoted among palaeontologists a search for the missing transition-forms4 ,the materials of investigation from the field of palaeontology have also wonderfully increased during these decades4 ,hence it is worth while now at the dawn of the new century to examine this material with a view to its availableness for the theory of ,descent and especially for ,darwinism4 ,professor ,steinmann has recently done so in ,freiburg in ,breisgau1 on the occasion of an address as ,rector of the ,university4 ,what conclusions did he reach8 ,steinmann declares it to be the primary task of post-,darwinian palaeontology to arrange the fossil animal and plant-remains in the order of descent and thus to build up a truly natural1 because historically demonstrable1 classification of the animal and plant-world4 ,at the outset it is to be noted that for various reasons palaeontology is unable to execute this momentous task in its full extent4 ,the evidence of palaeontology is deficient1 if for no other reason than that many animal organisms could not be preserved at all on account of their soft bodies2 many animal groups have1 nevertheless1 received an unusual increase 7mollusks1 radiata1 fish1 saurians1 vertebrates1 and dendroid plants74 ,as regards the attempt made in the sixties to draw up lines of descent1 ,steinmann repudiates1 without1 of course1 mentioning names1 the family tree constructed by ,haeckel and his associates as wholly hypothetical and hence unjustified2 he rightly remarks that their method smacks of the closet4 ,he finds fault with them chiefly because they predicated actuality of this imaginary family-tree and fancied that the historical research of the future would have but isolated facts to establish4 ,in speaking of the palaeontological research of the last few decades1 ,steinmann says3 ,in the light of recent research1 fossil discoveries have frequently appeared less intelligible and more ambiguous than before1 and in those cases in which an attempt has been made to bring the descent-system into agreement with the actual facts1 the incongruity between the two has become obvious4 ,thus1 for instance1 the well-known archaeopteryx is not1 as was maintained1 a connecting link between reptile and bird1 but a member of a blindly ending side branch4 ,in fact palaeontological research has proven incapable of finding the transitions between different species1 clearly determined by the theory4 ,but the overwhelming abundance of matter called for new endeavors to master it4 ,it was then further discovered--,steinmann finds an illustration of this fact in the echinodermata--that the well-known fundamental law of biogenesis of ,haeckel can be accepted only in a very restricted sense and may even lead to conclusions absolutely false4 ,we desire to remark here that a fundamental principle should never mislead2 if it does so1 it is not a fundamental principle4 ,it is of importance to know that according to palaeontological investigation1 empiric systematizing and phylogenetic classification do not always coincide1 as1 for instance1 in the case of the ammonites4 ,acording to palaeontological investigation the great systematic categories are only grades of organization4 ,hence present day systematizing is being more and more discarded1 and the said categories--as indeed also the lesser groups of forms--must be of polyphyletic origin1 that is1 they must have descended from different primitive stocks4 ,it may be asked3 ,what bearing has this principle of multiple origins8 ,for a long time reptiles were the predominating vertebrates2 when mammals and birds appeared1 numerous1 varied and strange saurians inhabited land and sea2 but with the end of the chalk-period most saurians seem to have vanished suddenly from the scene1 and soon we behold the mainlands and oceans inhabited by mammals of most diverse kinds4 ,the saurians have become almost extinct and the mammal-tribe suddenly shows a most extraordinary variability and power of development4 ,how is either phenomenon to be explained8 ,the disappearance of a group of organisms has been preferably explained since the time of ,darwin1 by defeat in the struggle with superior competitors4 ,if ever an explanation lacked pertinency1 it does so in this case1 in which the succumbing group is represented by gigantic and well preserved animal forms1 widely distributed and accustomed to the most varied methods of nutrition1 whereas the competitor appears in the form of small1 harmless marsupials4 ,it would be equivalent to a struggle between the elephant and the mouse4 ,we acknowledge with pleasure this clear rejection of ,darwinism on the part of ,steinmann4 ,steinmann also rejects the natural extinction of those forms1 perhaps from the weakness of old age2 whether he is wholly warranted in doing so1 seems somewhat doubtful4 ,he tries to explain the phenomenon on the basis of the multiple origin of the mammals2 and in fact there is already speculation regarding triple origin1 viz3 tambreets1 marsupials1 and the other mammals4 ,now if the latter also possessed a multiple origin1 the problem of the extinction of the saurians would1 according to ,steinmann solve itself4 ,one would not need to consider the number of extinct forms as large as is now done4 ,however1 he does not enter upon any closer consideration of this question4 ,but he points out1 for instance1 that to-day the shells of mollusks 7snails and conchylia7 are regarded as structures that were acquired only in the course of time for the sake of protection1 the disappearance of which1 therefore1 implied a disadvantage for the respective organisms4 ,this transition would be something extraordinary--but if on the contrary1 one regards the shells as the necessary products of a special kind of assimilation and of the immoveableness of certain parts of the body1 the gradual disappearance might well be considered a process which may take place in various animal-groups with a certain regularity in the course of the phyletic development4 ,the snails devoid of shells1 for instance1 may be derived with certainty from those possessed of shells2 this process has very probably also taken place in different genetic lines4 ,this view is well worth consideration2 it stands in sharp opposition1 in fundamental principles1 to the ,darwinian explanation4 ,this calls for special emphasis here4 ,how should one explain the origin of uncrusted mollusks from crusted ones through the struggle for existence1 since in such a contest the latter must have had far greater prospect of survival than the former8 ,this view together with the principle of multiple origin opens up1 according to ,steinmann1 the prospect of an altered conception of the process of formation of the organic world4 ,according to the new conception1 the many extinct forms of antiquity are not1 as ,darwin supposed1 unsuccessful attempts and continued aberrations of nature--how this reminds one of that old1 naive1 much-ridiculed idea that fossils were models that ,god had discarded as unserviceable--but would gain new life and assume hitherto unsuspected relationship to the present organic creation4 ,science1 which seeks after operative causes1 at the beginning of the century regarded creation as a multiplicity of phenomena without any causal connection as to their origin4 ,darwin taught as a fundamental principle the unity and the causal inter-relation of creation1 but was not entirely able to save this hypothesis from a violent and sudden death4 ,in the future sketch creation will appear as wholly restricted in itself and lasting1 the causes of its limitation lie1 up to the time of the intervention of men1 solely in the balanced motion of the planet which it peoples4 ,at the close of his address ,steinmann points out that behind the problem of the manner of development1 there stands the unsolved question regarding its operative causes4 ,regarding this point1 he continues1 opinions have perhaps never been so divergent as they are to-day4 ,the times have passed when the ,darwinian explanations were regarded with naive confidence as the alpha and omega of the doctrine of ,descent4 ,not only are the adherents of ,darwinian ideas divided among themselves1 but the theory of ,lamarck1 somewhat altered1 favored by the results of historical investigation1 appears more striking and now seems more in harmony with facts than formerly4 ,what is considered by one as the ruling factor in the evolution of organisms is regarded by another as a quantite negligeable or even as the greatest mistake of the century4 ,in this discord of opinions the principle of ,descent alone forms the stable pole4 ,thus ,steinmann1 and we can but applaud his conclusions with undisguised pleasure1 for they tend throughout in the direction of our anti-,darwinian view1 and deal ,darwinism another fatal blow4 ,it is also worthy of special note that this time the blow is dealt from the side of palaeontology2 for1 even if now and again we dissent from ,steinmann1 in this we fully agree with him that the historical method of considering the evidences of bygone periods of creation is at the very least quite as important for passing correct judgment regarding descent1 as is the investigation of contemporary living organisms4 ,indeed1 family-trees were constructed without regard for palaeontology1 almost exclusively from an examination of present conditions1 and sometimes the author did not even shrink from falsification4 ,this procedure has been bitterly revenged and will take further revenge unless at length a definite end be put to the family-tree nuisance and the respective books instead of being published anew1 be relegated to the lumber-room of science1 there to turn yellow amid dust and cobwebs--the curious evidence of gross folly4 ,but only have patience1 even that time will come4 ,the conclusions of ,steinmann1 that are most important for us1 may be summarized as follows3 #a4 ,the family and transition forms demanded from palaeontology by ,darwinism for its family-trees1 constructed not empirically but a priori1 are nowhere to be found among the abundant materials which palaeontological investigation has already produced4 #b4 ,the results of the investigation do not correspond with the family groups drawn up according to the so-called biogenetic principle1 which principle has in fact led men of science into false paths4 #c4 ,at best1 the biogenetic principle has a limited validity1 7we add that later it will undoubtedly follow ,darwinism and its family trees into the lumber-room74 #d4 ,the results of palaeontology1 in so far1 for instance1 as they testify to the sudden disappearance of the saurians and the advent of mammals1 everywhere contradict the ,darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence4 #e4 ,the time has long passed when the ,darwinian explanations were regarded with naive confidence as the alpha and omega of the doctrine of ,descent4 #f4 ,only the principle of ,descent is universally recognized2 the how of it1 its causes1 are to-day entirely a matter of dispute4 ,,chapter ,v4 ,the strongest evidence of the decay of ,darwinism is to be found in the fact that1 since ,darwin first enunciated his theory1 many and diverse attempts have been made to explain the origin of species on other principles4 ,names of men1 like ,m4 ,wagner1 ,naegeli1 ,wigand1 ,koelliker1 and ,kerner mark these attempts2 but of these investigators ,naegeli alone proposed a well-developed hypothesis4 ,finally1 however1 ,eimer1 professor of zoology in ,tuebingen came forward with a detailed theory of ,descent4 ,as early as #ahhh he published a comprehensive work dealing with it1 under the title3 ,the ,origin of ,species by ,means of the ,transmission of ,acquired ,characters ,according to the ,laws of ,organic ,growth4 ,as the title itself indicates1 a very marked divergence was even at that time manifesting itself between ,eimer and his former teacher and friend1 the great defender of ,darwinism in ,germany1 ,aug4 ,weismann1 professor of zoology in ,freiburg in ,breisgau4 ,for1 while the latter vigorously attacks the transmission of acquired characters1 ,eimer's whole theory is founded on this very transmission4 ,observations regarding the coloring of animals1 in fact1 form the basis of ,eimer's theory4 ,eimer attributes the origin of species to organic growth by which he means not merely increase in size1 but also change of form1 etc4 ,this growth does not proceed blindly or aimlessly1 but proceeds on rigidly determined lines1 which depend upon the structure and constitution of the particular organism4 ,external influences1 however1 also affect it4 ,eimer specially emphasizes four points in this connection3 #a4 ,this rigidly determined development of a character exhibits well defined1 regular stages1 and the evolution of each individual repeats the whole series of transformations 7the ,mueller-,haeckel biogenetic-law47 #b4 ,new characters are first acquired by strong adult males 7the law of male dominance74 #c4 ,new characters appear on definite parts of the body1 spreading especially from the rear to the front1 7the law of undulation74 #d4 ,varieties are stages in the process of development1 through which all the individuals of the respective species must pass4 ,these points indicate how important for ,eimer is the transmission of those characters which the parents themselves have acquired in the course of their own development4 ,he conceives that this transmission takes place when the causative influences exert themselves permanently on many succeeding generations4 ,eimer thinks that in this way the constitution of the respective species is gradually transformed4 ,besides the effect of external influences 7which may vary according to the climate1 etc43 ,geoffroy ,st4 ,hilaire71 ,eimer mentions as important and active factors in this development1 7#a74 ,the use and disuse of organs 7,lamarck72 7#b74 ,the struggle for existence 7,darwin72 7#c74 ,the correlation of organs1 that is1 the inner relation of organs in consequence of which a change in one organ may occasion a sudden change in another organ2 7#d74 ,cross fertilization and hybridism4 ,it is clear that with reference to the factors of evolution ,eimer is1 and perhaps not unreasonably1 an eclectic1 whose aim is to do justice to the predecessors of ,darwin as well as to ,darwin himself4 ,his antagonism to ,darwin and ,weismann in this work is still quite moderate1 although even here it appears with sufficient clearness that selection and the struggle for existence1 the two principles peculiarly characteristic of ,darwinism1 do not give rise to new species1 but can at best only separate and differentiate species already existing4 ,the second part of ,eimer's work dealing with the origin of species1 which appeared after an interval of ten years1 bears the title3 ,orthogenesis of ,butterflies4 ,the ,origin of ,species1 ,,ii4 ,part 7#b tables and #bce illustrations in the text74 ,leipzig1 #ahig4 ,in this book substantially the same thoughts occupy the mind of the author as in the former volume1 but in many respects they are more mature1 and conspicuously more definite and precise4 ,the most salient features are the following3 #a4 ,eimer establishes his theory by means of very minute observations on a definite species of animals1 viz41 butterflies4 #b4 ,he attributes evolution almost exclusively to development along definitely determined lines4 #c4 ,he proves the utter untenableness of ,darwinian principles and repudiates them unqualifiedly4 #d4 ,in a very distinct and severe manner he gives expression to his opposition to his former friend ,weismann4 #e4 ,he attacks with telling effect the fantastic ,darwinian ,mimicry4 ,in his ,general ,introduction ,eimer first treats of ,orthogenesis in opposition to the ,darwinian theory of selection4 ,the very first sentence gives evidence of this antagonism3 ,according to my investigation1 organic growth 7,organophysis71 which is rendered dependent on the plasm by permanent external influences1 climate and nourishment1 and the expression of which is found in development along definitely determined lines1 7,orthogenesis71 is the principal cause of transformation1 its occasional interruption and its temporary cessation and is likewise the principal cause of the division of the series of organisms into species4 ,lamarck's theory of the use and disuse of organs