,transcriber's ,notes ,obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected4 ,variations in hyphenation have been standardised but all other spelling1 punctuation and accents remains unchanged4 ,italics are represented thus italic1 bold thus bold4 ,a reference to ,monism as 8destructive of culture1 etc40 in the index to page #dej1 which does not exist1 has been changed to #cej4 ,the repetition of section titles on consecutive pages has been removed4 ,,the ,,case ,,against ,,evolution publisher's monogram ,,the ,,macmillan ,,company ,,new ,,york ,,boston ,,chicago ,,dallas ,,atlanta ,,san ,,francisco ,,macmillan ,,co41 ,,limited ,,london ,,bombay ,,calcutta ,,melbourne ,,the ,,macmillan ,,co4 ,,of ,,canada1 ,,ltd4 ,,toronto ,,the ,,case ,,against ,,evolution ,,by ,,george ,,barry ,o',,toole1 ,,ph4 ,d41 ,s4,t4,d4 ,,professor ,,of ,,theology ,,and ,,professor ,,emeritus ,,of ,,philosophy1 ,,st4 ,,vincent ,,archabbey2 ,,professor ,,of ,,animal ,,biology1 ,,seton ,,hill ,,college ,new ,york ,,the ,,macmillan ,,company #aibf ,all rights reserved ,,copyright1 #aibe1 ,,by ,,the ,,macmillan ,,company4 ,set up and electrotyped4 ,published ,april1 #aibe4 ,reprinted ,february1 #aibf4 ,printed in the ,united ,states of ,america by ,j4 ,j4 ,,little ,,and ,,ives ,,company1 ,,new ,,york ,,to ,,my ,,mother ,,addenda ,,note ,,to ,,page #bc4-- ,as a result of recent investigations on the sex chromosomes and chromosome numbers in mammals1 ,theophilus ,s4 ,painter reaches the conclusions that polyploidy cannot be invoked to explain evolution within this class4 ,after giving a table of chromosome numbers for #g out of the #i eutherian orders1 ,painter concludes3 8,the facts recorded above are of especial interest in that they indicate a unity of chromosome composition above the marsupial level and effectively dispose of the suggestion that extensive polyploidy may have occurred within this subclass4 8,in the marsupials the chromosome number is a low one and in the opossum is #bb4 ,at first sight it might appear that the eutherian condition might have arisen from this by tetraploidy4 ,there are two objections1 however4 ,in the first place the bulk of the chromatin in marsupials is about the same as in the eutheria1 using the sex chromosome as our measure4 ,in the second place1 polyploidy could scarcely occur successfully in animals with ,x-,y sex chromosomes1 as most mammals possess1 because of the complication occurring in the sex chromosome balance0 7,science1 ,april #ag1 #aibe1 p4 #dbd74 ,as the ,x-,y type of sex chromosomes occurs widely not only among vertebrates1 but also among insects1 nematodes1 and echinoderms1 ,painter's latter objection excludes evolution by polyploidy from a large portion of the animal kingdom4 ,,note ,,to ,,page #ij4-- ,especially reprehensible1 in this respect1 are the reconstructions of the ,pithecanthropus1 the ,eoanthropus1 and other alleged pitheco-human links modeled by ,mc,gregor and others4 ,these imaginative productions1 in which cranial fragments are arbitrarily completed and fancifully overlayed with a veneering of human features1 have no scientific value or justification4 ,it is consoling1 therefore1 to note that the great ,french palontologist1 ,marcelin ,boule1 in his recent book 8,les ,hommes ,fossiles0 7,paris1 #aiba71 has entered a timely protest against the appearance of such reconstructions in serious scientific works4 8,dubois and ,manouvrier10 he says1 8have given reconstructions of the skull and even of the head 7of the ,pithecanthropus74 ,these attempts made by medical men1 are much too hypothetical1 because we do not possess a single element for the reconstruction of the basis of the brain case1 or of the jawbones4 ,we are surprised to see that a great palontologist1 ,osborn1 publishes efforts of this kind4 ,dubois proceeded still farther in the realm of imagination when he exhibited at the universal exposition of ,paris a plastic and painted reproduction of the ,pithecanthropus0 7op4 cit41 p4 #aje74 ,and elsewhere he remarks3 8,some true savants have published portraits1 covered with flesh and hair1 not only of the ,neandertal ,man1 whose skeleton is known well enough today1 but also of the ,man of ,piltdown1 whose remnants are so fragmentary2 of the ,man of ,heidelberg1 of whom we have only the lower jawbone2 of the ,pithecanthropus1 of whom there exists only a piece of the cranium and 444 two teeth4 ,such reproductions may have their place in works of the lowest popularization4 ,but they very much deface the books1 though otherwise valuable1 into which they are introduced40 444 8,men of science--and of conscience--know the difficulties of such attempts too well to regard them as anything more than a pastime0 7op4 cit41 p4 #bbg74 ,,note ,,to ,,page #cdb4-- ,a fourth possibility is suggested by the case of the so-called skull of the ,galley ,hill ,man1 of whose importance as a prehistoric link ,sir ,arthur ,keith held a very high opinion1 but which has since turned out to be no skull at all1 but merely an odd-shaped piece of stone4 ,,contents ,,page ,,foreword xi ,,part ,i--,,evolution ,,in ,,general ,,chapter ,i ,,the ,,present ,,crisis ,,in ,,evolutionary ,,thought #a ,,ii ,,homology ,,and ,,its ,,evolutionary ,,interpretation #ca ,,iii ,,fossil ,,pedigrees #ff ,,part ,,ii--,,the ,,problem ,,of ,,origins ,i ,,the ,,origin ,,of ,,life #aca ,,ii ,,the ,,origin ,,of ,,the ,,human ,,soul #ahi ,,iii ,,the ,,origin ,,of ,,the ,,human ,,body #bfh ,,afterword #cdi ,,glossary ,,index ,,to ,,authors ,,index ,,of ,,subjects ,,foreword ,the literature on the subject of evolution has already attained such vast dimensions that any attempt to add to it has the appearance of being both superfluous and presumptuous4 ,it is1 however1 in the fact that the generality of modern works are frankly partisan in their treatment of this theme that the publication of the present work finds justification4 ,for the philosophers and scientists of the day evolution is evidently something which admits of no debate and which must be maintained at all costs4 ,these thinkers are too intent upon making out a plausible case for the theory to take anything more than the mildest interest in the facts opposed to it4 ,if they advert to them at all1 it is always to minimize1 and never to accentuate1 their antagonistic force4 ,for the moment1 at any rate1 the minds of scientific writers are closed to unfavorable1 and open only to favorable1 evidence1 so that one must look elsewhere than in their pages for adequate presentation of the case against evolution4 ,the present work aims at setting forth the side of the question which it is now the fashion to suppress4 ,it refuses to be bound by the convention which prescribes that evolution shall be leniently criticized4 ,it proceeds1 in fact1 upon the opposite assumption1 namely1 that a genuinely scientific theory ought not to stand in need of indulgence1 but should be able1 on the contrary1 to endure the acid test of merciless criticism4 ,evolution has been termed a 8necessary hypothesis40 ,we have no quarrel with the phrase1 provided it really means evolution as an hypothesis1 and not evolution as a dogma4 ,for1 obviously1 the problem of a gradual differentiation of organic species cannot even be investigated upon the fixistic assumption1 inasmuch as this assumption destroys the problem at the very outset4 ,unless we assume the possibility1 at least1 that modern species of plants and animals may have been the product of a gradual process1 there is no problem to investigate4 ,it is1 however1 a far cry from the possibility to the actuality2 and the mere fact that an hypothesis is necessary as an incentive to investigation does not by any means imply that the result of the investigation will be the vindication of its inspirational hypothesis4 ,on the contrary1 research often results in the overthrow of the very hypothesis which led to its inception4 ,we can1 therefore1 quite readily admit the necessity of evolution as an hypothesis1 while rejecting its necessity as a dogma4 ,assent to evolution as a dogma is advocated not only by materialists1 who see in evolutionary cosmogony proof positive of their monism and the complete overthrow of the idea of ,creation1 but also by certain ,catholic scientists1 who seem to fear that religion may become involved in the anticipated ruin of fixism4 ,thus all resistance to the theory of evolution is deprecated by ,father ,wasmann and ,canon ,dorlodot on the assumption that the ultimate triumph of this theory is inevitable1 and that failure to make provision for this eventuality will lead to just such another blunder as theologians of the sixteenth century made in connection with the ,copernican theory4 ,recollection of the ,galileo incident is1 doubtless1 salutary1 in so far as it suggests the wisdom of caution and the imperative necessity of close contact with ascertained facts1 but a consideration of this sort is no warrant whatever for an uncritical acceptance of what still remains unverified4 ,history testifies that verification followed close upon the heels of the initial proposal of the heliocentric theory1 but the whole trend of scientific discovery has been to destroy1 rather than to confirm1 all definite formulations of the evolutional theory1 in spite of the immense erudition expended in revising them4 ,there is1 in brief1 no parity at all between ,transformism and the ,copernican theory4 ,among other points of difference1 ,tuccimei notes especially the following3 8,the ,copernican system10 he remarks1 8explains that which is1 whereas evolution attempts to explain that which was2 it enters1 in other words1 into the problem of origins1 an insoluble problem in the estimation of many illustrious evolutionists1 according to whom no experimental verification is possible1 given the processes and factors in conjunction with which the theory was proposed4 ,but what is of still greater significance for those who desire to see a parallelism between the two theories is the fact that the ,copernican system became1 with the discoveries of ,newton1 a demonstrated thesis1 scarcely fifty years after the death of ,galileo2 the theory of evolution1 on the other hand1 is at the present day no longer able to hold its own even as an hypothesis1 so numerous are its incoherencies and the objections to it raised by its own partisans40 78,la ,decadenza di