and ,darwin's hypothesis of natural selection are consequently pushed into the background4 ,here also ,eimer at once places himself at variance with ,naegeli who had enunciated a similar theory4 ,naegeli took as a starting point an inherent tendency in every being to perfect itself1 thus presupposing an inner principle of development1 and making light of external influences as transforming causes4 ,eimer flatly contradicts this view4 ,we shall revert to this point in our criticism of his theory4 ,in opposition to the theory of selection1 ,eimer lays special stress on the fact that its underlying assumption1 viz41 fortuitous1 indefinite variation in many different directions1 is entirely devoid of foundation in fact1 and that selection1 in order to be effective1 postulates the previous existence of the required useful characters1 whereas the very point at issue is to explain how these characters have originated4 ,since1 therefore1 according to ,eimer's investigations1 there are everywhere to be found only a few1 definitely determined lines of variation1 selection is incapable of exercising any choice4 ,the development1 furthermore1 proceeds without regard for utility1 since1 for instance1 the features that characterize a species of plants are out of all reference to utility4 ,even if nothing exists that is essentially detrimental1 nevertheless very much does exist that bears no reference whatever to immediate good1 and was therefore never affected by selection4 ,further on1 ,eimer expresses still more clearly the opposition of his theory to that of ,darwin1 and in so doing he attacks vigorously the omnipotence of selection1 so unreasonably proclaimed by the followers of ,darwin4 ,eimer's theory1 consequently1 asserts that3 ,the essential cause of transmutation is organic growth1 a definite variation1 which1 during long periods of time proceeds unswervingly and without reference to utility1 in but few directions and is conditioned by the action of external influences1 of climate and nourishment4 ,in consequence of an interruption of orthogenesis a stoppage ensues in certain stages of the development1 and this stoppage is the great cause of the arrangement of forms in different species4 ,of vital importance also is development through different stages 7,hetero-epistase71 which results in the arrested development of certain characters in an organism1 while others progress and still others become retrogressive4 ,as a rule use and disuse are of great efficacy in this regard1 and conjointly with these compensation and correlation4 ,occasionally also irregular development sets in1 which proceeds by leaps4 ,of course1 ,eimer could not but in his turn burn incense before ,darwin by declaring that he would not dare to cross swords with such a man1 while in reality he repudiates all of ,darwin's fundamental tenets4 ,it may be well to state here in addition a few important supplementary considerations3 ,development can everywhere proceed in only a limited number of directions because the constitution1 the material composition of the body1 conditions these directions and prevents variation in all directions4 ,this is an important statement because ,eimer clearly expresses therein the difference between his own theory and that of ,naegeli4 ,he makes the direction of development dependent on the material composition of the body1 whereas ,naegeli considers it dependent upon an internal tendency of every being to perfect itself1 hence upon a power inherent in the body4 ,eimer's view therefore tends towards a mechanical explanation1 while ,naegeli postulates a vital energy4 ,the internal causes according to ,eimer find their explanation in the material composition of the body4 ,since the growth of the individual organism depends on this composition and on the external influences1 ,eimer compares family-development with it and designates the latter as organic growth4 ,in opposition to ,naegeli he maintains that this organic growth does not always aim at perfection but often tends to simplification and retrogression4 ,the following1 then1 according to ,eimer1 are the directive principles of variation3 7#a74 ,the general law of coloration 7stripes running lengthwise change into spots1 stripes running crosswise change to a uniform color74 7#b74 ,the law of definitely directed local change 7new colors spread from the rear to the front and from above downward or vice versa1 old colors disappear in the same directions47 7#c74 ,the law of male predominance 7males are as a rule one step in advance of the females in development74 ,female predominance is an exception4 7#d74 ,the law of age-predominance 7new characters appear at a well-advanced age1 and at the time of greatest strength74 7#e74 ,the law of wave-like development 7during the course of the formation of the individual organism a series of changes proceed in a definite direction over the body of the animals74 7#f74 ,the law of independent uniformity of development 7the same course of development is pursued in non-related forms and results in similar forms74 7#g74 ,the law of development through different stages 7different characteristics of the same being may develop to a different degree and in different directions74 7#h74 ,the law of unilateral development 7the progeny does not present a complete combination of the characters of the parents but manifests a preponderance of the characteristics of either parent74 7#i74 ,the law of the reversal of development 7the direction of development may reverse and tend towards the starting point74 7#aj74 ,the law of the cessation of development 7a protracted cessation of development frequently ensues in one or the other stage74 ,the origin 7perhaps rather the distinction7 of species is accounted for principally by the last named law1 by means of which ,eimer also explains the so-called atavism or reversion4 ,to this law are joined other factors1 e4g41 development proceeding in leaps1 as demonstrated by ,koelliker and ,heer2 local separation 7through migration2 prevention of fertilization1 e4g41 the impossibility of cross-fertilization between certain individual organisms7 which ,romanes had already opposed to natural selection1 and crossing4 ,the second main division of the book is taken up with a very searching and detailed criticism of ,weismann4 ,this criticism seems to me entirely warranted2 because not only the latter's unintelligible position with regard to natural selection 7the repudiation of which he seems to regard as synonymous with cessation of all investigation into the causal nexus of phenomena in the domain of life7 but likewise his fanciful theory of heredity1 utterly devoid as it is of any support from actual observation1 bespeak an utter lack of qualities essential to a naturalist2 and the manner in which he ignores his former pupil and his labors1 because they proved embarrassing to him1 is entirely unworthy of a man of science4 ,eimer devotes special attention to mimicry2 and indeed he was forced to be very solicitous to dispel this fanciful conception of ,darwinism which radically contradicted his own views4 ,moreover1 the untenableness of the mimicry hypothesis must have revealed itself very clearly to him in the course of his investigations regarding the coloring of butterflies4 ,mimicry1 as our readers are well aware1 consists in this1 that living beings imitate other organisms or even inanimate objects2 ,darwinism maintains that this is done for the sake of protection against enemies4 ,this phenomenon is said to have been produced by selection4 ,those animals that possessed1 for instance1 some similarity to a leaf1 in consequence escaped their enemies more easily than others and survived1 while those that had no leaf-like appearance succumbed2 when this process had been repeated a few times1 many animals 7butterflies7 gradually developed that marvelous leaf-like appearance1 which frequently deceives the most practiced eye4 ,it appears so simple and natural that one need not wonder that this peculiar phenomenon gained many an adherent for ,darwinism4 ,but1 of course1 it is directly opposed to the views of ,eimer2 and it is for this reason that he endeavors so assiduously to disprove the error of ,darwinism in this regard4 ,as the underlying color design of the butterfly ,eimer designates eleven longitudinal designs2 and the examination of the leaf-like forms leads him to the conclusion1 that their appearance always depends on the unaltered condition or the greater prominence of certain parts of this fundamental design4 ,there is to be observed a shifting of the third band1 so that in conjunction with the fourth1 which is curved1 it forms the mid-rib of the leaf4 ,eimer finds the cause of this phenomenon in the alteration of the form4 ,the leaf-like form results from an acumination and elongation of the wings1 which in turn results from a marked elongation of the rim of the fore-wing4 ,and this again is produced by the proportionately greater growth of one part of the wing-section than of the others4 ,with reference to the reason of this growth it is of importance to note that experiments1 consisting in the application of artificial heat to the chrysales of the swallow-tail and sailor-butterfly1 demonstrated that by this means the fore-wing is drawn out more toward the outer wing-vein1 and the rim of the fore-wing becomes more elongated and curved4 ,it is observed1 however1 that the natural heat-forms of the same genera and species1 namely1 the summer-forms and those which live in the warm southern climate1 exhibit1 for instance1 in the case of butterflies akin to the sailor1 the same features1 the elongation and more marked curvature of the fore-rim of the fore-wings and the consequent more extended form1 that are produced by the action of artificial heat4 ,manifestly this is a matter of vital importance for the solution of the question3 heat1 whether artificial or natural1 produces a difference in growth1 which results in a change of form and coloring4 ,there is consequently no room for natural selection or the struggle for existence4 ,the leaf-like form is generally associated with the dark1 faded colors of dry leaves1 and when this similarity disappears even bright colors appear on the fore-wings4 ,in many cases the resemblance to leaves is very imperfect2 different forms of the same species live side by side and among them are to be found those1 the resemblance of which to leaves is extremely slight4 ,all these facts1 and especially the frequently recurring retrogression of the leaf-like appearance1 justify serious doubt regarding the ,darwinian assumption1 that adaptation was a necessity for the forest-butterflies on account of the protection which it provided4 ,an eye witness furthermore declares that the butterflies that resemble leaves most closely do not always alight on withered leaves1 on which they would be almost invisible1 but frequently rest on a green background1 against which they show off very clearly1 and therefore could not long escape the keen eye of birds4 ,besides1 these butterflies are but seldom pursued by the birds1 of which there is question here1 and hence are in no need of protection4 ,the longer ,eimer devoted his attention to the origin of this resemblance the more the poetic picture of the imitated leaf vanished out of sight1 and he became convinced that it involved the necessary expression of the lines of development1 which the respective beings were bound to follow1 and that there was no question of imitation4 ,apart from the resemblance to leaves1 by reason of regular changes of color1 design1 and wing-structure1 numerous non-related butterflies often develop such wonderful similarities--which are not1 as hitherto supposed1 imitations or disguises produced by selection1 but are either the outcome of an entirely independent uniformity of development or1 at least1 of its consequence--that it must be admitted that external similarity may arise by different means and in various ways4 ,these relations of similarity are of such frequent recurrence because of the limited number of directions of development in which changes or color and design in butterflies may tend4 ,eimer finds the reason of this small number of directions1 in which development may proceed1 in the fact that the elementary external influences of climate and nourishment on the constitution of the organism are everywhere the cause of the transformations4 ,another important point is the difference of sex4 ,if the butterflies are of different sex1 the males as a rule exhibit a more developed stage of design and color than the females4 ,these frequently present on the upper side the stage of coloration1 which the males present on the lower side1 while the upper side of the males is one stage in advance4 ,it is of special significance that the characters of the more advanced sex frequently correspond to those of a related1 superior species1 and occasionally to those of widely separated species4 ,eimer endeavors to explain male predominance by a more delicate and more developed1 i4e41 more complex1 chemico-physical organization of the male organism4 ,even this development tends toward simplification1 the origin of dull-black colors4 ,this most interesting question brings ,eimer into conflict with another ,darwinian principle1 the so-called principle of sexual election1 according to which the more striking characteristics of the male sex become strengthened for the reason that females invariably give the preference to the males endowed with them1 over those that are less attractive4 ,these exceedingly romantic ideas have been often and deservedly repudiated1 e4g41 even by ,wallace only a short time after their first appearance4 ,eimer really does them too much honor when he again undertakes1 even with a certain amount of respect1 a thorough refutation of them1 as in every regard unfounded4 ,it is of primary importance to note here1 that in the case of dimorphism of the sexes abrupt modifications occur in connection with unilateral heredity4 ,it is impossible for sexual selection to produce a change of design and color1 which results in the sudden kaleidoscopic formation of wholly different designs1 as we find actually taking place through the action of artificial heat and cold and other factors in nature4 ,this brings us to a brief consideration of the answer1 which ,eimer proposes to give to the question of the real causes of the formation of species among butterflies4 ,a precise and clear statement of this important part of ,eimer's theory of ,descent1 is contained in the following extracts3 ,the transformation of organisms is primarily conditioned by the action of immediate external influences on the organisms4 ,the same causes1 which produce individual growth1 especially climate and nourishment1 also produce the organic growth of organisms1 that is1 transmutation1 which is but a continuation in the progeny of individual growth1 through the transmission of the characteristics acquired during the lifetime of the individual4 ,hence1 transmutation is simply a physiological process1 a phyletic growth4 ,the changes1 which the individual organism experiences during its life in its material1 physiological and morphological organization1 are in part transmitted to its progeny4 ,the changes thus acquired become more marked from generation to generation1 until finally they result in a perceptible new structure4 ,in this process1 new or changing external influences undoubtedly exercise great activity1 but the same influences1 constantly repeated1 must in the course of time also produce a change in the organisms through the physiological activity1 which is conditioned by them1 so that after a long time elapses1 a species will have changed even in an unvarying environment and will react on new influences in a manner quite different from their progenitors2 their constitution has undergone a change4 ,this organic growth of living beings takes place regardless of the active use of the organs and in many cases remains independent of this 7,lamarckian7 factor of transformation4 ,but use may exercise considerable influence on the formation resulting from the primitive organic growth1 by modifying the growth1 by restricting it to those parts most frequently called into use1 or even by depriving other parts of the necessary matter 7compensation74 ,the ,lamarckian principle1 therefore1 offers but a possible and to transformation1 the principal cause is to be found in organic growth4 99 99 99 ,the organic growth of butterflies is primarily conditioned by climatic influences4 99 99 99 ,the proof is to be found in the facts revealed by the geographical distribution of butterflies1 by the variations corresponding to the seasons1 and by experiments regarding the influence of artificial heat and cold on development4 ,experimental proof is naturally of vital importance for ,eimer's theory4 ,he cites in this regard especially the experiments of ,merrifield1 ,handfuss1 ,fischer1 ,fickert1 and ,countess ,maria von ,linden4 ,in ,eimer's own laboratory the latter performed experiments on ,papilionides1 which prove in the most striking manner the recapitulation of the family-history in the individual4 ,the fact that it is possible by raising or lowering the temperature during the time of development to breed butterflies1 possessed of the characteristics of related varieties and species living in southern and northern regions respectively1 characteristics not merely of color and design1 but also of structure1 is complete irrefragable proof of my views4 ,eimer therefore belongs to the class of naturalists1 like ,wigand1 ,askenasy1 ,naegeli1 and many others1 who reject the purely mechanical trend of ,darwinism and recognize an immanent principle of development4 ,he seeks the essential cause of evolution in the constitution of the plasm of organisms4 ,this very analogy between the development of the family and that of the individual should1 in fact1 convince any one of this4 ,if ,eimer chooses to refer the analogy to growth and to designate the evolution of the whole animated kingdom as also a process of growth1 there is1 strictly speaking1 no room for objection4 ,however1 there is here a danger1 which he does not seem to have guarded against4 ,to designate the whole process as a growth1 as ,eimer does1 really explains nothing1 but merely defines more clearly the status of the problem4 ,for1 what do we know of the so-called process of growth8 ,in truth1 nothing1 so that very little is gained by referring evolution to organic growth2 the problem remains unsolved4 ,the most important and correct part of ,eimer's conclusion seems to be the establishment of definite lines of development4 ,he has1 in fact1 permanently disposed of the ,darwinian assumption of universal chaos in evolution1 upon which good mother ,nature could at will exercise her choice4 ,fortuitously initiated development is a condition sine qua non of ,darwinism and ,weismannism4 ,for any one1 who has studied the work of ,eimer and still adheres to this fundamental error of ,darwinism1 there is no possible escape from the labyrinth into which he has allowed the hand of ,darwinism to lead him4 ,if1 on the one hand1 ,eimer recognizes the immanent principles of development1 he1 nevertheless1 on the other hand1 also accords due consideration and ascribes great efficacy to external influences2 in fact1 he represents them as perhaps the more essential factor4 ,climate1 nourishment1 etc41 affect the inner structure1 the plasm1 transform it and thus produce variation which is transmitted to the progeny4 ,but1 however great may be the influence of environment1 ,eimer seems to overestimate it4 ,indeed1 the analogy of growth should have led ,eimer to a conception of the true relation between internal and external causes4 ,warmth1 air1 light1 moisture and nourishment1 are undoubtedly necessary factors in the process of growth1 but they are only the conditions which render it possible1 and not the causes which produce it4 ,the latter are to be found in the individual organism itself4 ,the conditions may be ever so favorable and well-adapted for growth1 still the organism will not develop unless it bear within itself the power to do so4 ,on the other hand1 although it is hampered and may become abnormal1 it will readily grow even in an unfavorable environment1 as long as it retains its inherent vital force4 ,the same is very likely true of the genealogical growth4 ,evolution took place in virtue of the power inherent in the developing organisms4 ,but only when the environment was favorable and normal1 did the evolution proceed favorably and normally1 that is1 toward the perfection of the animate kingdom4 ,it appears as if the internal principle of development were losing influence and significance with ,eimer2 but the ulterior reason for this is not far to seek4 ,whoever recognizes the validity of the internal principle of development1 eliminates chance1 that stop-gap of materialism1 from evolution1 and is lead at once to a supreme ,intelligence which directs evolution4 ,as soon as it comes in sight1 however1 certain persons take fright and turn aside or even turn back in order to avoid it4 ,this was the case with ,eimer1 although perhaps in a lesser degree4 ,this is sincerely to be deplored1 since his theory would have gained in depth if he had but done full justice to the internal principle of development4 ,for the same reason he seems to have attacked ,naegeli's principle of perfection1 another fact which is very much to be regretted4 ,true1 it is as anti-mechanical as it can be and hence has gained but few adherents2 but it is based on truth nevertheless1 and will some day prevail in the doctrine of ,descent4 ,it is perfectly intelligible that the thought of perfection should not have occurred to ,eimer or should have slipped his memory during his observations on butterflies4 ,the fact however1 reveals a one-sidedness which he could have avoided4 ,when the notion of utility is rejected--and ,eimer rejects it very emphatically in his discussions on mimicry--it is undoubtedly difficult to arrive at the concept of a perfecting tendency4 ,this1 however1 can in no way mean that this concept should be entirely banished from nature1 even as the notion of utility cannot be banished4 ,even if the coloration and design of the wings of the butterfly do not reveal utility1 other characteristics certainly do reveal it4 ,it is one of the fatal mistakes of ,darwinism1 that it fails to recognize the possibility of dividing the characters and qualities of organisms into two large groups1 as ,i attempted to do with more detail1 for instance1 in my ,catechism of ,botany4 ,there ,i called them 7p4 #hi7 ,autochthon-morphological and adaptive-morphological characters4 ,the former reveal no relation to utility1 they are innate and distinguish the organism from other organisms2 the latter can be explained by means of certain vital functions1 hence they possess a certain utility and adapt themselves more or less to environment4 ,the former are permanent1 the latter changeable4 ,darwinians regard all the characters of organisms as useful1 physiological1 and adaptive4 ,if they have been hitherto unable to make good this assumption1 they appeal to our lack of knowledge and console themselves with the thought that the future may yet reveal the missing relations4 ,the presence on plants and animals of any autochthon-morphological characters means death to ,darwinism1 because these can never be explained by means of selection and struggle for existence4 ,eimer is too much inclined towards the other extreme2 he does not admit the existence of adaptive-morphological characteristics4 ,viewed in this aspect1 his repudiation of mimicry may perhaps also seem somewhat harsh and one-sided4 ,in this narrowness of view must also be sought the reason for his complete repudiation of ,naegeli's principle of perfection4 ,it is an incontrovertible fact that in the organic world there exists an ascending scale from the imperfect to the perfect4 ,every organism is indeed perfect in its own sphere and from its own point of view4 ,but perfection with reference to things of earth is a very relative concept2 many an organism which is perfect in itself1 appears very imperfect when compared with others4 ,if1 then1 there is a gradation of animals and plants from the lower to the higher1 it is the task of the theory of ,descent to explain this gradual perfection4 ,the crude and aimless activity of ,darwinian selection1 which necessarily operates through chance1 can never explain this perfection1 which remains1 as far as selection is concerned1 one of the greatest enigmas of nature4 ,far from solving the enigma1 selection but makes it obscurer4 ,if1 then1 one refuses to recognize a directing creative ,intelligence1 whose direction produces this perfection1 nothing remains but ,naegeli's principle of perfection4 ,the outer world with its influences can certainly not produce perfection1 hence this power must lie within the organism itself4 ,but when one has once brought himself to accept an immanent principle of development1 it surely cannot be difficult to take the next step and ascribe to it the tendency towards perfection4 ,that ,eimer does not take this step1 is1 to my mind1 a mistake1 which must be attributed to his one-sidedness1 which1 in turn1 results from the fact that he generalizes too arbitrarily his observations on butterflies and the conclusions which he draws from them4 ,animals and plants certainly possess many characteristics which cannot be explained by means of his theory alone4 ,the conclusion will probably be finally arrived at1 that nature is inexhaustible and many-sided1 even in the lines on which it proceeds to attain this or that end4 ,one thing1 however1 of primary importance is evident from the investigations of ,eimer1 namely the proof that the same lines of development may be entered upon from entirely different starting-points1 and that the number of these lines is limited4 ,this fact is of importance because it enjoins more caution in arguing from uniformity of development to family-relation1 than has been usually employed since the days of ,darwin4 ,the method commonly employed is undoubtedly very convenient1 but is somewhat liable to be misleading4 ,hence1 if one wishes to establish the genealogical relationship of forms1 nothing remains but to set out on the laborious path of studying the development of both2 and even then it remains questionable whether the truth will be arrived at4 ,however1 he who concludes to relationship from a comparison of developed forms1 is much less likely to arrive at the truth4 ,in one point ,eimer concedes too much to ,darwinism1 in the matter of the famous fundamental principle of biogenesis1 according to which an organism is said to repeat in its individual development the whole series of its progenitors4 ,although he does not enter upon a discussion of the principle1 it is evident from one passage that he accepts it4 ,one is inclined to think that his careful observations and experiments should have convinced him of the contrary4 ,it appears to me1 at least1 that the abundant materials of his observations bear evidence radically opposed to the principle4 ,during late years1 the antagonism to it has been on the increase1 and the day is not very distant when it shall have passed into history4 ,it would certainly be a laudable undertaking to enter upon a thorough investigation of the actual basis of the principle4 ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,in every disease1 especially in a lingering one1 there are times when life's flickering embers glow with an unnatural brightness4 ,hence1 it would not be a all surprising if a similar phenomenon were to be observed in the case of dying ,darwinism2 for it cannot be doubted that its disease is chronic4 ,it has1 in fact1 been dying this long time4 ,certain indications render it very probable that we are at present witnessing such a phenomenon1 for to-day we behold once more a few naturalists stepping before the public in defense of ,darwinism4 ,we are desirous of presenting the present status of the ,darwinian theory as objectively as possible1 hence1 since we have hitherto heard exclusively anti-,darwinian testimonies--as the nature of the case demanded--we shall now lend our attention to a ,darwinian4 ,the reader may then decide for himself whether this treatise should not still bear the title1 ,at the ,death-bed of ,darwinism4 ,the naturalist in question is the zoologist1 ,professor ,f4 von ,wagner4 ,in the ,umschau 7,no4 #b1 #aijj7 he published an article1 ,regarding the ,present ,status of ,darwinism1 which is highly instructive and important in more respects than one4 ,we wish1 in the first place1 to call special attention to the following statements embodied in the article3 ,it is not to be denied that in serious professional circles the former enthusiasm has considerably decreased and a scepticism is gaining ground more and more1 which betrays a widespread tendency towards revolutionizing current theories4 ,the fin de siecle therefore1 finds ,darwinism not with the proud mien of a conqueror1 but on the defensive against new antagonists4 ,and again3 ,it seems1 in fact1 as if ,darwinism were about to enter a crisis1 the outcome of which can scarcely be any longer a matter of doubt4 ,to what outcome reference is made1 appears from two sentences in the ,introduction3 ,thus it happens that a theory which was once accorded enthusiastic approval1 is treated with cold disdain or vice versa4 ,examples of this are to be found in the history of all sciences and circumstances seem to indicate that ,darwinism is to add another to the number of these theories4 ,is not this exactly what we have repeatedly asserted8 ,it is most significant that these words are not written by an opponent of ,darwinism1 but by one who seems to be thoroughly convinced of the truth of ,darwinism4 ,i am of opinion that it can be no longer a matter of doubt to any one1 that the position of ,darwinism is hopeless4 ,if this were not true1 a ,darwinian would be very careful about making such an open and unreserved statement4 ,we therefore accept ,professor von ,wagner's words as a very welcome endorsement of what we have constantly maintained4 ,professor von ,wagner1 however1 proposes to himself the further question3 ,whence comes the unfavorable attitude of present-day natural science towards ,darwinism8 ,a discussion of this question by a ,darwinian cannot but be of interest to us1 and indeed is an important contribution to the problem4 ,with ,goette1 ,professor von ,wagner admits that the objections1 which are raised against ,darwinism to-day1 are the very same which were raised from thirty to forty years ago4 ,but when he then proceeds to assert that this is not to be explained on the assumption that the pristine enthusiasm for selection was due to a serious over-estimation of that theory1 he fails to furnish even a shred of evidence in support of his assertion4 ,anyone can readily point out that ,darwinism explains the totality of the world of organisms by interlinking them1 but has generally failed to account for the individual case1 ,wagner admits this as far as the actual is concerned1 for it is quite impossible to trace with any certainty the action1 in any particular case1 of natural selection in the process which results in the production of a new species4 ,at the outset it was reasonable to hope1 that with the progress of science this difficulty would be solved or at least lessened2 but this expectation has not been realized4 99 99 99 ,it is wholly unintelligible how a naturalist can make this statement five hundred years after ,bacon of ,verulam1 without drawing therefrom the proper conclusion4 ,this lack of logic reminds me strongly of the assertion recently made by an eminent authority1 that the principal cause of the difficulties of many naturalists in matters of religion is their deficient philosophical training4 ,wagner's statement implies that1 in the case of ,darwinism one may in defiance of all established law1 actually reverse the methods of natural science4 ,how justifiable and how necessary was it not1 then1 that even three decades ago ,wigand should have written his comprehensive work3 ,darwinism and the ,scientific ,researches of ,newton and ,cuvier4 ,ordinarily the scientific 7inductive7 method proceeds from the actual and attempts to deduce from the individual case an explanation1 which applies to the whole4 ,here1 however1 we are face to face with a theory1 which1 according to the candid confession of an advocate1 fails in the individual case1 but furnishes a unifying explanation of the whole4 ,this means nothing less than a complete subversion of all scientific methods4 ,usually a theory is deduced from separate observations regarding the actual but here--and this is what ,wigand constantly asserted--the theory was enunciated first1 and then followed the attempt to establish it in fact4 ,one could then rest content and trust to the future to establish the theory by producing evidences of the actual in the individual case4 ,but forty years have elapsed since the ,darwinian hypothesis first became known1 naturalists by the thousands have spent themselves in the endeavor to corroborate it by proofs based on actual facts1 and to-day one of its own advocates has to confess that the endeavor has been a total failure4 ,instead of drawing the conclusion1 however1 that the theory is unwarranted and that the decrease of enthusiasm for it is therefore a natural consequence1 he gratuitously enters a flat denial of this inference4 ,every intelligent observer must conclude with absolute certainty from this confession of a ,darwinian1 that ,darwinism is1 in fact1 not a scientific but a philosophic theory of nature4 ,but let us proceed to a consideration of the other reasons which ,wagner suggests as an explanation of the retrogression of ,darwinism4 ,he states as a first reason1 that scientific research since ,darwin has amassed such an abundance of empiric materials for the truth of the principle of ,descent1 that this doctrine has been able1 even for some time past1 to maintain an independent position and to draw proofs of its truth immediately from nature itself1 without the intervention of ,darwinism4 99 99 99 ,from which it follows as a matter of course1 that the question1 whether the manner indicated by ,darwin for the origin of species is the correct one1 has decreased by no means inconsiderably in significance1 inasmuch as ,darwin's theory could now1 if it were necessary1 be abandoned with less concern than formerly because it could be relinquished without detriment to the doctrine of ,descent4 ,it is unintelligible how one can attempt to explain a fact of such importance so superficially4 ,with naive unconcern there appears on the face of it the acknowledgement that ,darwinism has really not been based on actual observation but has been enunciated for the sake of the doctrine of ,descent4 ,come what may1 this must be vindicated4 ,other means are now said to substantiate it1 hence the ,darwinian crutches may safely be discarded4 ,the principle of action twenty or thirty years ago was therefore3 a poor explanation is better than no explanation4 ,i cannot understand1 how ,wagner dares to credit present-day naturalists with such motives4 ,when he then proceeds to say that with the advance of the principle of development1 new lines were entered upon1 which led primarily to the corroboration and empiric demonstration of the doctrine of ,descent1 and not of ,darwinism--that the theory of ,darwin was consequently neglected and1 in fact1 forced into the background--that the labors specifically attributable to ,darwinism as compared with the theory of ,descent1 put the former more and more into a false position to the detriment of its prestige--when1 ,i say1 ,wagner has marshalled all these considerations to explain the present aversion to ,darwinism1 he is guilty of a total subversion of facts4 ,the true state of the case is the very contrary4 ,the credit given by ,wagner to the ,darwinian theory for stimulating research1 is the very same as ,i also accorded it4 ,the purpose of this research undoubtedly was to substantiate not only the doctrine of evolution in general1 but also the ,darwinian hypothesis in particular4 ,to verify this1 one need only glance over the various numbers of the ,kosmos1 the periodical1 which ,haeckel and his associates established for that very purpose and which continued to publish good and bad indiscriminately until some time in the eighties when lack of interest compelled its discontinuance4 ,wagner therefore misconstrues facts when he asserts that there have been no specifically ,darwinian researches4 ,since the thoughts of ,darwin first found expression these researches have been most abundant and their results have been consigned to the printer's ink4 ,no doubt--and this is the salient point1 which ,wagner passes over in complete silence--they have been of service only to the doctrine of ,descent in general1 and in spite of the energetic efforts of the ,darwinians1 they have never led to the ardently desired proof from facts of the hypothesis of selection4 ,this and no other is the state of the case4 ,in view of these vain endeavors1 however1 intelligent investigators have gradually become perplexed and have turned away from ,darwinism1 not because they have lost interest in it nor even because they no longer feel the need of it to assist the doctrine of ,descent1 but for the one sole reason that its insufficiency has become more and more apparent and that all experiments undertaken on its behalf have made the fact clearer and clearer that the first criticism of the great naturalists of the sixties and seventies was perfectly justified4 ,in forming a judgment concerning the whole question it cannot but be a matter of the utmost significance1 that men have turned away from ,darwinism to entirely different theories of ,descent4 ,it is a mistake to suppose1 as ,wagner would have us suppose1 that the last decades have produced nothing but generalities regarding the doctrine of ,descent4 ,for they have also witnessed the publication of a number of significant works1 which aimed at giving a better individual explanation than was found in ,darwinism4 ,i need but recall ,naegeli1 ,eimer1 ,haacke and a host of others4 ,the most noteworthy feature of these new views regarding theories of ,descent1 is the constantly spreading conviction that the real determining causes of evolution are to be sought for in the constitution of the organisms themselves1 hence in internal principles4 ,this view1 however1 is not only absolutely and diametrically opposed to ,darwinism but completely destructive of it as well4 ,the actual circumstances1 therefore1 are the very reverse of those pictured by ,wagner4 ,darwinism has been rejected not on account of a lack of research but on account of an abundance of research1 which provided its absolute insufficiency4 ,besides these general points of view1 as he calls them1 ,wagner finds two other considerations of no less importance for explaining the decay of ,darwinism4 ,it is an incontrovertible fact1 that the hereditary transmission of acquired characters has in no way been proved4 ,on the contrary after it had at first received a general tacit recognition and was postulated by ,lamarck1 ,darwin and ,haeckel1 it was denied by ,weismann4 ,wagner asserts that the number of those who have allied themselves with ,weismann in this matter is obviously on the increase as is naturally the case1 since1 to the present day not a single incontestable case of hereditary transmission of acquired characters has been demonstrated1 where as actual facts are at hand to prove the contrary4 ,it is perfectly evident that the doctrine that acquired characters are not inherited is fatal to ,darwinism4 ,hence ,wagner rightly considers its ascendancy a notable factor in bringing about the decay of ,darwinism4 ,finally1 ,wagner briefly indicates that certain new theories necessarily exercised an influence on ,darwinism4 ,haeckel and the palaeontologists of ,north ,america supplemented it with a number of ,lamarckian elements without alteration of its essential principles 7the ,neo-,lamarckians72 ,eimer regards the transmission of acquired characters as an established fact1 but rejects natural selection as wholly worthless2 ,weismann1 on the contrary1 denies the transmission of acquired characters1 but nevertheless regards natural selection as the main factor in the formation of species 7the theory of the ,neo-,darwinians74 ,eimer speaks of the impotence of natural selection1 ,weismann of its omnipotence4 ,all this has shaken men's confidence in the trustworthiness of the ,darwinian principles4 ,this fact we are in no way inclined to doubt1 but we must again differ from ,wagner with regard to its significance4 ,we maintain that matters had to take this turn1 since the reason why ,darwinism is now meeting with such serious opposition1 is to be found in its very nature4 ,this indeed should have been recognized forty years ago instead of just beginning to dawn on men of science at the present day4 ,for if acquired characters are not transmitted by heredity1 ,darwinism is an impossibility4 ,forty years ago ,darwinism should have recognized that its first and supreme task was to prove the hereditary transmission of acquired characters1 so as to establish itself1 first of all1 on a sound footing4 ,one of the most peculiar incidents in this scientific tragi-comedy is the fact that ,weismann1 the mainstay of contemporary decadent ,darwinism1 attacks with might and main its fundamental assumption1 the transmission of acquired characters1 whereas ,eimer1 who is thoroughly convinced that he has proved that doctrine1 in his turn attacks ,darwinism and proves with telling effect the impotence of its principles4 ,the amused observer can really demand nothing more4 ,he can but rub his hands for joy and cheer on the heated combatants3 ,well done6 ,on with the struggle6 and the last vestige of ,darwinism will soon have disappeared4 ,if1 then1 we were to summarize our strictures on the reasons which ,wagner adduces to account for the decay of ,darwinism1 we would say this3 ,some of them are unwarranted1 others are falsely interpreted4 ,there is1 however1 a third point which is of special interest to us1 in the article under consideration2 we refer to the view1 which there finds expression1 regarding the nature and outcome of the present crisis--a crisis1 which1 as a candid naturalist1 ,wagner is not in a position to deny4 ,this view rests on the entirely gratuitous assertion1 that the decline1 in the esteem enjoyed by ,darwinism1 is not due to a better insight arising from widened experience1 but is primarily the expression of a tendency--a tendency which resulted almost as a psychological necessity from the precarious position into which ,darwinism was forced under the sway of the theory of ,descent4 ,this assertion rests1 as stated above1 on wholly erroneous assumptions4 ,it is a serious mistake1 to speak in this connection of tendencies and even to brand them as a psychological necessity4 ,the decline in esteem is essentially due to experience1 and indeed to experience which has made it certain that ,darwinism has everywhere failed4 ,the importance of the present crisis in ,darwinism is to be restricted even further1 according to ,wagner1 by the fact1 that the real objections1 urged against the theory of ,darwin1 are almost in every instance based on theoretic considerations1 the validity of which can be put to the test only in fictitious cases4 ,this manner of proceeding manifestly leads to the inevitable consequence1 that the results thus obtained can claim no decisive weight against ,darwinism4 ,a decisive critique can be constructed only on the basis of experience1 and in this connection it cannot be emphasized sufficiently1 that1 as yet1 the path to it has been scarcely indicated1 to say nothing of its having been actually pursued4 ,the reason for this fact according to ,wagner1 is to be found in the numerous and most extraordinary difficulties that arise in the way of the empiric investigation of the theory of selection4 ,after we have read all this1 we instinctively ask ourselves3 do we actually live at the beginning of the #bjth century8 ,is it possible1 that even at this late day the whole structure of scientific method is to be subverted in this fashion8 ,just consider for a moment1 what according to these words is the actual import of the whole article3 ,darwinism is a unifying explanation of the origin of the totality of the world of organisms1 but fails in the individual case2 in any specified case it is almost impossible to trace with any certainty the action of natural selection in the process which results in the production of a new species2 that is1 ,darwinism was enunciated with a complete disregard for inductive method1 as an hypothesis to explain the whole1 and without actual proof in the concrete--a most unscientific procedure4 ,immediately after1 however1 the adversaries of ,darwinism are asked in all seriousness to produce individual facts in disproof of the theory4 ,in the same strain ,wagner goes on to say that from no point of view is our vision so penetrating as to be able to grasp the coherence which according to ,darwin pervades the complex course of natural selection4 ,when men of science take occasion to repudiate ,darwinism because of our inability to explain satisfactorily any particular case by means of the theory of selection1 this inability arises not from the theory of ,darwin but from the inadequacy of our experience4 ,for as yet the empiric prerequisites for an objective judgment regarding the validity or futility of the theory of selection are entirely lacking4 ,every naturalist who believes in the inductive method must needs draw the conclusion from these naive admissions1 that1 as ,darwinism lacks the empiric prerequisites1 it should be discarded4 ,moreover1 the demand is made in all seriousness1 that1 in order to refute ,darwinism which has not as yet been established empirically1 empiric proofs should be forthcoming4 ,to my mind1 the scientific and logical bankruptcy of ,darwinism was never announced more bluntly and ingenuously4 ,furthermore it must be remarked that ,wagner's statement1 regarding fictitious cases1 is not even pertinent4 ,he seems to have no idea of the observations and experiments of ,sachs1 ,haberlandt1 ,eimer1 and a host of other investigators4 ,the disproof of ,darwinism on the basis of scientific research is an accomplished fact4 ,a word about the conclusion of ,wagner's article1 which in view of what has been already said1 cannot be a matter of surprise4 ,he maintains that the considerations which he adduces1 clearly prove that there is no reasonable ground for despairing of the theory of ,darwin--2 for a theory1 which neither proceeds from questionable assumptions1 nor loses itself in airy hypotheses1 but rests throughout and exclusively on facts1 need never fear the advance of science4 ,but a moment ago it was asserted that the theory of selection is lacking entirely as yet the empiric prerequisites and now only twenty-three lines further on1 it rests throughout and exclusively on facts4 ,it is difficult to know what conclusion to come to regarding a naturalist and ,university professor who can commit himself to such a contradiction4 ,i shall abstain from any comment and let the reader form his own judgment4 ,does this article betoken the death-bed of ,darwinism8 ,for my own part ,i repeat what ,i said above1 that ,i consider it the most valuable contribution to the characterization of decadent ,darwinism that has appeared up to the present time4 ,the sooner a theory1 which is thus treated and characterized by one of its own advocates1 is stored away in the lumber-room of science1 the better4 ,in view of the sound judgment1 which is to-day becoming more and more apparent in scientific circles1 there is reason to hope that this article of ,professor von ,wagner will be additional incentive for many naturalists to break completely with ,darwinism4 ,,chapter ,,vii4 ,in the year #ahii ,haeckel published a new work1 which he intended as a kind of testament2 for with the close of the nineteenth century the author desired to put a finishing touch to his life-work4 ,in the ,preface ,haeckel states with very remarkable modesty that his book cannot reasonably claim to present a complete solution of the riddles of existence2 that his answer to the great questions can naturally be only subjective and only partly correct2 that his attainments in the different branches is very unequal and imperfect2 and that his book is really only a sketch book of studies of very unequal value4 ,in this way the author naturally gains at once the confidence of his reader who is thus prepared to yield assent when the author makes pretense to sincerity