una ,teoria10 #aijh1 p4 #aa47 ,the prospect1 then1 of a renewal of the ,galileo episode is exceedingly remote4 ,far more imminent to the writer seems the danger that the well-intentioned rescuers of religion may be obliged to perform a most humiliating volte face1 after having accepted all too hastily a doctrine favored only for the time being in scientific circles4 ,it is1 in fact1 by no means inconceivable that the scientific world will eventually discard the now prevalent dogma of evolution4 ,in that case those who have seen fit to reconcile religion with evolution will have the questionable pleasure of unreconciling it in response to this reversal of scientific opinion4 ,on the whole1 the safest attitude toward evolution is the agnostic one4 ,it commits us to no uncertain position4 ,it does not compromise our intellectual sincerity by requiring us to accept the dogmatism of scientific orthodoxy as a substitute for objective evidence4 ,it precludes the possible embarrassment of having to unsay what we formerly said4 ,and last1 but not least1 it is the attitude of simple truth2 for the truest thing that ,science is1 or ever will be1 able to say concerning the problem of organic origins is that she knows nothing about it4 ,in the present work1 we shall endeavor to show that ,evolution has long since degenerated into a dogma1 which is believed in spite of the facts1 and not on account of them4 ,the first three chapters deal with the theory in general1 discussing in turn its genetical1 morphological1 and geological aspects4 ,the last three chapters are devoted to the problem of origins1 and treat of the genesis of life1 of the human soul1 and of the human body1 respectively4 ,while this book is in no sense a work of 8popular science10 ,i have sought to broaden its scope and interest by combining the scientific with the philosophic viewpoint4 ,certain portions of the text are unavoidably technical1 but there is much1 besides1 that the general reader will be able to follow without difficulty4 ,students1 especially of biology1 geology1 and experimental psychology1 may use it to advantage as supplementary reading in connection with their textbooks4 ,i wish to acknowledge herewith my indebtedness to the ,editor of the ,catholic ,educational ,review1 ,rev4 ,george ,johnson1 ,ph4 ,d41 to whose suggestion and encouragement the inception of this work was largely due4 ,i desire also to express my sincere appreciation of the services rendered in the revision of the manuscript by the ,rev4 ,edward ,wenstrup1 ,o4,s4,b41 ,professor of ,zology1 ,st4 ,vincent ,college1 ,pennsylvania4 ,,barry ,o',,toole4 ,,st4 ,,vincent ,,archabbey1 ,january #cj1 #aibe4 ,,part ,i ,,evolution ,,in ,,general ,,chapter ,i ,,the ,,present ,,crisis ,,in ,,evolutionary ,,thought ,three prominent men1 a scientist1 a publicist1 and an orator1 have recently made pronouncements on the theory of ,evolution4 ,the trio1 of course1 to whom allusion is made1 are ,bateson1 ,wells1 and ,bryan4 ,as a result of their utterances1 there has been a general reawakening of interest in the problem to which they drew attention4 ,again and again1 in popular as well as scientific publications1 men are raising and answering the question3 8,is ,darwinism dead80 ,manifold and various are the answers given1 but none of them appears to take the form of an unqualified affirmation or negation4 ,some reply by drawing a distinction between ,darwinism1 as a synonym for the theory of evolution in general1 and ,darwinism1 in the sense of the particular form of that theory which had ,darwin for its author4 ,modern research1 they assure us1 has not affected the former1 but has necessitated a revision of ideas with respect to the latter4 ,there are other forms of evolution besides ,darwinism1 and1 as a matter of fact1 not ,darwin1 but ,lamarck was the originator of the scientific theory of evolution4 ,others1 though imitating the prudence of the first group in their avoidance of a categorical answer1 prefer to reply by means of a distinction based upon their interpretation of the realities of the problem rather than upon any mere terminological consideration4 ,of the second group1 some1 like ,osborn1 distinguish between the law of evolution and the theoretical explanations of this law proposed by individual scientists4 ,the existence of the law itself1 they insist1 is not open to question2 it is only with respect to hypotheses explanatory of the aforesaid law that doubt and disagreement exist4 ,the obvious objection to such a solution is that1 if evolution is really a law of nature1 it ought to be reducible to some clear-cut mathematical formula comparable to the formulations of the laws of constant1 multiple1 and reciprocal proportion in chemistry1 or of the laws of segregation1 assortment1 and linkage in genetics4 ,assuming1 then1 that it is a genuine law1 how is it that today no one ventures to formulate this evolutional law in definite and quantitative terms8 ,others1 comprising1 perhaps1 a majority1 prefer to distinguish between the fact and the causes of evolution4 ,practically all scientists1 they aver1 agree in accepting evolution as an established fact2 it is only with reference to the agencies of evolution that controversy and uncertainty are permissible4 ,to this contention one may justly reply that1 by all the canons of linguistic usage1 a fact is an observed or experienced event1 and that hitherto no one in the past or present has ever been privileged to witness with his senses even so elemental a phenomenon in the evolutionary process as the actual origin of a new and genuine organic species4 ,if1 however1 the admission be made that the term 8fact0 is here used in an untechnical sense to denote an inferred event postulated for the purpose of interpreting certain natural phenomena1 then the statement that the majority of modern scientists agree as to the 8fact0 of evolution may be allowed to stand1 with no further comment than to note that the formidable number and prestige of the advocates fail to intimidate us4 ,considerations of this sort are wholly irrelevant1 for in science no less than in philosophy authority is worth as much as its arguments and no more4 ,the limited knowledge of the facts possessed by the biologists of the nineteenth century left their imaginations perilously unfettered and permitted them to indulge in a veritable orgy of theorizing4 ,now1 however1 that the trail blazed by the great ,augustinian ,abbot1 ,mendel1 has been rediscovered1 work of real value is being done with the seed pan1 the incubator1 the microtome1 etc41 and the wings of irresponsible speculation are clipped4 ,recent advances in this new field of ,mendelian genetics have made it possible to subject to critical examination all that formerly went under the name of 8experimental evidence0 of evolution4 ,even with respect to the inferential or circumstantial evidence from palontology1 the enormous deluge of fossils unearthed by the tireless zeal of modern investigators has annihilated1 by its sheer complexity1 the hasty generalizations and facile simplifications of a generation ago1 forcing the adoption of a more critical attitude4 ,formerly1 a graded series of fossil genera sufficed for the construction of a 8palontological pedigree02 now1 the worker in this field demands that the chain of descent shall be constructed with species1 instead of genera1 for links--8,not till we have linked species into lineages1 can we group them into genera40 7,f4 ,a4 ,bather1 ,science1 ,sept4 #ag1 #aibj1 p4 #bfd47 ,this remarkable progress in scientific studies has tended to precipitate the crisis in evolutionary thought1 which we propose to consider in the present chapter4 ,before doing so1 however1 it will be of advantage to formulate a clear statement of the problem at issue4 ,evolution1 or transformism1 as it is more properly called1 may be defined as the theory which regards the present species of plants and animals as modified descendants of earlier forms of life4 ,nowadays1 therefore1 the principal use of the term evolution is to denote the developmental theory of organic species4 ,it is1 however1 a word of many senses4 ,in the eighteenth century1 for example1 it was employed in a sense at variance with the present usage1 that is1 to designate the non-developmental theory of embryological encasement or preformation as opposed to the developmental theory of epigenesis4 ,according to the theory of encasement1 the adult organism did not arise by the generation of new parts 7epigenesis71 but by a mere 8unfolding0 7evolutio7 of prexistent parts4 ,at present1 however1 evolution is used as a synonym for transformism1 though it has other meanings1 besides1 being sometimes used to signify the formation of inorganic nature as well as the transformation of organic species4 ,evolution1 in the sense of transformism1 is opposed to fixism1 the older theory of ,linn1 according to whom no specific change is possible in plants and animals1 all organisms being assumed to have persisted in essential sameness of type from the dawn of organic life down to the present day4 ,the latter theory admits the possibility of environmentally-induced modifications1 which are non-germinal and therefore non-inheritable4 ,it also admits the possibility of germinal changes of the varietal1 as opposed to the specific1 order1 but it maintains that all such changes are confined within the limits of the species1 and that the boundaries of an organic species are impassable4 ,transformism1 on the contrary1 affirms the possibility of specific change1 and assumes that the boundaries of organic species have actually been traversed4 ,what1 then1 is an organic species8 ,it may be defined as a group of organisms endowed with the hardihood necessary to survive and propagate themselves under natural conditions 7i4e4 in the wild state71 exhibiting a common inheritable type1 differing from one another by no major germinal difference1 perfectly interfertile with one another1 but sexually incompatible with members of an alien specific group1 in such wise that they produce hybrids wholly1 or partially1 sterile1 when crossed with organisms outside their own specific group4 ,david ,starr ,jordan has wisely called attention to the requisite of viability and survival under natural conditions4 8,a species10 he says1 8is not merely a form or group of individuals