of conviction and an honest search after truth4 ,the reader's surprise at the contents of the book and at the manner of its presentation is1 however1 only increased by this ruse4 ,all modesty has vanished1 monistic doctrines are presented as absolute truth1 every divergent opinion is contemptuously branded as heretical2 in short1 the book reveals a ,darwinian orthodoxy of the purest type1 with all the signs of blind bigotry and odious intolerance which the author imagines he discovers in his ,christian adversaries4 ,it is difficult to see where1 in view of such a contradiction between the work and its ,preface1 there is room for an honest striving after truth4 ,personally ,i do not wish to deny ,haeckel all honesty of purpose1 for it is my endeavor to understand the whole man4 ,the one prominent feature of the ,weltraetsel is the fact that1 owing to a very marked deficiency in philosophical training1 ,haeckel has become so completely absorbed in his system that he has lost all interest in everything else and takes cognizance only of what suits his purpose4 ,what he lacks above all1 is the ability to appreciate even the honest opinion of others2 hence1 from the very outset he brings into the discussion that bitterness of which he complains in others 7in the ,weltraetsel he once makes this accusation against me74 ,notwithstanding all this1 honest conviction may be present1 but if so1 it is joined with total blindness4 ,but what is to be thought of his search after truth since he completely ignores his adversaries8 ,for instance1 in spite of ,loofs' attacks1 he continues to have his book reprinted without alteration1 without submitting it to revision4 ,the ,reichsbote is perfectly in the right when it says3 ,haeckel1 in fact1 takes account only of what suits his purpose4 ,as regards the contents of the ,weltraetsel1 it is not my intention to enter here upon a criticism of it but merely to discuss it as illustrating the general status of the theory of ,descent4 ,it is to be noted1 in the first place1 that it is really not a scientific book at all2 for of its #dgb pages1 the first or ,anthropological ,part1 with which alone we are here concerned1 occupies only #gd 7from pages #bg to #ajj71 even less than one-sixth of the whole1 whereas the ,theological ,part is almost twice as long4 ,the book is1 in fact1 rather a theologico-natural-philosophical treatise than a work of natural science4 ,the scientific part is1 however1 the foundation on which ,haeckel builds up his natural philosophy1 and which he uses as the starting point of his criticism of theology4 ,hence it is worth our while to discuss it4 ,how then fares it with the anthropological basis of ,haeckel's whole system8 ,as an attentive student of his age the naturalist-philosopher of ,jena must have perceived the true position of ,darwinism1 namely1 that the foremost naturalists of to-day have no more than an historical interest in it4 ,since1 in accordance with the well known tendency of old men to persevere in the position they have once assumed and not easily to accept innovations1 ,haeckel is still an incorrigibly orthodox ,darwinian1 we should naturally expect him to embody in this testament some new cogent evidence of the truth of ,darwinism4 ,but nothing of that nature is to be found in the book4 ,the first chapter of the ,anthropological part is taken up with a general history of nineteenth century culture1 in itself a sign of peculiar logical acumen1 that he should include this and the struggle regarding world-views in the anthropological part instead of embodying it in a general introduction4 ,the remaining chapters treat3 ,our ,bodily ,structure1 ,our ,life1 ,our ,embryonic-history1 ,our ,family-history4 ,it is not to be supposed1 however1 that any arguments are here adduced1 nothing but assertions2 a large part of the chapter is taken up with historical sketches1 in which ,haeckel again proves himself utterly devoid of all appreciation of history and all sense of justice4 ,he attributes the decay of the natural sciences to the flourishing condition of ,christianity and dares to speak of the unfavorable influence of ,christianity on civilization4 ,apart from the historical sketch1 each chapter presents only the quintessence of ,darwinism1 fairly bristling with assertions1 which are boldly put forth as incontrovertible truths4 ,in view of the author's demand to have at least his sincere love of truth recognized1 we can but throw up our hands out of sheer astonishment4 ,to illustrate ,haeckel's love of truth let it suffice to observe that in the second chapter he asserts that man is not only a true vertebrate1 a true mammal1 etc4--which indeed is passable--but even a true ape 7having all the anatomical characteristics of true apes74 ,with a wonderful elasticity he passes over the differences4 ,what1 indeed1 is to be said1 when he states as a fact that physiologically compared 7671 the sound-speech of apes is the preparatory stage to articulate human speech4 ,it is so simply monstrous1 that even ,garner's famous book of ape-speech1 cannot surpass it4 ,as a third illustration of ,haeckel's method of argumentation1 if we are still justified in speaking of such a thing1 we may mention his assertion 7p4 #ig7 as a certain historical fact1 ,that man is descended directly from the ape1 and indirectly from a long line of lower vertebrates4 ,if1 in view of the results of research during the last forty years any one can assert this as a certain historical fact and can still wish to be credited with honest conviction and love of truth1 there remains1 to adopt ,haeckel's own expression1 but one explanation for this psychological enigma1 namely1 intellectual marasmus senilis1 which may very easily have set in with a man of sixty-six1 who himself complains 7p4 #g7 of divers warnings of approaching age4 ,thus1 the anthropological part of the ,weltraetsel contains nothing new2 always the same old story1 the same threadbare assertions without a shred of evidence to corroborate them4 ,the remaining parts also contain various scientific assertions1 which are proposed as facts without being such1 but these parts do not immediately pertain to our theme4 ,suffice it to say that1 after reading ,haeckel's ,weltraetsel1 one would be led to think that there is no question of a deathbed of ,darwinism1 but that on the contrary ,darwinism1 as remodeled by ,haeckel1 is more in the ascendant to-day than ever4 ,let us judge of its prestige by the reception accorded the ,weltraetsel4 ,one unaltered edition after the other1 thousand after thousand1 the book is given to the public4 ,hence it must meet with approval4 ,it does indeed meet with approval1 but the question is1 from whom8 ,immature college and university students will doubtless receive it with reverential awe1 just as they received the ,natural ,history of ,creation twenty-five years ago4 ,bebel accepts the book as an infallible source of truth1 and after him the social democrats and free-church members will add it to the list of their body and stomach books1 which alone will afford it a respectable clientele1 at least in number4 ,in no one of my deathbed articles1 however1 have ,i as yet ever maintained that ,darwinism was decadent in these circles4 ,i know full well1 that ,darwinism has filtered down into that sphere and there satisfies the anti-,christian and anti-religious demands of thousands4 ,nothing1 however1 really depends on these senseless blind adherents of ,haeckel's unproved assertions4 ,we are now intent upon investigating how the world of eminent thinkers and natural science regards the latest product of ,haeckel's fancy4 ,that alone is of importance in ascertaining the real status of ,darwinism4 ,as regards1 in the first place1 the other parts of the book1 it is well known that all of them were vigorously attacked4 ,loofs in particular exposed ,haeckel's theology1 according to its deserts1 in the clear light of truth1 and convicted ,haeckel of ignorance and dishonesty2 while the philosopher ,paulsen made short work of the ,weltraetsel from his own standpoint1 7if a book could drip with superficiality1 ,i should predicate that of the #aith chapter74 ,harnack also condemned the theological section in the ,christliche ,welt1 and ,troeltsch1 ,hoenigswald1 and ,hohlfeld took ,haeckel severely to task on philosophic grounds4 ,the naturalists have thus far maintained silence4 ,scientific journals1 and1 ,i believe1 only the more popular ones1 pass a varying judgment on the book according to the intellectual bent of their book reviewers2 but no one of the eminent and leading naturalists has publicly expressed his opinion regarding it4 ,they all maintain a very significant silence1 which speaks for itself4 ,now1 however1 just at the proper time a book1 ,die ,descendenz-theorie has appeared from the pen of the zoologist1 ,professor ,fleischmann of ,erlangen1 in which ,haeckel is severely condemned4 7,see ,chapter ,,ix47 ,the press-notices of the ,weltraetsel1 which are quoted in the book will be considered presently4 ,it appears that with reference to natural science1 only laymen discuss the book and approve of ,haeckel's views4 ,this is a point of great importance since it proves satisfactorily that men of science will have nothing to do with the ,weltraetsel4 ,the large number of replies would1 however1 not allow ,haeckel's friends to remain silent4 ,the most extensive defense forthcoming was a pamphlet published by a certain ,heinrich ,schmidt of ,jena4 ,it cannot be gathered from his book 7,der ,kampf um die ,weltraetsel1 ,bonn1 ,e4 ,strauss #aijj7 to what profession the author belongs1 hence ,i am unable to judge whence he derives the right to treat ,haeckel's opponents in summary a manner4 ,it is significant to note what class of men1 according to ,schmidt1 received the ,weltraetsel with enthusiasm and joy4 ,they are ,august ,specht1 the free-church editor of ,menschentum and of the ,freien ,glocken1 ,julius ,hart1 ,professor ,keller-,zuerich1 the philosopher and ,neokantian ,professor ,spitzer of ,graz1 the popular literateur ,w4 ,boelsche1 ,w4 ,ule1 and a few unknown great men1 ,dr4 ,zimmer1 ,th4 ,pappstein1 ,r4 ,steiner1 ,a4 ,haese2 but stay1 ,i came very near forgetting the great pillar1 ,dodel of ,zuerich4 ,but where is there mention of the professional colleagues of ,haeckel whose testimonies could be taken seriously8 ,under the heading ,literary ,humbug1 which evidently has reference to the contents of his own work1 ,schmidt then meets numerous objections4 ,here vigorous epithets are bandied about1 as1 for instance1 absolute nonsense1 muddler1 foolish and senseless prattle1 idle talk1 etc42 and from ,dodel he copies the words with which the latter once sought to annihilate me3 ,job1 verse #aj1 ,thou hast spoken like one of the foolish women4 ,and he ventures to express indignation at ,loofs' invectives4 ,as a compliment to ,lasson he declares that he could easily conceive of the possibility of an ape ascending the professor's chair and speaking as intelligently as he 7,lasson72 which remark he probably intended as a witticism4 ,he informs his readers that the criticism of ,haeckel by men like ,virchow1 ,his1 ,semper1 ,haacke1 ,baer1 and ,wigand have been examined by professional specialists and proved practically worthless4 ,this statement alone so clearly reveals ,schmidt's lack of critical faculty and judgment that by it he at once forfeits his right to be taken seriously4 ,the whole book is nothing more than a collection of quotations from the reviews of the ,weltraetsel1 interspersed with characteristic expressions like idle talk1 nonsense1 etc41 as exemplified above4 ,a really pertinent reply and refutation of objections is entirely beyond ,schmidt's range2 he waives the demand for a direct reply1 for instance1 in the following amusing way 7p4 #bh73 ,two reasons1 however1 prevent me from being more explicit3 ,in the first place ,i do not like to dispute with people who adduce variant readings and church-fathers as proofs and can still remain serious4 ,in the second place ,i would not like to fall into the hands of a ,loofs4 ,in this manner it is indeed easy to evade an argument1 which for good reasons one is not able to pursue4 ,loofs' criticism is so serious and destructive that it should be of the utmost concern to ,haeckel's friends to refute it4 ,since they are unable to do so1 they content themselves with references to ,loofs' caustic style1 which he should indeed have avoided4 ,there are1 nevertheless1 cases in which one must employ trenchant phraseology1 and ,haeckel himself has given an occasion for it2 a dignified style is simply out of the question in his case4 ,haeckel extricated himself with even greater ease1 by declaring that he had neither time nor inclination for reply1 and that a mutual understanding with ,loofs was impossible because their scientific views were entirely different4 ,could anything be more suggestive of the words of ,mephistopheles3 ,but in each word must be a thought-- ,there is1--or we may so assume1-- ,not always found1 nor always sought4 ,while words--mere words supply its room4 ,words answer well1 when men enlist 'em1 ,in building up a favorite system4 ,there are two other points in ,schmidt's book that are of interest to us4 ,the first of these is the manner in which the author treats the ,romanes incident4 ,romanes ranks1 as is well known1 among the first of ,haeckel's authorities4 ,hence it is a very painful fact that1 but a short time before the publication of the first edition of the ,weltraetsel1 my translation into ,german of ,romanes' ,thoughts on ,religion should have appeared4 ,from this book it was evident that ,haeckel and his associates could no longer count this man among their number since he--a life-long seeker after truth--had abandoned atheism for theism1 and died a believing ,christian4 ,troeltsch and the ,reichsbote asked whether ,haeckel had purposely concealed this fact1 and ,schmidt now explains that ,haeckel first became acquainted with the ,thoughts on ,religion through him towards the end of ,january1 #aijj4 ,unfortunately he does not add that since then a number of new editions of the ,weltraetsel have appeared1 in which ,haeckel could have explained himself in an honorable manner4 ,schmidt has therefore not been successful in his attempt to clear up this matter4 ,but how does he settle with ,romanes8 ,he says3 ,we are assured that the thoughts were written down by the ,english naturalist ,george ,john ,romanes2 and again3 ,the thoughts are published by a ,canon of ,westminster1 ,charles ,gore1 to whom they are said to have been handed over after the death of ,romanes in the year #ahid4 ,then he has the audacity to place ,romanes in quotation marks4 ,and finally he asserts that they would abide by ,romanes' former works as their authority1 the more so1 because these were not1 like the ,thoughts1 published and glossed by a ,canon only after his 7,romanes'7 death4 ,by means of all this and of a comparison with the ,letters of the ,obscurantists he wishes to create the suspicion that there might be question here of forgery4 ,such an insinuation1 7,i employ ,schmidt's own words7 cannot be characterized otherwise than as contemptible4 ,here it is even worse than contemptible4 ,i must beg my reader's pardon for overstepping the bounds of reserve with these caustic words1 although they originated with ,schmidt2 but really the flush of anger rightfully mounts to one's cheeks when a man1 from the mere fact that he is a disciple of the great ,haeckel assumes the right to charge ,canon ,gore and indirectly myself with forgery4 ,it is really very significant that these men should have to resort to such base and despicable expedients to extricate themselves from their unpleasant predicament4 ,apart from this1 it was very amusing to me personally to think that for the sake of my unworthy self1 ,schmidt should have borrowed from his lord and master the epithet pious1 which ,haeckel in his turn has drawn from his cherished friend ,dodel4 ,in all probability they will continue to hawk it about in order to bring me into disrepute with the rest of their kind4 ,the few remarks ,schmidt still finds it proper to make regarding the ,thoughts1 betray his inability to understand the book4 ,but as ,i stated in the preface it was a difficult book to read and understand4 ,it is obviously not reading matter for shallow minds4 ,i refer ,schmidt to the biography of ,romanes1 published by his wife1 7,the ,life and ,letters of ,g4 ,j4 ,romanes1 ,london1 ,longmans1 ,green ,co41 #ahih71 where he will find ,romanes' religious development described by a well-informed hand4 ,this development began as early as #ahgh1 hence during the time of his intimate friendship with ,darwin4 ,in this book on pages #cgb and #cgh ,schmidt will also find the words in which1 before his death1 ,romanes begged that1 if he were personally unable to publish the ,thoughts1 they should be given to his friend ,canon ,gore after his own death4 ,but why waste so many words on ,mr4 ,schmidt1 for since all these things must be doubly disagreeable and painful to him and ,haeckel1 he will very probably resort without delay to personal insinuation and accuse ,mrs4 ,romanes of forgery4 ,to us1 however1 who thoroughly appreciate the situation1 it is a matter of great moment that of one of the few really eminent naturalists1 to whom ,haeckel thought to be able to lay full and exclusive claim1 for the last twenty years of his life should have been moving towards the ,christian faith in his eager search for truth and should die not a monist1 but a convinced ,christian4 ,neither did he die an old man1 to whom the adherents of monism would certainly have the effrontery to impute feeble-mindedness1 but at the early age of forty-six years4 ,nor was his a sudden deathbed conversion--an impression which ,schmidt attempts to create 7p4 #fb7 in order to be able with ,h4 ,heine to relegate the conversion to the domain of pathology--but followed after many years of diligent and honest study and research4 ,the other point of which we must treat here1 is the manner in which1 after the example of ,dr4 ,reh1 ,schmidt attempts in the ,umschau to exonerate ,haeckel in the matter of the ,history of the three cliches4 ,to begin with1 it is at the very least dishonest on the part of ,schmidt to say that1 in default of scientific arguments1 theological adversaries have for the last thirty years been using it as the basis of their attacks4 ,that is untrue1 the theological adversaries have not had knowledge of it for that length of time4 ,on the contrary ,haeckel's own scientific colleagues were the first to discover and publish the matter some time in the seventies1 and in consequence excluded ,haeckel from their circle4 ,why does ,schmidt not mention here the names of ,ruetimeyer1 ,his1 and ,semper8 ,furthermore ,schmidt writes as if ,haeckel had satisfied his colleagues in the matter of his forgery by declaring soon after 7#ahgj7 that he had been guilty of a very ill-considered act of folly4 ,why does ,schmidt not mention the fact that the weighty attacks of ,his 7,our ,bodily ,form and the ,physiological ,problem of its ,origin1 ,leipzig1 #ahge7 dates from the year #ahge1 five years after ,haeckel's forced1 palliative explanation8 ,besides1 this incident of the three cliches is only one instance2 the other examples of ,haeckel's sense of truthfulness are for the most part entirely unknown to his theological adversaries1 who have nowhere to my knowledge made use of them2 but all of them have been brought to light and held up before ,haeckel by naturalists1 namely1 by ,bastian 7#ahgd71 ,semper and ,kossmann 7#ahgf and #ahgg71 ,hensen and ,brandt 7#ahia71 and ,hamann 7#ahic74 ,does this in any way tend to establish ,schmidt's honesty8 7,dr4 ,dennert has entered into a more searching criticism of ,haeckel in his book1 ,die ,wahrheit ueber ,haeckel4 #b ,aufl ,halle a4 ,s41 #aijb47 ,in a word1 the manner in which the ,weltraetsel was received and in which ,haeckel has been defended by ,schmidt1 are valuable indications of the decay of ,darwinism4 ,i repeat that ,i am speaking of course of the leading scientific circles4 ,those who hold back are never lacking1 and one cannot be surprised that1 in the case of ,darwinism1 their number is considerable3 for on the one hand1 to understand it an extraordinarily slight demand is made on one's mental capacity2 and on the other hand it is a very convenient and even a seemingly scientific means of obviating the necessity of belief in ,god4 ,these facts appeal very strongly to the multitude4 ,in concluding this section1 we shall quote a positive testimony to the decay of ,darwinism4 ,on page #c of his ,outlines of the ,history of the ,development of ,man and of the ,mammals 7,leipzig1 ,w4 ,engelmann1 #ahig7 ,prof4 ,o4 ,schultze1 ,anatomist in ,wuerzburg1 says3 ,the idea entertained by ,darwin1 that the development of species may be explained by a natural choice--,selection--which operates through the struggle of individuals for existence1 cannot permanently satisfy the spirit of inquiry4 ,even the factors of variability1 heredity1 and adaptation1 which are essential to the transformation of species1 do not offer an exact explanation4 ,,chapter ,,viii4 ,i have already called attention several times to the fact that ,darwinism is indeed on the wane among men of science1 but that it has gradually penetrated into lay circles where it is now posing as irrefragable truth4 ,especially the circles dominated by the social democrats swear by nothing higher than ,darwin and ,haeckel4 ,in fact1 only a short time ago ,bebel publicly professed himself a convert to ,haeckel's wisdom4 ,it is inevitable1 however1 that light should gradually dawn even in these circles1 for it would be indeed strange1 if no honest man could be found to tell them the truth regarding ,darwinism4 ,this has occurred sooner than ,i dared to hope4 ,this chapter can announce the glad tidings that even in social-democratic science ,darwinism is doomed to decay4 ,much printer's ink will1 of course1 be yet wasted before it will be so entirely dead as to be no longer available as a weapon against ,christianity2 but a beginning at least has been made4 ,in the ,december number of the ninth year of the ,sozialistische ,monatshefte1 a social-democratic writer1 ,curt ,grottewitz1 undertakes to bring out an article on ,darwinian ,myths4 ,it is stated there that ,darwin had a few eminent followers1 but that the educated world took no notice of their work2 that now1 however1 they seemed to be attracting more attention4 ,there is no doubt1 that a number of ,darwinian views1 which are still prevalent to-day1 have sunk to the level of untenable myths4 ,true1 the main doctrine of ,darwin--the origin of new species from existing ones--is incontestably established1 but apart from this even some very fundamental principles1 which the master thought he discerned in the development of organisms1 can scarcely be any longer maintained4 ,it may be well to remark here1 that this was not really ,darwin's main doctrine1 for it already existed before his time 7,lamarck1 ,geoffroy ,st4 ,hilaire74 ,darwin's main doctrine is the explanation of the origin of species by natural selection operating through the struggle for existence4 ,it is therefore the old error repeated4 ,darwinism is confounded with the doctrine of ,descent1 of which it is merely one form4 ,it is not our intention to derogate in the least from ,darwin's merit1 which consists in the fact that he gained general recognition for the doctrine of ,descent2 but that was not his main work4 ,he wished above all to explain the ,how of ,descent2 this is his doctrine1 and this doctrine we attack and declare to be on the point of expiring4 ,grottewitz very frankly continues3 ,the difficulty with the ,darwinian doctrines consists in the fact that they are incapable of being strictly and irrefutably demonstrated4 ,the origin of one species from another1 the conservation of useful forms1 the existence of countless intermediary links1 are all assumptions1 which could never be supported by concrete cases found in actual experience4 ,some are said to be well established indirectly by proofs drawn from probabilities1 while others are proved to be absolutely untenable4 ,among the latter ,grottewitz includes sexual selection1 which is indeed a monstrous figment of the imagination4 ,there was moreover really no reason for adhering to it so long4 ,it is eminently untrue1 that the biological research of the last few years proved for the first time the untenableness of this doctrine1 as ,grottewitz seems to think4 ,clear thinkers recognized its untenableness long ago1 and surely ,grottewitz and the whole band of ,darwinian devotees as well1 could have known that as early as twenty-five years ago this doctrine had been subjected to a reductio ad absurdum with classic clearness in ,wigand's great work4 ,it is certainly a very peculiar phenomenon2 for decades we behold a doctrine reverently re-echoed2 thoughtful investigators expose its folly1 but still the worship continues1 the ,zeitgeist must have its idol4 ,it appears1 however1 as if the ,zeitgeist were gradually tiring of its golden calf and were on the point of casting it into the rubbish-heap4 ,misgivings arise on all sides2 here one class of objections are considered1 there another4 ,a closer examination reveals that these are by no means new reasons1 based on new researches1 but the very oldest1 urged long ago and perhaps much more clearly and forcibly4 ,at that time1 however1 the ,zeitgeist was under the spell of the suggestion of individual men3 it heard and saw nothing but the captivating1 obvious simplicity of the doctrine2 but now when the subject begins to be tedious and the discussion lags1 the interest consequently abates and the ,zeitgeist suddenly grasps the old objections1 presented in a new garb1 and what was hitherto truth1 clear and irrefutable1 now sinks into the dreary1 gray mists of myth4 ,sic transit gloria mundi6 ,this has been the history of ,darwinism1 and especially of ,darwin's theory of sexual selection4 ,what ,grottewitz urges against it1 was advanced decades ago by other and more eminent men2 then people would not listen1 to-day they are inclined to listen4 ,of very special interest is the further admission1 that the principle of gradual development has been considerably shaken and is certainly untenable4 ,grottewitz points out that it has been demonstrated that the progeny of the same parents are often entirely dissimilar1 and that new organs very suddenly spring up in individuals even when they had had no previous existence4 ,a slight variation from the parent form is of no utility to the progeny2 they must acquire at once a completely developed1 new character1 if it is to be of any use to them4 ,quite right6 but this one admission is destructive of the entire doctrine of natural selection4 ,if one accepts saltatory evolution1 as for instance1 ,heer1 ,koelliker1 and ,wigand did long ago1 then1 as ,grottewitz now discovers1 the difficulty arising for ,darwinism from the absence of the numerous intermediary forms which it postulates1 naturally disappears4 ,grottewitz attributes sudden variation to the influence of environment1 just as ,geoffroy ,st4 ,hilaire had already done before ,darwin4 ,he likewise repudiates ,darwin's doctrine of adaptation and the theory of chance1 which is bound up with all his views4 ,darwin's theory of chance seems to me to be especially deserving of rejection4 ,the article closed with these words3 ,there must evidently be a very definite principle1 according to which the frequent and striking development from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous1 from the no-longer adapted to the readapted1 proceeds4 ,we all of us are far from considering this principle a teleological1 mystical or mythical one1 but for that matter1 ,darwin's theory of chance is nothing more than a myth4 ,he is most certainly in the right4 ,to place this whole wonderful1 and so minutely regulated world of organisms at the mercy of chance is utterly monstrous1 and for this very reason ,darwinism1 which is throughout a doctrine of chance1 must be rejected2 it is indeed a myth4 ,we are grateful to ,grottewitz for undertaking to tear the assumed mask of science from this myth and expose it before his associates4 ,he should1 however1 have done so even more vigorously and unequivocally and should have stated plainly3 ,darwinism is a complete failure2 we believe indeed in a natural development of the organic world1 but we are unable to prove it4 ,in the conclusion of the article quoted there is1 of course1 again to be found the cloven-hoof3 by all means no teleological principle6 ,but why in the world should we not accept a teleological principle1 since it is clearly evident that the whole world of life is permeated by teleology1 that is1 by design and finality8 ,why not8 ,forsooth1 because then belief in ,god would again enter and create havoc in the ranks of the brethren4 ,but however much men may struggle against the teleologico-theistic principle and secure themselves against it1 it is all of no avail1 the principle stands at the gate and clamors loudly for admission2 and if ,grottewitz could but bring himself to undertake a study of ,wigand's masterful work1 perhaps his heresy would increase and we might perhaps then find another article in the ,sozialistische ,monatshefte tending still more strongly toward the truth4 ,but what will ,brother ,bebel with his ,haeckelism say to the present article8 ,all in all1 instead of calling his article ,darwinian ,myths ,grottewitz might just as well have entitled it ,at the ,deathbed of ,darwinism4 ,may he bring out a series of deathbed articles to disclose the truth regarding ,darwinism to his associates4 ,,chapter ,,ix4 ,professor ,fleischmann1 zoologist in ,erlangen1 recently published a book bearing the title1 ,die ,descendenztheorie1 in which he opposes every theory of ,descent4 ,the book is made up of lectures delivered by the author before general audiences of professional students1 hence is popular in form and of very special apologetic value4 ,numerous excellent illustrations aid the reader in understanding the text4 ,one statement in the ,introduction characterizes the decided position assumed by the author4 ,he says3 ,after long and careful investigation ,i have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of ,descent has not been substantiated4 ,i go even farther and maintain that the discussion of the question does not belong to the field of the exact sciences of zoology and botany4 ,at the outset1 ,fleischmann establishes the fact that in the animal kingdom there are rigidly separated types1 which cannot be derived from each other1 whereas the doctrine of ,descent postulates one single common model of body-structure from which all types have been developed4 ,cuvier in his day1 set up four such types of essentially different structure2 when ,darwin's work appeared two more had been added2 ,r4 ,hertwig postulates even seven1 ,boas nine 7both #aijj72 ,j4 ,kennel 7#ahic7 seventeen1 and ,fleischmann himself sixteen4 ,in consequence the doctrine of ,descent has become more complicated since it now embraces sixteen or seventeen different problems1 each of which in turn gives rise to many subordinate problems4 ,the discussion which the author inaugurates regarding the domain to which the question of ,descent belongs1 is very well-timed4 ,he forcibly and definitely discountenances the method which transfers it to the domain of religion4 ,the question must be decided by the naturalists themselves according to the strict inductive method2 that is1 the solution must be based on well ascertained facts1 without resorting to conclusions deduced from general principles4 ,exact research must show that living organisms actually have overstepped the bounds defining their species1 and not merely that they conceivably may have done so4 ,hence it is absolutely necessary to procure the intermediary forms4 ,this is the foundation on which ,fleischmann builds and against which no opponent can prevail4 ,fleischmann first discusses the differences between the classes of vertebrates2 the mammals1 birds1 reptiles1 amphibians and fish4 ,for if the differences of their bodily structure could be shown to be one of degree and not radical1 it could be supposed that the lines of demarcation which now delimitate the larger types might some day vanish4 ,a single illustration suffices for ,fleischmann's purpose1 viz41 the plan of structure of the limbs of the different classes of vertebrates4 ,the four higher classes are characterized