distinguished from other groups by definable features4 ,a complete definition involves longevity4 ,a species is a kind of animal or plant which has run the gauntlet of the ages and persisted4444 ,a form is not a species until it has #8stood4'0 7,science1 ,oct4 #bj1 #aibb1 p4 #ddh47 ,sexual 7gametic7 incompatibility as a criterion of specific distinction1 presupposes the bisexual or biparental mode of reproduction1 namely1 syngamy1 and is therefore chiefly applicable to the metista1 although1 if the view tentatively proposed by the protozologist1 ,e4 ,a4 ,minchin1 be correct1 it would also be applicable to the protista4 ,according to this view1 no protist type is a true species1 unless it is maintained by syngamy 7i4e4 bisexual reproduction7--8,not until syngamy was acquired10 says ,minchin1 8could true species exist among the ,protista40 78,an ,introduction to the ,study of the ,protozoa10 p4 #ada47 ,to return1 however1 to the metista1 the horse 7,equus caballus7 and the ass 7,equus asinus7 represent two distinct species under a common genus4 ,this is indicated by the fact that the mule1 which is the hybrid offspring of their cross1 is entirely sterile1 producing no offspring whatever1 when mated with ass1 horse1 or mule4 ,such total sterility1 however1 is not essential to the proof of specific differentiation2 it suffices that the hybrid be less fertile than its parents4 ,as early as #afhf1 sterility 7total or partial7 of the hybrid was laid down by ,john ,ray as the fundamental criterion of specific distinction4 ,hence ,bateson complains that ,darwinian philosophy flagrantly 8ignored the chief attribute of species first pointed out by ,john ,ray that the product of their crosses is frequently sterile in a greater or lesser degree40 7,science1 ,jan4 #bj1 #aibb1 p4 #eh47 ,accordingly1 the sameness of type required in members of the same species refers rather to the genotype1 that is1 the sum-total of internal hereditary factors latent in the germ1 than to the phenotype1 that is1 the expressed somatic characters1 viz4 the color1 structure1 size1 weight1 and all other perceptible properties1 in terms of which a given plant or animal is described4 ,thus it sometimes happens that two distinct species1 like the pear-tree and the apple-tree1 resemble each other more closely1 as regards their external or somatic characters1 than two varieties belonging to one and the same species4 ,nevertheless1 the pear-tree and the apple-tree are so unlike in their germinal 7genetic7 composition that they cannot even be crossed4 ,according to all theories of transformism1 new species arise through the transformation of old species1 and hence evolutionists are at one in affirming the occurrence of specific change4 ,when it comes1 however1 to assigning the agencies or factors1 which are supposed to have brought about this transmutation of organic species1 there is a wide divergence of opinion4 ,the older systems of transformism1 namely1 ,lamarckism and ,darwinism1 ascribed the modification of organic species to the operation of the external factors of the environment1 while the later school of orthogenesis attributed it to the exclusive operation of factors residing within the organism itself4 ,lamarckism1 for example1 made the formation of organs a response to external conditions imposed by the environment4 ,the elephant1 according to this view1 being maladjusted to its environment by reason of its clumsy bulk1 developed a trunk by using its nose to compensate for its lack of pliancy and agility4 ,here the use or function precedes the organ and molds the latter to its need4 ,darwinism agrees with ,lamarckism in making the environment the chief arbiter of modification4 ,its explanation of the elephant's trunk1 however1 is negative rather than positive4 ,this animal1 it tells us1 developed a trunk1 because failure to vary in that useful direction would have been penalized by extermination4 ,wilson presents1 in a very graphic manner1 the appalling problem which confronts evolutionists who seek to explain the adaptations of organisms by means of environmental factors4 ,referring1 apparently1 to ,henderson's 8,fitness of the ,environment10 he says3 8,it has been urged in a recent valuable work 444 that fitness is a reciprocal relation1 involving the environment no less than the organism4 ,this is both a true and suggestive thought2 but does it not leave the naturalist floundering amid the same old quicksands8 ,the historical problem with which he has to deal must be grappled at closer quarters4 ,he is everywhere confronted with specific devices in the organism that must have arisen long after the conditions of environment to which they are adjusted4 ,animals that live in water are provided with gills4 ,were this all1 we could probably muddle along with the notion that gills are no more than lucky accidents4 ,but we encounter a sticking point in the fact that gills are so often accompanied by a variety of ingenious devices1 such as reservoirs1 tubes1 valves1 pumps1 strainers1 scrubbing brushes1 and the like1 that are obviously tributary to the main function of breathing4 ,given water1 asks the naturalist1 how has all this come into existence and been perfected8 ,the question is an inevitable product of our common sense40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiae1 p4 #dje47 ,impressed with the difficulty of accounting for the phenomena of organic adaptation by means of the far too general and unspecific influence of the environment1 the orthogenetic school of transformism inaugurated by ,ngeli1 ,eimer1 and ,klliker repudiated this explanation1 and sought to explain organic evolution on the sole basis of internal factors1 such as 8directive principles10 or germinal determinants4 ,according to this conception1 the elephant first developed his trunk under the drive of some internal agency1 and afterwards sought out an environment in which the newly-developed trunk would be useful4 ,in other words1 orthogenesis makes the organ precede the function1 and is therefore the exact reverse of ,lamarckism4 ,evolutionists in general1 as we have said1 regard our present plants and animals as the modified progeny of earlier forms1 understanding by 8modified0 that which is the product of a trans-specific1 as distinguished from a varietal or intra-specific1 change4 ,to substantiate the claim that changes of specific magnitude have actually taken place1 they appeal to two principal kinds of evidence1 namely3 7a7 empirical evidence based on such variations as are now observed to occur among living organisms2 7b7 inferential evidence1 which aposterioristically deduces the common ancestry of allied organic types from their resemblances and their sequence in geological time4 ,hence1 if we omit as negligible certain subsidiary arguments1 the whole evidence for organic evolution may be summed up under three heads3 7#a7 the genetic evidence grounded on the facts of variation2 7#b7 the zological evidence based on homology1 that is1 on structural resemblance together with all further resemblances 7physiological and embryological71 which such similarity entails2 7#c7 the palontological evidence which rests on the gradual approximation of fossil types to modern types1 when the former are ranged in a series corresponding to the alleged chronological order of their occurrence in the geological strata4 ,it is the bearing of recent genetical research upon the first of these three lines of evidence that we propose to examine in the present chapter1 an objective to which a brief and rather eclectic historical survey of evolutionary thought appears to offer the easiest avenue of approach4 ,while many bizarre speculations on the subject of transformism had been hazarded in centuries prior to the nineteenth1 the history of this conception1 as a scientific hypothesis1 dates from the publication of ,lamarck's 8,philosophie ,zoologique0 in #ahji4 ,according to ,lamarck1 organic species are changed as a result of the indirect influence of the external conditions of life4 ,a change in environment forces a change of habit on the part of the animal4 ,a change in the animal's habits results in adaptation1 that is1 in the development or suppression of organs through use or disuse4 ,the adaptation1 therefore1 thus acquired was not directly imposed by the environment1 but only indirectly--that is1 through the mediation of habit4 ,once acquired by the individual animal1 however1 the adaptation was1 so ,lamarck thought1 taken up by the process of inheritance and perpetuated by being transmitted to the animal's offspring4 ,the net result would be a progressive differentiation of species due to this indirect influence of a varying environment4 ,such was the theory of ,lamarck1 and it is sound and plausible in all respects save one1 namely1 the unwarranted assumption that acquired adaptations are inheritable1 since these1 to quote the words of the ,harvard zologist1 ,g4 ,h4 ,parker1 8are as a matter of fact just the class of changes in favor of the inheritance of which there is the least evidence40 78,biology and ,social ,problems10 #aiad1 p4 #ajc47 ,the next contribution to the philosophy of transformism was made by ,charles ,darwin1 when1 in the year #ahei1 he published his celebrated 8,origin of ,species40 ,in this work1 the ,english naturalist bases the evolution of organic species upon the assumed spontaneous tendency of organisms to vary minutely from their normal type in every possible direction4 ,this spontaneous variability gives rise to slight variations1 some of which are advantageous1 others disadvantageous to the organism4 ,the enormous fecundity of organisms multiplies them in excess of the available food supply1 and more1 accordingly1 are born than can possibly survive4 ,in the ensuing competition or struggle for existence1 individuals favorably modified survive and propagate their kind1 those unfavorably modified perish without progeny4 ,this process of elimination ,darwin termed natural selection4 ,only individuals favored by it were privileged to propagate their kind1 and thus it happened that these minute variations of a useful character were seized upon and perpetuated 8by the strong principle of inheritance40 ,in this way1 these slight but useful modifications would tend gradually to accumulate from generation to generation in the direction favored by 8natural selection10 until1 by the ensuing summation of innumerable minor differences verging in the same direction1 a major difference would be produced4 ,the end-result would be a progressive divergence of posterity from the common ancestral type1 whence they originally sprang1 ending in a multiplicity of new forms or species1 all differing to a greater or lesser extent from the primitive type4 ,the contrary hypothesis of a possible convergence of two originally diverse types towards eventual similarity ,darwin rejected as an extremely improbable explanation of the observed resemblance of organic forms1 which1 not without reason1 he thought it more credible to ascribe to their assumed divergence from a common ancestral type4 ,such was the scheme of evolution elaborated by ,charles ,darwin4 ,his hypothesis leaves the origin of variations an unsolved mystery4 ,it assumes what has never been proved1 namely1 the efficacy of 8natural selection40 ,it rests on what has been definitely disproved by factual evidence1 namely1 the inheritability of the slight variations1 now called fluctuations1 which1 not being transmitted even1 by the hereditary process1 cannot possibly accumulate from generation to generation1 as ,darwin imagined4 ,moreover1 fluctuations owe their origin to variability in the external conditions of life 7e4g4 in temperature1 moisture1 altitude1 exposure1 soil1 food1 etc471 being due to the direct influence or pressure of the environment1 and not to any spontaneous tendency within the organism itself4 ,hence ,darwin erred no less with respect to the spontaneity1 than with respect to the inheritability and summation1 of his 8slight variations40 ,the subsequent history of ,lamarckian and ,darwinian ,transformism is briefly told4 ,that both should pass into the discard was inevitable1 but1 thanks to repeated revisions undertaken by loyal adherents1 their demise was somewhat retarded4 ,in vain1 however1 did the ,neo-,darwinians attempt to do for ,darwinism what the ,neo-,lamarckians had as futilely striven to do for ,lamarckism4 ,the revisers succeeded only in precipitating a lethal duel between these two rival systems1 which has proved disastrous to both4 ,the controversy begun in #ahia between ,herbert ,spencer and ,august ,weismann marked the climax of this fatal conflict4 ,spencer refused to see any value whatever in ,darwin's principle of natural selection1 while other ,neo-,lamarckians1 less extreme1 were content to relegate it to the status of a subordinate factor in evolution4 ,darwin had considered it 8the most important means of modification10 but it is safe to say that no modern biologist attaches very much importance to natural selection as a means of accounting for the differences which mark off one species from another4 ,in fact1 if natural selection has enjoyed1 or still continues to enjoy1 any vogue at all1 it is not due to its value in natural science 7which1 for all practical intents and purposes1 is nil71 but solely to its appeal as 8mechanistic solution02 for nothing further is needed to commend it to modern thinkers infected with what ,wasmann calls ,theophobia4 ,natural selection1 in making the organism a product of the concurrence of blind forces unguided by ,divine intelligence1 a mere fortuitous result1 and not the realization of purpose1 has furnished the agnostic with a miserable pretext for omitting ,god from his attempted explanation of the universe4 8,here is the knot10 exclaims ,du ,bois-,reymond1 8here the great difficulty that tortures the intellect which would understand the world4 ,whoever does not place all activity wholesale under the sway of ,epicurean chance1 whoever gives only his little finger to teleology1 will inevitably arrive at ,paley's discarded #8,natural ,theology1' and so much the more necessarily1 the more clearly he thinks and the more independent his judgment4444 ,the possibility1 ever so distant1 of banishing from nature its seeming purpose1 and putting a blind necessity everywhere in the place of final causes1 appears1 therefore1 as one of the greatest advances in the world of thought1 from which a new era will be dated in the treatment of these problems4 ,to have somewhat eased the torture of the intellect which ponders over the world-problem will1 as long as philosophical naturalists exist1 be ,charles ,darwin's greatest title to glory40 7,darwin versus ,galiani1 8,reden10 ,vol4 ,i1 p4 #baa47 ,but however indispensable the selection principle may be to a philosophy which proposes to banish the ,creator from creation1 its scientific insolvency has become so painfully apparent that biologists have lost all confidence in its power to solve the problem of organic origins4 ,it is recognized1 for example1 that natural selection would suppress1 rather than promote1 development1 seeing that organs have utility only in the state of perfection and are destitute of selection-value while in the imperfect state of transition4 ,again1 the specific differences that diversify the various types of plants and animals are notoriously deficient in selection-value1 and therefore the present differentiation of species cannot be accounted for by means of the principle of natural selection4 ,finally1 unless one is prepared to make the preposterous assumption that the environment is a telic mechanism expressly designed for shaping organisms1 he is under logical necessity of admitting that the influence of natural selection cannot be anything else than purely destructive4 ,there is1 as ,wilson points out1 no aprioristic ground for supposing that natural selection could do anything more than maintain the status quo1 and as for factual proofs of its effectiveness in a positive sense1 they are wholly wanting4 ,professor ,caullery of the ,sorbonne1 in his ,harvard lecture of ,feb4 #bd1 #aiaf1 assures us that1 8since the time of ,darwin1 natural selection has remained a purely speculative idea and that no one has been able to show its efficacy in concrete indisputable examples40 ,considerations of this sort induced not only ,neo-,lamarckians1 but many non-partisans as well1 to take the field against the ,darwinian ,selection ,principle4 ,thus ,spencer's caustic attack became a forerunner of others1 and eminent biologists1 like ,fleischmann1 ,driesch1 ,t4 ,h4 ,morgan1 and ,bateson1 have in turn poured the vials of their satire upon the attempts of ,neo-,darwinians to rehabilitate the philosophy of natural selection4 ,wm4 ,bateson warns those1 who persist in their credulity with reference to the ,darwinian account of organic teleology1 that they 8will be wise henceforth to base this faith frankly on the impregnable rock of superstition and to abstain from direct appeals to natural fact40 ,this admonition forms the conclusion of a scathing criticism of what he styles the 8fustian of ,victorian philosophy40 8,in the face of what we know10 it runs1 8of the distribution of variability in nature1 the scope claimed for natural selection must be greatly reduced4 ,the doctrine of the survival of the fittest is undeniable so long as it is applied to the organism as a whole1 but to attempt by this principle to find value in all definiteness of parts and functions1 and in the name of science to see fitness everywhere1 is mere eighteenth century optimism4 ,yet it was in its application to the parts1 to the details of specific difference1 to the spots on the peacock's tail1 to the coloring of an orchid flower1 and hosts of such examples1 that the potency of natural selection was urged with greatest emphasis4 ,shorn of these pretensions the doctrine of the survival of favored races is a truism1 helping scarcely at all to account for the diversity of species4 ,tolerance plays almost as considerable a part4 ,by these admissions the last shred of that teleological fustian with which ,victorian philosophy loved to clothe the theory of evolution is destroyed40 7,heredity1 8,presidential ,address to ,brit4 ,ass'n4 for ,advanc4 of ,science10 ,aug4 #ad1 #aiad47 ,nor is this all4 ,the ,darwinian ,selection ,principle is reproached with having retarded the progress of science4 ,it is justly accused of having discouraged profound and painstaking analysis by putting into currency its shallow and spurious solution of biological problems4 8,too often in the past10 says ,edmund ,wilson1 8the facile formulas of natural selection have been made use of to carry us lightly over the surface of unsuspected depths that would have richly repaid serious exploration40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiae1 p4 #djf47 ,in retaliation for the destructive criticism of natural selection1 the ,neo-,darwinians have proceeded to pulverize the ,lamarckian tenet concerning the inheritability of acquired adaptations4 ,weismann1 having laid down his classic distinction between the soma 7comprising the vegetative or tissue cells in contact with the environment7 and the germ 7i4e4 the sequestered reproductive cells or gametes1 which are sheltered from environmental vicissitudes71 showed that the ,lamarckian assumption that a change in the somatic cells 7which constitute the organism of the individual7 is registered in the germ cells 7which constitute the vehicle of racial inheritance71 is supported neither by a priori probability nor by any facts of observation4 ,germ cells give rise by division to somatic or tissue cells1 but the converse is not true2 for1 once a cell has become differentiated and specialized into a tissue cell1 it can never again give rise by division to germ cells1 but only to other tissue cells of its own kind4 ,hence the possibility of a change in the tissue being transmitted to the germ has no antecedent probability in its favor4 ,neither is it grounded on the facts of observation4 ,bodily mutilations of the parent are not transmitted to the offspring4 ,the child of a blacksmith is not born with a more developed right arm than that of a tailor's child4 ,when the ovaries from a white rabbit are grafted into a black rabbit1 whose own ovaries have been previously removed1 the latter1 if mated to a white male1 will produce spotlessly white young4 ,hence the offspring inherit the characters of the germ track of the white female1 whence the ovaries were derived1 without being influenced in the least by the pigmented somatic cells of the nurse-body 7i4e4 the black female71 into which the ovaries were grafted4 ,kammerer's