by a common underlying plan of limb structure1 whilst fish have one peculiar to themselves4 ,on the other hand it is an inevitable postulate of the doctrine of ,descent that fish are the original progenitors of all other vertebrates4 ,hence the five-joint limbs of the latter must have developed from the fins of fish4 ,this derivation was actually attempted but without success1 as ,fleischmann points out at considerable length4 ,by means of citations taken from the writings of ,darwinian adherents1 he illustrates the confusion which even now reigns among them on this matter4 ,the evolution of the remaining vertebrates from the fish is therefore a wholly gratuitous assumption devoid of any foundation in fact4 ,fleischmann further discusses the parade-horse of the theory of ,descent4 ,it has been the common belief1 especially fostered by ,haeckel1 that the history of the ,descent of our present horse lies before us in its complete integrity as pictured in the drawings of ,marsh4 ,here ,fleischmann again proves at great length the insufficiency of actually available materials4 ,of special importance is his repeated demand that not only individual parts of the animals but the whole organism as well should be derived from the earlier forms4 ,if1 for instance1 it be possible to arrange horses and their tertiary kindred in an unbroken line of descent according to the formation of their feet1 whilst the other characteristics 7teeth1 skull-structure1 etc417 do not admit of arrangement in a corresponding series1 the first line must be surrendered4 ,very similar to this is the case of the family history of birds1 which as all know1 has been traced back to reptiles4 ,it is in this matter that the famous ,archaeopteryx plays an important part4 ,unfortunately1 however1 grave difficulties are again encountered in this connection4 ,this primitive form is a real bird according to ,zittel2 and according to the same investigator as also according to ,marsh1 ,dames1 ,vetter1 ,parker1 ,tuerbringen1 ,parlow and ,mehnert1 it is inadmissible to connect birds with a definite class of reptiles4 ,haeckel finds his way out of the difficulty by supplying hypothetical forms which no one has ever seen1 but which his imagination has admirably depicted as transitional forms4 ,in so doing1 however1 he abandons the inductive method of natural science4 ,it is impossible for us to treat at such length all the remaining sections of this important book4 ,we may mention in passing that ,fleischmann examines the roots of the mammal stock1 and enters upon a detailed discussion of the origin of lung-breathing vertebrates1 the real phylo-genetic problem of the mollusks1 and the origin of the echinodermata4 ,it is evident that he boldly takes up the most important problems connected with the theory of ,descent1 and does not confine himself to a one-sided discussion of individual points4 ,as he did not fear to examine thoroughly the famous1 and as it hitherto appeared1 invulnerable1 parade-horse1 so neither does he hesitate to demolish the other reputed proof for the doctrine of ,descent1 e4g41 the fresh-water snail of ,steinheim1 the remains of which ,hilzendorf and ,neumayr examined and were said to have arranged in lines of descent that would actually stagger one4 ,it is important to call especial attention to this because the adversaries of the book ignore it4 ,he next shows up the so-called fundamental principle of biogenesis according to which organisms are supposed to repeat during their individual development the forms of their progenitors 7enunciated by ,fritz ,mueller and ,haeckel74 ,fleischmann points out the exceptions which ,haeckel attributes to ,cenogenesis1 7that is to falsification7 and shows the disagreement among contemporary naturalists regarding this fundamental principle4 ,even ,haeckel's friend and pupil1 ,o4 ,hertwig sounds the retreat4 ,the #aeth chapter deals with the ,collapse of ,haeckel's ,doctrine1 which is revealed in the fact that the practical possibility of ascertaining anything regarding the primitive history of the animal kingdom is completely exhausted and the hope of so doing forever frustrated4 ,instead of scientists having been able from year to year to produce an increasing abundance of proof for the correctness of the doctrine of ,descent1 the lack of proofs and the impossibility of procuring evidence is to-day notorious4 ,in the last chapter ,fleischmann finally attempts to prove on logical principles the untenableness of the evolutionary idea4 ,he starts from the fact that philosophers use the word development to designate a definite sequence of ideas1 i4e41 in a logical order4 ,metamorphosis1 says ,hegel1 belongs to the ,idea as such since its variation alone is development4 ,rational speculation must get rid of such nebulous concepts as the evolution of the more highly developed animal organisms from the less developed1 etc4 ,naturalists use the word in a different sense4 ,instead of a sequence of grades of being they posit a sequence of transformations2 instead of a logical sequence of ideas they posit a transforming and progressive development4 ,zoology constructs a system of specific and generic concepts1 an animal kingdom with logical relations4 ,our concepts are derived from natural objects1 but in reality do not perfectly correspond to them4 ,the phylogenetic school commits the capital mistake of presenting a transformation which can be realized only in logical concepts1 as an actually occurring process1 and of confounding an abstract operation with concrete fact4 ,the logical transformation of the concept ape into the concept man is no genealogical process4 ,the mathematician may logically 'develop' the concept of a circle from that of a polygon1 but it by no means follows that the circle is phylo-genetically derived from the polygon4 ,because the concept of species is variable1 the species themselves1 according to ,darwin1 should be subject to a continual flux2 whereas the real cause of the variability which he observed lies in the discrepancy between objective facts and their logical tabulation1 in the narrowness of our concepts and in the lack of adequate means of expression4 ,he thus makes natural objects responsible for our logical limitations4 ,with regard to organisms the ,descent-school confounded the purely logical signification of the word related with that of blood or family affinity4 ,but surely when they speak of the relation of forms in the crystal systems1 they do not refer to genetic connection4 ,to-day this interchange of concepts is so general that one needs to exercise great care if one would avoid it4 ,the theory which postulates the blood-relationship of individuals of the same species may be correct1 but it is utterly incapable of proof1 and the same is true in a greater degree when there is question of individuals of the same class but of different species4 ,since a direct proof is impossible1 an attempt was made to construct an indirect proof by a comparison of bodily-organs4 ,but in so doing the ,descent theorizers had to relinquish scientific analysis altogether4 ,in conclusion ,fleischmann states that he does not mean to discard every hypothesis of ,descent4 ,he simply gives warning against an over-estimation of the theory4 ,in opposition to those who esteem it as the highest achievement of science1 he looks upon it as a necessary evil4 ,its proper sphere is the laboratory of the man of science1 and not the thronging market-place4 ,the ,descent hypothesis will meet the same fate 7be cast aside71 since its incompatibility with facts of ordinary observation is manifesting itself4 ,at the time of its appearance in a new form1 forty years ago1 it exercised a beneficial influence on scientific progress and induced a great number of capable minds to devote themselves to the study of anatomical1 palaeontological and evolutionary problems4 ,meanwhile1 however1 viewed in the light of a constantly increasing wealth of actual materials1 the hypothesis has become antiquated and the labors of its industrious advocates makes it obvious to unbiased critics1 that it is time to relegate it ad acta4 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 ,my own views agree with those of ,fleischmann as presented above1 except in regard to his last chapter4 ,i must1 of course1 admit that his criticism has discredited the doctrine of ,descent as a scientifically established theory4 ,hence1 as ,i have always asserted1 it must be excluded from the realm of exact science4 ,no doubt people will come gradually to see that the theory involves a creed and therefore belongs to the domain of cosmic philosophy4 ,all this ,i readily admit4 ,not so1 however1 as regards the concept of development4 ,it seems to me to be incorrect to regard this as a logical concept only1 even with reference to organisms4 ,true1 the whole zoological system is in reality nothing more than a logical abstraction4 ,and in view of this fact one must be on one's guard against confusing a logical transformation of concepts with a genealogical development4 ,we must1 however1 not forget that we possess the wonderful analogy of ontogeny 7individual development7 and above all1 the fact of mutation and of metagenesis4 ,and even if we wish to avoid the error of ,haeckel and others who find a necessary connection between ontogeny and phylogeny1 nevertheless the analogy will still entitle us to picture to ourselves the development of the whole range of living organisms4 ,such a representation will1 of course1 have only a subjective value4 ,no doubt1 it is logically unjustifiable to argue from the variable concept to the variability of the species4 ,still there is something real in plants and animals which corresponds to our specific concepts4 ,in some cases the corresponding reality may be so well defined that it is not difficult to form the concept accurately2 whereas in other cases where the task is more difficult1 the difficulty must be due to the object4 ,under these circumstances we may safely conclude from the lack of definiteness in our concepts to a certain lack of rigid delimitation in the organic forms4 ,this blending of certain forms suggests the idea of transformation1 but does not furnish definite proof of it4 ,such proof can be had only by the direct observation of a transformation4 ,and no doubt in certain cases a transformation may occur4 ,as regards animals1 ,i may call attention1 for instance1 to the experiments made with butterflies by ,standfuss1 and as regards plants1 to the experiments of ,haberlandt1 of which ,i treated in ,chapter ,,iii4 ,the limits within which these transformations take place are indeed very narrow as are also the limits of those indisputable varieties which naturally arise within an otherwise rigidly defined species4 ,i am aware that the transformation of one species into another has not yet been effected1 but the above-mentioned attempts at transformation have nevertheless demonstrated that certain organic forms when subjected to changed conditions of life1 display certain mutations which clearly show that variability is to be attributed1 not1 certainly1 to the specific concepts1 but to the corresponding reality4 ,this observation and reflexion1 joined with the fact that organisms form a progressive series from the simple to the more complex1 and with the observed phenomena of individual development1 lead me to regard the concept of ,descent as admissible1 and in a certain sense1 even probable4 ,but ,i agree with ,fleischmann in saying that this is a mere belief1 and that all attempts to give it a higher scientific value by inductive proof have signally failed4 ,my standpoint1 moreover1 requires me to admit the validity of the hypothesis of ,descent as an heuristic maxim of natural science4 ,i believe that we shall be justified in the future1 as we were forty years ago1 in directing our investigation in the direction of ,descent1 and ,i do not consider such investigation so utterly hopeless as ,fleischmann represents it4 ,however1 ,i entirely concur with him in the opinion that we are here concerned 7and shall be for a long time to come7 with a mere hypothesis which belongs not in the market-place1 nor among the world views of the multitude1 but in the study of the man of science4 ,above all it must not be mixed up with religious questions4 ,whether the hypothesis will ever emerge from the study of the man of science as a well-attested law1 is still an open question1 incapable of immediate solution4 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 ,it is of interest for us to inquire what reception ,fleischmann's protest against the theory of ,descent has been accorded by his associates4 ,fleischmann was formerly an advocate of the theory of ,descent4 ,he was a pupil and assistant of ,selenka1 who was then at ,erlangen 7died in ,muenster #aijb74 ,he had previously written a number of scientific works from the standpoint of the ,descent theory4 ,in the year #ahia1 investigations regarding rodents led him to oppose that theory4 ,during the winter term of #ahia-ib he gave evidence of this change in a public lecture4 ,not until #ahie was there question of his appointment to the chair of zoology in ,erlangen4 ,in #ahih he published a ,manual of ,zoology based on principles radically opposed to the doctrine of ,descent4 ,this manual irritated ,haeckel so much that he issued one of his well-known articles1 ,ascending and ,descending ,zoology1 in which1 after his usual manner1 he casts suspicion on ,fleischmann of having received his appointment to the chair at ,erlangen by becoming an anti-,darwinian in accordance with a desire expressed at the diet of ,bavaria4 ,i am not aware that ,haeckel has paid any attention to the work of ,fleischmann which we have just reviewed4 ,by its publication1 however1 the author disturbed a hornet's nest4 ,dispassionate1 but still entirely adverse is ,professor ,plate's review in the ,biologisches ,zentralblatt1 while the ,umschau publishes two criticisms1 one by ,professor von ,wagner1 the other by ,dr4 ,reh1 which for want of sense could not well be equalled4 ,it was the former who furnished material for our sixth chapter and who there displayed such utter confusion of thought regarding the inductive method4 ,the same confusion is apparent in his recent utterance in which he observes that ,fleischmann's whole aim is to accumulate observational data1 meanwhile avoiding speculation as far as possible4 ,his criticism is replete with bitter personal epithets1 e4g41 reactionary1 mental incompetency1 dishonest mask of hypercritical exactness1 which manifest the writer's inability to enter upon an objective discussion of the question4 ,a still more reprehensible position is assumed by ,dr4 ,reh1 who censures ,fleischmann for introducing to the general public the question of ,descent which belongs properly to the forum of science4 ,he claims that ,fleischmann1 by so doing1 forfeited his right to an unbiased hearing4 ,dr4 ,reh forgets that but a short time ago he had no word of censure for ,haeckel's ,weltraetsel which was intended for a far wider circle of readers4 ,he next appropriates ,haeckel's suspicion regarding ,fleischmann which we noticed above1 and then adds the entirely untrue assertion that the first half of ,fleischmann's ,manual1 written before he took possession of the chair in ,erlangen1 is written in the spirit of ,darwin1 whereas the second half which appeared at a later date is written in the contrary spirit4 ,he then takes individual points of ,fleischmann's treatise out of their context in order to execute a cheap and nonsensical criticism of them4 ,haeckel has evidently been giving instructions on the best manner of dealing with adversaries4 ,and very docile disciples they are who imitate his method even to the extent of defaming and abusing their scientific opponents4 ,but is not this another plain indication of the decay of ,darwinism8 ,of course ,haeckel recognized at the very beginning of his career that it was necessary to support the theory by means of personal bitterness1 forgeries and misrepresentations4 ,but if the last surviving advocates of ,darwinism must needs have recourse to the same disreputable means1 to what a low estate1 indeed1 has it fallen6 ,let us hope that these last wild convulsions are really the signs of approaching dissolution4 ,,chapter ,x4 ,in order to judge of the present status of ,darwinism it is of primary importance to note the position assumed by the few really eminent investigators1 who as pupils of ,haeckel still seem to have remained true to him4 ,among these ,i reckon ,oskar ,hertwig1 the well known ,berlin anatomist4 ,as early as #ahii in an address at the ,university on1 ,die ,lehre vom ,organismus und ihre ,beziehung zur ,sozialwissenschaft1 ,hertwig gave expression to views which are very little in harmony with the doctrines proceeding from ,jena1 and which are also put forth in his manual1 ,the ,cell and the ,tissue4 ,in that address we read 7p4 #h73 ,with the same right1 with which1 for the good of scientific progress1 an energetic protest has been raised against a certain mysticism which attaches to the word ,vitality1 ,i beg to give warning against an opposite extreme which is but too apt to lead to onesided and unreal1 and hence also1 ultimately to false notions of the vital process1 against an extreme which would see in the vital process nothing but a chemico-physical and mechanical problem and thinks to arrive at true scientific knowledge only in so far as it succeeds in tracing back phenomena to the movements of repelling and attracting atoms and in subjecting them to mathematical calculation4 ,with right does the physicist ,mach1 with reference to such views and tendencies1 speak of a 'mechanical mythology in opposition to the animistic mythology of the old religions' and considers both as improper and fantastic exaggerations based on a one-sided judgment4 ,my position on the question just stated becomes apparent from the consideration that the living organism is not only a complex of chemical materials and a bearer of physical forces1 but also possesses a special organization1 a structure1 by means of which it is very essentially differentiated from the inorganic world1 and in virtue of which it alone is designated as living4 ,here1 then1 the distinction between living and non-living nature is clearly and definitely expressed1 and ,hertwig expresses himself just as definitely when he says 7p4 #ba73 ,whereas1 but a few decades ago a scientific materialistic conception of the world issuing from a onesided1 unhistorical point of view1 misjudged the significance of the historic religious and ethical forces in the development of mankind1 a change has become apparent in this regard4 ,to this gratifying testimony against materialism the distinguished naturalist added an equally valuable testimony regarding ,darwinism on the occasion of the naturalists' convention in #aijj4 ,he there sketched an excellent summary of the ,development of ,biology in the ,nineteenth ,century1 in which he decidedly opposes the materialistic-mechanical conception of life4 ,in so doing he also touches upon ,haeckel's carbon-hypothesis1 to which the latter still clings1 and says3 ,that from the properties of carbon1 combined with the properties of oxygen1 hydrogen1 nitrogen1 etc41 in certain proportions albumen should result1 is a process which in its essence is as incomprehensible as that a living cell should arise from a certain organization of different albumina4 ,then the speaker is inevitably led to speak of the doctrine of ,descent and ,darwinism4 ,in the first place he declares definitely that ontogeny alone1 i4e41 the development of the individual being1 is capable of a direct scientific investigation4 ,on the other hand we move in the domain of hypotheses in dealing with the further question3 ,how have the species of organisms living to-day originated in the course of the world's history8 ,this is a very valuable admission in view of ,haeckel's dogmatic assertion that the descent of man from the ape is a certain historical fact4 ,very moderate and pertinent are also the further words of the speaker3 ,of course1 a philosophically trained investigator will regard it as axiomatic that the organisms which inhabit our earth to-day did not exist in their present form in earlier periods of the earth and that they had to pass through a process of development1 beginning with the simplest forms4 ,but in the attempt to outline in detail the particular form in which a species of animals of our day existed in remote antiquity1 we lose the safe ground of experience4 ,for out of the countless millions of organisms1 that lived in earlier periods of the earth1 the duration of which is measured by millions of years1 only scanty skeleton remains have by way of exception been preserved in a fossil state4 ,from these naturally but a very imperfect and hypothetical representation can be formed of the soft bodies with which they were once clothed4 ,and even then it remains forever doubtful whether the progeny of the prehistoric creature1 the scant remains of which we study1 has not become entirely extinct1 so that it can in no way be regarded as the progenitor of any creature living at present4 ,i should like to know wherein this differs radically from ,fleischmann's contention in his ,descendenztheorie 7p4 #aj47 ,for we find stated here what ,fleischmann emphasizes so much1 viz41 that with the problem of ,descent we leave the domain of experience4 ,it is worthy of special note in this connection that ,hertwig likewise evidently regards as the sole really empirically and inductively serviceable proof of ,descent1 that which is drawn from palaeontology1 from prehistoric animal and plant remains4 ,he makes not the least mention of the indirect proofs taken from ontogenetic development or comparative anatomy1 to which the ,darwinians and advocates of ,descent love so much to appeal1 because they feel that the real inductive proof is lacking and totally fails to sustain their position4 ,hertwig next points out that the problem of ,descent stirred scientific as well as lay circles twice during the past century4 ,he then pays ,lamarck and ,darwin the necessary tribute1 at which we cannot take offense since he was reared in the ,darwinian atmosphere of ,jena4 ,i also willingly admit that ,darwinism served science as a powerful ferment1 even if ,i must emphasize just as decidedly how harmful it was that this ferment was introduced into lay circles at an unseasonable time by the apostles of materialism4 ,for while it was very well adapted to bring about in educated circles a fermentation which produced beneficial results1 in uncritical lay-circles this ferment produced nothing but a corruption of world-views4 ,hertwig then designates ,struggle for ,existence1 ,survival of the ,fittest1 and ,selection1 as very indefinite expressions4 ,with too general terms1 one does not explain the individual case or produces only the appearance of an explanation whereas in every case the true causative relations remain in the dark4 ,but it is the duty of scientific investigation to establish for each observed effect the prevenient cause1 or more correctly1 since nothing results from a single cause1 to discover the various causes4 ,the origin of the world of organisms from natural causes1 however1 is certainly an unusually complicated and difficult problem4 ,it is just as little capable of being solved by a single magic formula as every disease is of yielding to a panacea4 ,by the very act of proclaiming the omnipotence of natural selection1 ,weismann found he was forced to the admission that3 as a rule we cannot furnish the proof that a definite adaptation has originated through natural selection1 in other words3 ,we know nothing in reality of the complexity of causes which has produced the given phenomenon4 ,so we may on the contrary1 with ,spencer1 speak of the ,impotence of ,natural ,selection4 ,in this scientific struggle with which the past century closed1 it seems necessary to distinguish between the doctrine of evolution and the theory of selection4 ,they are based on entirely different principles4 ,for with ,huxley we can say3 ,even if the ,darwinian hypothesis were blown away1 the doctrine of ,evolution would remain standing where it stood4 ,in it we possess an acquisition of our century which rests on facts1 and which undoubtedly ranks amongst its greatest4 ,this last sentence affirms exactly what ,i have repeatedly asserted3 the doctrine of ,descent remains1 ,darwinism passes away4 ,hertwig then is decidedly of opinion that ,darwinism entirely fails in the individual case because in its application the basis of experience vanishes4 ,indeed1 according to him1 phylogeny is not at all capable of direct scientific investigation4 ,these are all important admissions which one would certainly have considered impossible twenty years ago2 they unequivocally indicate the decline of ,darwinian views1 and in a certain way also harmonize with ,fleischmann's work4 ,true1 ,hertwig still clings to the thought of ,descent1 but apparently no longer as to a conclusion of natural science4 ,this appears from the assertion3 ,ontogeny alone is capable of a direct scientific 7he evidently speaks of natural science7 investigation1 and from the other statement that a philosophically trained investigator will accept it 7,descent7 as axiomatic although it belongs to the domain of hypothesis4 ,what else does this mean but that3 ,we have no specific knowledge of ,descent but we believe in it4 ,in short1 this is not natural science but natural philosophy2 it forms no constituent part of our certain knowledge of nature but it is one aspect of our world-view4 ,all the above-quoted assertions of ,hertwig are calm and well-considered and show a decided deviation from the ,darwinian position4 ,above all we are pleased to note that he appropriates ,spencer's phrase regarding the ,impotence of ,natural ,selection and that in the citation from ,huxley he at least admits the possibility that the ,darwinian doctrine will be wafted away4 ,it is also proper to mention here the fact that in another place ,hertwig no longer recognizes so fully the dogma set up by ,fritz ,mueller and ,haeckel which is so closely bound up with ,darwinism4 ,i mean the so-called biogenetic principle according to which the individual organism is supposed to repeat in its development the development of the race during the course of ages4 ,in his book3 ,the ,cell and the ,tissue 7,die ,zelle und die ,gewebe1 ,,ii4 ,jena #ahih1 p4 #bgc7 ,hertwig says3 ,we must drop the expression3 'repetition of forms of extinct ancestors' and employ instead3 repetition of forms which accord with the laws of organic development and lead from the simple to the complex4 ,we must lay special emphasis on the point that in the embryonic forms even as in the developed animal forms general laws of the development of the organized body-substance find expression4 ,any one can subscribe to these statements2 in truth they contain something totally different from the biogenetic principle2 for ,haeckel has really no interest in so general a truth1 but is intent only upon a proof of ,descent4 ,hertwig continues3 ,in order to make our train of thought clear1 let us take the egg-cell4 ,since the development of every organism begins with it1 the primitive condition is in no way recapitulated from the time when perhaps only single-celled amoebas existed on our planet4 ,for according to our theory the egg-cell1 for instance1 of a now extant mammal is no simple and indifferent1 purposeless structure1 as it is often represented1 7as according to ,haeckel's biogenetic principle it would necessarily be72 we see in it1 in fact1 the extraordinarily complex end-product of a very long historic process of development1 through which the organic substance has passed since that hypothetical epoch of single-celled organisms4 ,if the eggs of a mammal now differ very essentially from those of a reptile and of an amphibian because in their organization they represent the beginnings only of mammals1 even as these represent only the beginnings of reptiles and amphibians1 by how much more must they differ from those hypothetical single-celled amoebas which could as yet show no other characteristics than to reproduce amoebas of their own kind4 ,this is a view which has frequently been clearly expressed by anti-,darwinians3 ,the egg-cells of the various animals are in themselves fundamentally different and can therefore have nothing in common but similarity of structure4 ,in opposition to ,hertwig1 ,haeckel in his superficial way deduces from it an internal similarity as well4 ,after a few polite bows before his old teacher1 ,haeckel1 ,hertwig thus summarizes his view3 ,ontogenetic 7that is1 those stages in the individual development7 stages therefore give us only a greatly changed picture of the phylogenetic 7i4e41 genealogical7 stages as they may once have existed in primitive ages1 but do not correspond to them in their actual content4 ,this is a very resigned position1 very far removed from ,haeckel's certainty and orthodoxy4 ,to sum up3 ,o4 ,hertwig has become a serious heretic in matters ,darwinian4 ,will ,haeckel1 in his usual manner try to cast suspicion on ,hertwig also8 ,for ,haeckel himself says 7,free ,science and ,free ,doctrine1 ,stuttgart1 #ahgh1 p4 #he73 ,since ,i am not bound by fear to the ,berlin ,tribunal of ,science or by anxieties regarding the loss of influential ,berlin connections1 as are most of my like-minded colleagues1 ,i do not hesitate here as elsewhere to express my honest conviction1 frankly and freely1 regardless of the anger which perhaps real or pretended privy councillors in ,berlin may feel upon hearing the unadorned truth4 ,verily1 it is a matter of suspense to know whether his school will now pour forth their wrath upon ,o4 ,hertwig1 or whether finally the discovery will not be made in ,jena that ,hertwig secretly possessed himself of his position in ,berlin1 in the same manner as ,fleischmann obtained his at ,erlangen1 viz41 by a promise of desertion from ,darwinism4 ,,conclusion4 ,we may conveniently summarize what we have said in the foregoing chapters in the following statement3 ,the theory of ,descent is almost universally recognized to-day by naturalists as a working hypothesis4 ,still1 in spite of assertions to the contrary1 no conclusive proof of it has as yet been forthcoming4 ,nevertheless it cannot be denied that the theory provides us with an intelligible explanation of a series of problems and facts which cannot be so well explained on other grounds4 ,on the other hand1 ,darwinism1 i4e41 the theory of ,natural ,selection by means of the ,struggle for ,existence1 is being pushed to the wall all along the line4 ,the bulk of naturalists no longer recognizes its validity1 and even those who have not yet entirely discarded it1 are at least forced to admit that the ,darwinian explanation now possesses a very subordinate significance4 ,in the place of ,darwinian principles1 new ideas are gradually winning general acceptance1 which1 while they are in harmony with the principles of adaptation and use1 7,lamarck7 enunciated before the time of ,darwin1 nevertheless attribute a far-reaching importance to internal forces of development4 ,these new conceptions necessarily involve the admission that ,evolution has not been a purely mechanical process4 ,,the ,,book ,,of ,,the ,,day ,science and ,christianity ,by ,f4 ,,bettex ,translated from the ,german ,the author among other things says in the preface3 ,i wish to make clear to my readers how little real science is hidden behind the fine phrases and sounding words or the infidel1 and how little he himself understands of the material creation which he affirms to be the only one4444 ,the ,christian and ,biblical conception of the universe is more logical1 more harmonious1 more in accordance with facts1 therefore1 more scientific than all philosophies1 all systems1 materialistic and atheistic4 ,contents of the book3 ,chapter ,i4 ,progress ,chapter ,,ii4 ,evolution and ,modern ,science ,chapter ,,iii4 ,christians and ,science ,chapter ,,iv4 ,science ,chapter ,v4 ,materialism ,one of the many favorable reviews3 ,it is a view of much scope1 and so far as it attempts reconciliation between science and christianity1 is eminently successful4 ,there can be no doubt that at present1 when there is so pronounced a disposition to follow every fad in science1 especially if it opposes the ,bible1 such a book should have a wide reading and is adapted to accomplish much good4 ,price #a4ej ,,german ,,literary ,,board1 ,burlington1 ,iowa