experiments1 in which young salamanders were found to exhibit at birth the coloration1 which their parents had acquired through the action of sunlight1 fail to convince1 because1 in this case1 the bodies of the parents are not sufficiently impervious to light to preclude its direct action upon the gametes while in the reproductive organs of the parents4 ,hence we cannot be sure but that the coloration of the offspring derived from these gametes is due to the direct agency of sunlight rather than to the intermediate influence of the modified somatic cells upon the germ plasm4 ,the same objection holds true of the recent experiments1 in which the germ cells have been modified by modifying the interior medium or internal environment by means of antibodies and hormones4 ,no one doubts the possibility of influencing heredity by a direct modification of the germ cells1 especially when1 as is always the case in these experiments1 the modification produced is destructive rather than constructive4 ,the experiments1 therefore1 of ,prof4 ,m4 ,f4 ,guyer of ,wisconsin ,university1 in which a germinally-transmitted eye defect was produced by injecting pregnant female rabbits with an antilens serum derived from fowls immunized to the crystalline lens of rabbits as antigen1 are beside the mark4 ,to demonstrate the ,lamarckian thesis one must furnish evidence of a constructive addition to inheritance by means of prior somatic acquisition4 ,the transmission of defects artificially produced is not so much a process of inheritance 7transmission of type7 as rather one of degeneracy 7failure to equate the parental type74#a ,commenting on ,guyer's suggestion that an organism capable of producing antibodies that are germinally-destructive1 may also be able to produce constructive bodies1 ,prof4 ,edwin ,s4 ,goodrich says3 8,the real weakness of the theory is that it does not escape from the fundamental objections we have already put forward as fatal to ,lamarckism4 ,if an effect has been produced1 either the supposed constructive substance was present from the first1 as an ordinary internal environmental condition necessary for the normal development of the character1 or it must have been introduced from without by the application of a new stimulus4 ,the same objection does not apply to the destructive effect4 ,no one doubts that if a factor could be destroyed by a hot needle or picked out with a fine forceps the effect of the operation would persist throughout subsequent generations40 7,science1 ,dec4 #b1 #aiba1 p4 #ece47 #a ,a good definition of degeneracy is that of ,a4 ,f4 ,tredgold1 who says3 8,i venture to define degeneracy as #8a retrograde condition of the individual resulting from a pathological variation of the germ cell4'0 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiah1 p4 #edh47 ,but in demonstrating against the ,neo-,lamarckians that somatic modifications unrepresented in the germ plasm could have no significance in the process of racial evolution1 ,weismann had proved too much4 ,his argument was no less telling against ,darwinism than it was against ,lamarckism4 ,darwin's 8individual differences0 or 8slight variations10 now spoken of as fluctuations1 were quite as unrepresented and unrecorded in the germ cells as ,lamarck's 8acquired adaptations40 ,there can be no 8summation of individual differences0 for the simple reason that fluctuations have no germinal basis and are therefore uninheritable--8,we must bear in mind the fact10 says ,prof4 ,edmund ,wilson1 8that ,darwin often failed to distinguish between non-inheritable fluctuations and hereditary mutations of small degree40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiae1 p4 #djf47 ,fluctuations1 as we have seen1 are due to variability in the environmental conditions1 e4g4 in access to soil nutrients1 etc4 ,as an instance of fluctuational variation the seeds of the ragweed may be cited4 ,normally these seeds have six spines1 but around this average there is considerable fluctuation in individual seeds1 some having as many as nine spines and others no more than one4 ,yet the plants reared from nine-spine seeds1 even when similarly mated1 show no greater tendency to produce nine-spine seeds than do plants reared from one-spine seeds4 ,to meet the difficulty presented by the non-inheritability of the ,lamarckian adaptation and the ,darwinian fluctuation1 ,de ,vries substituted for them those rare and abruptly-appearing inheritable variations1 which he called mutations#b and regarded as elementary steps in the evolutionary process4 ,this new version of transformism was announced by ,de ,vries in #aija1 and more fully explained in his 8,die ,mutations-,theorie0 7,leipzig1 #aijb-aijc74 ,renner has shown that ,de ,vries' new forms of nothera were cases of complex hybridization rather than real mutants1 as the forms produced by mutation are now called4 ,nevertheless1 the work of ,morgan1 ,bateson1 and others leaves little doubt as to the actual occurrence of factorial mutants1 while ,dr4 ,albert ,f4 ,blakeslee has demonstrated the existence of chromosomal mutants4 ,when unqualified1 the term mutant usually denotes the factorial mutant1 which arises from a change in one or more of the concatenated genes 7hereditary factors7 of a single chromosome 7nuclear thread7 in the germinal 7i4e4 gametic7 complex4 ,all such changes are called factorial mutations4 ,they are hereditarily transmissible1 and affect the somatic characters of the race permanently1 although1 in rare cases1 such as that of the bar-eyed ,drosophila mutant1 the phenomenon of reversion has been observed4 ,the chromosomal mutant1 on the contrary1 is not due to changes in the single factors or genes1 but to duplication of one or more entire chromosomes 7linkage-groups7 in the gametic complex4 ,like the factorial mutant1 it produces a permanent and heritable modification4 ,the increase in nuclear material involved in chromosomal mutation 7i4e4 duplication7 seems to cause a proportionate increase in the cytoplasmic mass of the single somatic cells1 which manifests itself in the phenotype as giantism4 ,de ,vries' nothera gigas is a chromosomal mutant illustrative of this phenomenon4 ,besides the foregoing1 there is the pseudomutant produced by the factorial recombination1 which results from a crossover1 i4e4 an exchange of genes or factors between two germinal chromosomes of the same synaptic pair4 ,this reciprocal transfer of genes from one homologous chromosome to another happens1 in a certain percentage of cases1 during synapsis4 ,the percentage can be artificially increased by exposing young female hybrids to special conditions of temperature4 #b ,the term mutation had been used long before and in a similar sense by the ,german palontologist ,waagen1 who employed it to designate the variations of a specific type that succeed one another in successive strata1 a thing which rarely occurs4 7,cf4 ,waagen's ,die ,formenreihe des ,ammonites subradiatus1 ,geognost4 palont4 ,beitr41 ,berlin1 #ahfi47 ,if these new mutant forms could be regarded as genuine new species1 then the fact that such variations are heritable and come within the range of actual observation1 would constitute the long-sought empirical proof of the reality of evolution4 ,consciously or subconsciously1 however1 ,de ,vries recognized that this was not the case2 for he refers to mutants as 8elementary species10 and does not venture to present them as authentic organic species4 ,the factorial mutant answers neither the endurance test nor the intersterility test of a genuine species4 ,it would1 doubtless1 be going too far to regard all such mutant forms as examples of germinal degeneracy1 but it cannot be denied that all of them1 when compared to the wild type1 are in the direction of unfitness1 none of them being viable and prosperous under the severe conditions obtaining in the wild state4 ,bateson1 who seems to regard all mutant characters as recessive and due to germinal loss1 declares3 8,even in ,drosophila1 where hundreds of genetically distinct factors have been identified1 very few new dominants1 that is to say positive additions1 have been seen1 and ,i am assured that none of them are of a class which could be expected to be viable under natural conditions4 ,i understand even that none are certainly viable in the homozygous state40 7,toronto ,address1 ,science1 ,jan4 #bj1 #aibb1 p4 #ei47 8,garden or greenhouse products10 says ,d4 ,s4 ,jordan1 8are immensely interesting and instructive1 but they throw little light on the origin of species4 ,to call them species is like calling dress-parade cadets #8soldiers4' ,i have heard this definition of a soldier1 #8one that has stood4' ,it is easy to trick out a group of boys to look like soldiers1 but you can not define them as such until they have #8stood4'0 7,science1 ,oct4 #bj1 #aibb47 ,in a word1 factorial mutants1 owing1 as they do1 their survival exclusively to the protection of artificial conditions1 could never become the hardy pioneers of new species4 ,bateson insists that the mutational variation represents a change of loss4 8,almost all that we have seen10 he says1 8are variations in which we recognize that elements have been lost40 7,science1 ,jan4 #bj1 #aibb1 p4 #ei47 ,in his ,address to the ,british ,association 7#aiad71 he cites numerous examples tending to show that mutant characters are but diminutions or intensifications of characters pre-existent in the wild or normal stock1 all of which are explicable as effects of the loss 7total or partial7 of either positive1 or inhibitive 7epistatic7 hereditary factors 7genes74 ,one of these instances illustrating the subtractive nature of the factorial mutation is that of the ,primula 8,coral ,king10 a salmon-colored mutant1 which was suddenly given off by a red variety of ,primula called 8,crimson ,king40 ,such a mutation is obviously based on the loss of a germinal factor for color4 ,the loss1 however1 is sometimes partial rather than total1 as instanced in the case of the purple-edged ,picotee sweet pea1 which arose from the wholly purple wild variety by fractionation of the genetic factor for purple pigment4 ,even where the mutational variation appears to be one of gain1 as happens when a positive character appears de novo in the phenotype1 or when a dilute parental character is intensified in the offspring1 it is1 nevertheless1 interpretable as a result of germinal loss1 the loss1 namely1 total or partial1 of a genetic inhibitor4 ,such inhibitive genes or factors are known to exist4 ,bateson has shown1 for example1 that the whiteness of ,white ,leghorn chickens is due1 not to the absence of color-factors1 but to the presence of a genetic inhibitor--8,the white of ,white ,leghorns10 he says1 8is not1 as white in nature often is1 due to the loss of the color elements1 but to the action of something which inhibits their expression40 7,address to the ,brit4 ,ass'n41 ,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiae1 p4 #cfh47 ,thus the sudden appearance in the offspring of a character not visibly represented in the parents may be due1 not to germinal acquisition1 but the loss of an inhibitory gene1 whose elimination allows the somatic character previously suppressed by it to appear4 ,hence ,bateson concludes3 8,in spite of seeming perversity1 therefore1 we have to admit that there is no evolutionary change which in the present state of our knowledge we can positively declare to be not due to loss40 7,loc4 cit41 p4 #cge47 ,another consideration1 which disqualifies the factorial mutant for the rle of a new species1 is its failure to pass the test of interspecific sterility4 ,when individuals from two distinct species are crossed1 the offspring of the cross is either completely sterile1 as instanced in the mule1 or at least partially so4 ,but when1 for example1 the sepia-eyed mutant of the vinegar fly is back-crossed with the red-eyed wild type1 whence it originally sprang1 the product of the cross is a red-eyed hybrid1 which is perfectly fertile with other sepia-wild hybrids1 with wild flies1 and with sepia mutants4 ,this proves that the sepia-eyed mutant has departed1 so to speak1 only a varietal1 and not a specific1 distance away from the parent stock4 ,ordinary or factorial mutation does not1 therefore1 as ,de ,vries imagined1 produce new species4 ,these mutants do1 indeed1 meet the requirement of permanent transmissibility1 for their distinctive characters cannot be obliterated by any amount of crossing4 ,nevertheless1 the factorial mutation falls short of being an empirical proof of evolution1 because it is a varietal1 and not a specific1 change4 ,in other words1 factorial mutants are new varieties and not new species4 ,only a heritable change based on germinal acquisition of sufficient magnitude to produce gametic incompatibility between the variant and the parent type would constitute direct evidence of the transmutation of species1 provided1 of course1 that the variant were also capable of survival under the natural conditions of the wild state4 ,in his ,toronto address of ,december #bh1 #aiba1 ,wm4 ,bateson announced the failure of ,de ,vries' ,mutation ,theory1 when he said3 8,but that particular and essential bit of the theory of evolution1 which is concerned with the origin and nature of species remains utterly mysterious4 ,we no longer feel as we used to do1 that the process of variation1 now contemporaneously occurring1 is the beginning of a work which needs merely the element of time for its completion2 for even time cannot complete that which has not yet begun4 ,the conclusion in which we were brought up that species are a product of a summation of variations ignored the chief attribute of species first pointed out by ,john ,ray that the product of their crosses is frequently sterile in greater or less degree4 ,huxley1 very early in the debate1 pointed out this grave defect in the evidence1 but before breeding researches had been made on a large scale no one felt the objection to be serious4 ,extended work might be trusted to supply the deficiency4 ,it has not done so1 and the significance of the negative evidence can no longer be denied4444 8,if species have a common origin where did they pick up the ingredients which produce this sexual incompatibility8 ,almost certainly it is a variation in which something has been added4 ,we have come to see that variations can very commonly--,i do not say always--be distinguished as positive and negative4444 ,now we have no difficulty in finding evidence of variation by loss1 but variations by addition are rarities1 even if there are any such which must be so accounted4 ,the variations to which interspecific sterility is due are obviously variations in which something is apparently added to the stock of ingredients4 ,it is one of the common experiences of the breeder that when a hybrid is partially sterile1 and from it any fertile offspring can be obtained1 the sterility1 once lost1 disappears4 ,this has been the history of many1 perhaps most1 of our cultivated plants of hybrid origin4 8,the production of an indubitably sterile hybrid from completely fertile parents which has arisen under critical observation is the event for which we wait4 ,until this event is witnessed1 our knowledge of evolution is incomplete in a vital respect4 ,from time to time such an observation is published1 but none has yet survived criticism40 7,science1 ,jan4 #bj1 #aibb1 pp4 #eh1 #ei47 ,but what of the chromosomal mutant8 ,for our knowledge of this type of mutation we are largely indebted to ,blakeslee's researches and experiments on the ,jimson weed 7,datura stramonium74 ,according to ,blakeslee1 chromosomal mutants result from duplication1 or from reduction1 of the chromosomes1 and they are classified as balanced or unbalanced types according as all1 or only some1 of the chromosomal linkage-groups are similarly doubled or reduced4 ,if only one of the homologous chromosomes of a synaptic pair is doubled1 the mutant is termed a triploid form4 ,it is balanced when one homologous chromosome is doubled in every synaptic pair1 but if one or more chromosomes be added to1 or subtracted from1 this balanced triploid complex1 the mutant is termed an unbalanced triploid4 ,when all the chromosomes of the normal diploid complex are uniformly doubled1 we have a balanced tetraploid race4 ,the subtraction or addition of one or more chromosomes in the case of a balanced tetraploid complex renders it an unbalanced tetraploid mutant4 ,the retention in somatic cells of the haploid number of chromosomes characteristic of gametes and gametophytes gives a balanced haploid mutant1 from which hitherto no unbalanced haploids have been obtained4 ,the normal diploid type and the balanced tetraploid type are said to constitute an even balance1 while balanced triploids and haploids constitute an odd balance4 ,the odd balances and all the unbalanced mutants are largely sterile4 ,thus1 for example1 more than #hj of the pollen of the haploid mutant is bad4 8,the normal ,jimson ,weed10 says ,blakeslee1 8is diploid 7#bn7 with a total of #bd chromosomes in somatic cells4 ,in previous papers the finding of tetraploids 7#dn7 with #dh chromosomes and triploids 7#cn7 with #cf was reported1 as well as unbalanced mutants with #be chromosomes represented by the formula 7#bn #a74 ,the finding of two haploid or #an plants1 which we are now able to report1 adds a new chromosomal type to the balanced series of mutants in ,datura4 ,this series now stands3 #an1 #bn1 #cn1 #dn4 ,since a series of unbalanced mutants has been obtained from each of the other balanced types by the addition or subtraction of one or more chromosomes1 it is possible that a similar series of unbalanced mutants may be obtainable from our new haploid plants1 despite the great unbalance which would thereby result40 7,science1 ,june #af1 #aibc1 p4 #fdf47 ,the haploid mutant1 of which ,blakeslee speaks1 has1 of course1 #ab unpaired chromosomes in its somatic cells4 ,the balanced triploid is1 like the haploid mutant1 largely sterile1 and is only obtainable by crossing the tetraploid race with the normal diploid plant4 ,since1 then1 the product of the cross of the diploid and tetraploid races is sterile1 the tetraploid race fulfills the sterility test of a distinct species4 ,whether or not it fulfills the endurance test of survival under natural condition is doubtful1 inasmuch as diploid ,daturas are about three times as prolific as the tetraploid race4 ,moreover1 as ,blakeslee himself confessed in a lecture at ,woods ,hole attended by the present writer in the summer of #aibc1 the origin of a balanced tetraploid form from the normal diploid type by simultaneous duplication of all the chromosomes in the diploid complex1 is an event that has yet to be witnessed4 ,nor is any gradual transition from the diploid to the tetraploid race1 by way of unbalanced types and triploids1 conceivable1 seeing that such forms are too sterile to maintain themselves1 and are1 in fact1 incapable of transmitting their own type in the absence of artificial intervention4 ,there are1 it is true1 some instances1 in which diploid and tetraploid races and species occur together in cultivation and in nature4 ,in certain cases1 this tetraploidy is merely apparent1 being due to fragmentation of the chromosomes2 in other cases1 it is really due to chromosomal duplication1 giving rise to genuine tetraploid forms4 ,the question is often hard to decide1 the mere number of the chromosomes being not1 in itself1 a safe criterion4 ,of the actual origin1 however1 of tetraploid from diploid races we have as yet no observational evidence4 ,hence ,blakeslee's researches on the chromosomal mutant have so far failed to furnish experimental proof of the origin of a genuine new species4 ,besides1 waiving all other considerations1 the limits within which chromosomal duplication is possible are of necessity so narrow1 that1 at best1 this phenomenon can only be invoked to explain a very small range of variation4 ,in fact1 it is doubtful whether haploidy1 triploidy1 and tetraploidy have any important bearing whatever upon the problem of the origin of species4 7,see ,addenda47 ,the mutation1 then1 in so far as we have experimental knowledge of it1 does not fulfill requirements of a specific change4 ,it cannot even be regarded as an elementary step in the direction of such a change4 ,with this admission1 ,de-,vriesianism becomes obsolete1 descending like its predecessors1 ,lamarckism and ,darwinism1 into the charnel-house of discarded systems whose value is historic1 but no longer scientific4 ,when we enquire into the reason of this common demise of all the classic systems of transformism1 we find it to reside in the progress of the new science of ,mendelian genetics1 whose foundations were laid by an ,augustinian monk of the nineteenth century4 ,six years after the appearance of ,darwin's 8,origin of ,species10 ,gregor ,johann ,mendel published a short paper entitled 8,versuche ber ,pflanzen-hybriden10 which1 unnoticed at the time by a scientific world preoccupied with ,darwinian fantasies1 was destined1 on its coming to light at the beginning of the present century1 to administer the final coup de grace to all the elaborate schemes of evolution that had preceded or followed its initial publication4 ,it took half a century1 however1 before the dust of ,darwinian sensationalism subsided sufficiently1 to permit the 8rediscovery0 of ,mendel's solid and genuine contribution to biological science4 ,but the ,prlat of the abbey at ,brnn never lived to see the day of his triumph4 ,the true genius of his century1 he died unhonored and unsung1 a pretender being crowned in his stead4 ,for ,coulter says of ,darwin3 8,he died ,april #ai1 #ahhb1 probably the most honored scientific man in the world40 7,evolution1 #aiaf1 p4 #ce47 ,within the small dimensions of the paper1 of which we have spoken1 ,mendel had compressed the results of years of carefully conceived and accurately executed experimentation reduced to precise statistical form and interpreted with a penetrating sagacity of the highest order4 ,it is no exaggeration to say that his discovery has revolutionized the science of biology1 giving it1 for the first time1 mathematical formulas comparable to those of chemistry4 ,his two laws of inheritance1 namely1 the law of segregation and the law of independent assortment of characters1 have1 as previously intimated1 become the basis of the new science of ,genetics4 ,his analysis of biparental reproduction has interpreted for us the cytological phenomena of synapsis1 meiosis1 and syngamy1 has explained for us the instability of hybrids1 has placed ,weismann's speculations concerning the autonomy and continuity of the germ plasm on a firm basis of experimental fact1 has clarified all our notions respecting the mode and range of hereditary transmission1 and has1 in a word1 opened our eyes to that new and hitherto unexplored realm of nature which ,bateson calls 8the world of gametes40 ,efforts have been made to construct systems of transformism along ,mendelian lines1 but none of them has met with notable success4 ,lotsy1 for example1 sought to explain all variation on the basis of the rearrangement of prexistent genetic factors brought about by crossing4 ,but such a solution of the problem is very unsatisfactory4 ,in the first place1 the generality of hybrid 7heterozygous7 forms are ruled out on the score of instability4 ,the phenotype of hybrids is directly dependent1 not on the genes themselves1 but on the diploid combination of genes contained in the zygote4 ,this combination1 however1 is always dissolved in the process of gamete-formation1 by the segregative reduction division which occurs in the reproductive organs of the hybrid4 ,hybrids1 therefore1 do not breed true1 if propagated by sexual reproduction4 ,to maintain constancy of type in hybrids1 one must resort to somatogenic reproduction 7i4e4 vegetative growth from stems1 etc474 ,certain violets1 in fact1 as well as blackberries1 are maintained in a state of constant hybridism by means of this sort of reproduction1 even in nature4 ,in the case of balanced lethals 7i4e4 factors causing death in the pure or homozygous state71 the hybrid phenotype may be maintained even by sexual reproduction1 inasmuch as all the pure 7homozygous7 offspring are non-viable4 ,two lethals are said to be balanced1 when they occur1 the first in one and the second in the other homologous chromosome of the same synaptic pair4 8,such a factorial situation would maintain a state of constant heterozygosis1 the fixed hybridism of an impure species 444 the hybrid will breed true until the relative position of the lethals are changed by a crossover1 or the genetical constitution in these respects is altered by a mutation40 7,davis1 ,science1 ,feb4 #c1 #aibb1 p4 #aaa47 ,as is evident1 however1 the condition of balanced lethals involves a considerable reduction in fertility4 ,hybridization1 moreover1 is successful between varieties of the same species rather than between distinct species4 ,interspecific crosses are in some cases entirely unproductive1 in other cases productive of wholly-sterile1 hybrids1 and in still other cases productive of semisterile hybrids4 ,when semisterile hybrids are obtainable from an interspecific cross1 the phenotype can be kept constant by somatogenic reproduction1 but1 as we shall see in a later chapter1 this kind of reproduction does not counteract senescence1 and stock thus propagated usually plays out within a determinate period4 ,finally1 the mixture of incompatible germinal elements involved in an interspecific cross tends to produce forms1 which are subnormal in their viability and vitality4 ,the conclusions of ,goodspeed and ,clausen are the following3 87#a7 ,as a consequence of modern ,mendelian developments1 the ,mendelian factors may be considered as making up a reaction system1 the elements of which exhibit more or less specific relations to one another2 7#b7 strictly ,mendelian results are to be expected only when the contrast is between factor differences within a common ,mendelian reaction system as is ordinarily the case in varietal hybrids2 7#c7 when distinct reaction systems are involved1 as in species crosses1 the phenomena must be viewed in the light of a contrast between systems rather than between specific factor differences1 and the results will depend upon the degree of mutual compatibility displayed between the specific elements of the two systems40 7,amer4 ,nat41 #ea 7#aiag71 p4 #ii47 ,to these conclusions may be added the pertinent observation of ,bradley ,moore ,davis3 8,of particular import10 he says1 8is the expectation that lethals most frequently owe their presence to the heterozygous condition since the mixing of diverse germ plasms seems likely to lead to the breaking down of delicate and vital adjustments in proportion relative to the degree of protoplasmic confusion1 and this means chemical and physical disturbance40 7,science1 ,feb4 #c1 #aibc1 p4 #aaa47 ,but crossing produces1 in the second filial generation 7,f71 pure 7homozygous7 as well as hybrid 7heterozygous7 forms4 ,in some cases these pure forms are new1 the phenotype being different from that of either pure grandparent4 ,such a result is produced by random assortment of the chromosomes in gamete and zygote formation1 and occurs when the genes for two or more pairs of contrasted characters are located in different chromosome pairs4 ,the phenomenon is formulated in ,mendel's ,second ,law1 the law of independent assortment4 ,the novelty1 however1 of the true-breeding forms thus produced is not absolute1 but relative4 ,there is no origination of new hereditary factors4 ,it is simply a recombination of the old genes of different stocks1 the genes themselves undergoing no intrinsic alteration4 ,the combination is new1 but not the elements combined4 ,in addition to chromosomal recombination1 we have factorial recombination by means of crossovers4 ,this1 too1 can produce new and true-breeding forms of a fixed nature1 but here1 likewise1 it is the combination1 and not the elements combined1 which is new4 ,the 8new0 forms thus produced are called1 as we have seen1 pseudomutants4 ,when pseudomutations1 that is1 crossovers1 occur in conjunction with the condition of balanced lethals1 they closely simulate genuine factorial mutations4 ,this is exemplified in the case of ,de ,vries' nothera ,lamarckiana1 which is the product of a crossover supervening upon a situation of balanced lethals4 ,in cases of this kind1 the crossover releases hitherto suppressed recessive characters1 giving the appearance of real mutation4 8,the workers with ,drosophila10 says ,davis1 8seem inclined to believe that much of the phenomena simulating mutation in their material is in reality the appearance of characters set free by the breaking of lethal adjustments which held the characters latent4 ,well-known workers have arrived at similar conclusions for nothera material and are not content to accept as evidence of mutations the behavior of ,lamarckiana and some other forms when they throw their marked variants40 7,science1 ,feb4 #c1 #aibb1 p4 #aaa47 ,the new forms1 however1 resulting from random assortment and crossovers cannot be regarded as new species4 8,analysis10 says ,bateson1 8has revealed hosts of transferable characters4 ,their combinations suffice to supply in abundance series of types which might pass for new species1 and certainly would be so classed if they were met with in nature4 ,yet critically tested1 we find that they are not distinct species and we have no reason to suppose any accumulation of characters of the same order would culminate in the production of distinct species4 ,specific difference therefore must be regarded as probably attaching to the base upon which these transferables are implanted1 of which we know absolutely nothing at all4 ,nothing that we have witnessed in the contemporary world can colorably be interpreted as providing the sort of evidence required40 7,science1 ,jan4 #bj1 #aibb1 pp4 #ei1 #fj47 ,anyone thoroughly acquainted with the results of genetical analysis and research will find it impossible to escape the conviction that there is no such thing as experimental evidence for evolution4 ,in spite of the enormous advances made in the fields of genetics and cytology1 the problem of the origin of species is1 scientifically speaking1 as mysterious as ever4 ,no variation of which we have experience is interpretable as the transmutation of a specific type1 and ,david ,starr ,jordan voices an inevitable conclusion when he says3 8,none of the created #8new species' of plant or animal ,i know of would last five years in the open1 nor is there the slightest evidence that any new species of field or forest or ocean ever originated from mutation1 discontinuous variation1 or hybridization40 7,science1 ,oct4 #bj1 #aibb1 p4 #ddh47 8,in any case10 as ,professor ,caullery tells us in his ,harvard lecture on the 8,problem of ,evolution10 8we do not see in the facts emerging from ,mendelism1 how evolution1 in the sense that morphology suggests1 can have come about4 ,and it comes to pass that some of the biologists of greatest authority in the study of ,mendelian heredity are led1 with regard to evolution1 either to a more or less complete agnosticism1 or to the expression of ideas quite opposed to those of the preceding generation2 ideas which would almost take us back to creationism40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiaf1 p4 #ccd47 ,it is1 of course1 impossible within the limits of a single chapter to convey any adequate impression of all that ,mendel's epoch-making achievement portends1 but what has been said is sufficient to give some idea of the acuteness of the crisis through which the theory of organic evolution is passing as a result of his discovery4 ,in its classic forms of ,lamarckism1 ,darwinism and ,de-,vriesianism1 the survival of the theory is out of the question4 ,whether or not it can be rehabilitated in any form whatever is a matter open to doubt4 ,transfixed by the innumerable spears of modern objections1 its extremity calls to mind the plight of the ,lion of ,lucerne4 ,possibly1 it is destined to find a rescuer in some great genius of the future1 but of one thing1 at least1 we may be perfectly certain1 namely1 that1 even if rejuvenated1 it will never again resume the lineaments traced by ,charles ,darwin4 ,in the face of this certainty1 it is almost pitiful to hear the die-hards of ,darwinism bolstering up a lost cause with the wretched quibble that1 though natural selection has been discredited as an explanation of the differentiation of species1 ,darwinism 8in its essentials0 survives intact4 ,for1 if there is any feature which1 beyond all else1 deserves to be called an essential of ,darwin's system1 surely it is natural selection4 ,for ,darwin it was 8the most important0 agency of transformation 7cf4 8,origin of ,species10 #fth ed41 p4 #e74 ,apart from his hypothesis of the summation through inheritance of slight variations 78fluctuations071 now completely demolished by the new science of genetics1 it represented his sole contribution to the philosophy of transformism4 ,it alone distinguishes ,darwinism from ,lamarckism1 its prototype4 ,without it the 8,origin of ,species0 would be ,hamlet without the ,prince of ,denmark4 ,with it ,darwin's fame should stand or fall4 ,therefore1 since ,darwin erred in making it 8the most important means of modification10 ,darwinism is dead1 and no grief of mourners can resuscitate the corpse4 8,through the last fifty years10 says ,bateson1 8this theme of the natural selection of favored races has been developed and expounded in writings innumerable4 ,favored races certainly can replace others4 ,the argument is sound1 but we are doubtful of its value4 ,for us that debate stands adjourned4 ,we go to ,darwin for his incomparable collection of facts4 ,we would fain emulate his scholarship1 his width1 and his power of exposition1 but to us he speaks no more with philosophical authority4 ,we read his scheme of evolution as we would those of ,lucretius or of ,lamarck1 delighting in their simplicity and their courage40 7,heredity1 ,presid4 ,add4 to ,british ,assoc4 for ,advanc4 of ,science1 ,smith4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiae1 p4 #cfe47 ,,chapter ,,ii ,,homology ,,and ,,its ,,evolutionary ,,interpretation ,the recent revival of interest in the problem of evolution seems to have called forth two very opposite expressions of opinion from those who profess to represent ,catholic thought on this subject4 ,m4 ,henri de ,dorlodot1 in his 8,le ,darwinisme10 appears in the rle of an ardent admirer of ,darwin and an enthusiastic advocate of the doctrine of ,transformism4 ,the contrary attitude is adopted by ,mr4 ,alfred ,mc,cann1 whose 8,god--or ,gorilla0 is bitterly antagonistic not only to ,darwinism but to any form whatever of the theory of ,transformism4 ,both of these works possess merits which it would be unjust to overlook4 ,dorlodot deserves credit for having shown conclusively that there is absolutely nothing in the ,scriptures1 or in ,patristic tradition1 or in ,catholic theology1 or in the philosophy of the ,schools1 which conflicts with our acceptance of organic evolution as an hypothesis explanatory of certain biological facts4 ,in like manner1 it must be acknowledged that1 even after a liberal discount has been made in penalty of its bias and scientific inaccuracy1 ,mr4 ,mc,cann's book still contains a formidable residue of serious objections1 which the friends of evolution will probably find it more convenient to sidestep than to answer4 ,unfortunately1 however1 neither of these writers maintains that balanced mental poise which one likes to see in the defenders of ,catholic truth4 ,dorlodot seems too profoundly impressed with the desirability of occupying a popular position to do impartial justice to the problem at issue1 and his anxiety to keep in step with the majority blinds him apparently to the flaws of that 8,darwinism0 which he praises4 ,had he been content with a simple demarcation of negative limits1 there would be no ground for complaint4 ,but1 when he goes so far as to bestow unmerited praise upon the author of the mechanistic 8,origin of ,species0 and the materialistic 8,descent of ,man02 when1 by confounding ,darwinism with evolution1 he consents to that historical injustice which allows ,darwin to play ,jacob to ,lamarck's ,esau1 and which leaves the original genius of ,mendel in obscurity while it accords the limelight of fame to the unoriginal expounder of a borrowed conception2 when1 by means of the sophistry of anachronism1 he speciously endeavors to bring the speculations of an ,augustine or an ,aquinas into alignment with those of the ex-divinity student of ,cambridge2 when he assumes that ,fixism is so evidently wrong that its claims are unworthy of consideration1 whereas ,transformism is so evidently right that we can dispense with the formality of examining its credentials2 when1 in a word1 he expresses himself not merely in the sense1 but in the very stereotyped cant phrases of a dead philosophy1 we realize1 with regret1 that his conclusions are based1 not on any reasoned analysis of the evidence1 but solely upon the dogmatism of scientific orthodoxy1 that his thought is cast in antiquated molds1 and that for him1 apparently1 the sixty-five years of discovery and disillusionment1 which have intervened since the publication of the 8,origin of ,species10 have passed in vain4 ,but1 if ,dorlodot represents the extreme of uncritical approval1 ,mr4 ,mc,cann represents the opposite1 and no less reprehensible1 extreme of biased antagonism1 that is neither fair in method nor conciliatory in tone4 ,instead of adhering to the time-honored practice of ,catholic controversialists1 which is rather to overstate than to understate the argument of an adversary1 ,mr4 ,mc,cann tends1 at times1 to minimize1 in his restatement1 the force of an opponent's reasoning4 ,he frequently belittles with mere flippant sneer1 and is only too ready to question the good faith of those who do not share his convictions4 ,thus1 when ,mc,cann ridicules ,wells and accuses him of pure romancing1 because the latter speaks of certain hairy 8wild women0 of the ,caves1 he himself seems to be ignorant of the fact that a palolithic etching has been found representing a woman so covered with hair that she had no need of other apparel 7the bas-relief from ,laugerie-,basse carved on reindeer palm--cf4 ,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiji1 p4 #edj and ,plate #b74 ,mr4 ,mc,cann may object1 with truth1 that this is far from being a proof that the primitive representatives of the human race were hairy individuals1 but the fact suffices1 at least1 to acquit ,mr4 ,wells of the charge of unscrupulous invention4 ,hence1 while we have no wish to excuse the lamentable lack of scientific conscientiousness so manifestly apparent in the writings of popularizers of evolution1 like ,wells1 ,osborn1 and ,haeckel1 nevertheless common justice1 not to speak of charity1 constrains us to presume that1 occasionally at least1 their departures from the norm of objective fact were due to ordinary human fallibility or to the mental blindness induced by preconceptions1 rather than to any deliberate intent to deceive4 ,and we feel ourselves impelled to make this allowance for unconscious inaccuracy all the more readily that we are confronted with the necessity of extending the selfsame indulgence to ,mr4 ,mc,cann himself4 ,thus we find that the seventh illustration in 8,god--or ,gorilla0 7opposite p4 #ef7 bears the legend3 8,skeletons of man and chimpanzee compared10 when1 in point of fact1 the ape skeleton in question is not that of a chimpanzee 7,troglodytes niger7 at all1 but of an ,orang-utan 7,simia satyrus71 as the reader may verify for himself by consulting ,plate ,,vi of the ,english version of ,wasmann's 8,modern ,biology10 where the identical illustration appears above its proper title3 8,skeleton of an adult ,orang-utan40 ,since the error is repeated in the index of illustrations and in the legend of the third illustration of the appendix1 it is impossible1 in this instance1 to shift the responsibility from ,mr4 ,mc,cann to the printer4 ,in any case1 it is sincerely to be hoped that this1 and several other infelicitous errors will be rectified in the next edition of 8,god--or ,gorilla40 ,in the next chapter we shall have occasion to refer again to ,dorlodot's book4 ,for the present1 however1 his work need not concern us1 while in that of ,mr4 ,mc,cann we single out but one point as germane to our subject1 namely1 the latter's inadequate rebuttal of the evolutionary argument from homology4 ,the futility of his method1 which consists in matching insignificant differences against preponderant resemblances1 and in exclaiming with ironic incredulity3 8,note extraordinary resemblances60 becomes painfully evident1 so soon as proper presentation enables us to appreciate the true force of the argument he is striving to refute4 ,functionally the foot of a ,troglodyte ape may be a 8hand10 but structurally it is the homologue of the human foot1 and not of the human hand2 nor is this homology effectually disposed of by stressing the dissimilarity of the hallux1 whilst one remains discreetly reticent concerning the similarity of the calcaneum4 ,for two reasons1 therefore1 the irrelevance of ,mr4 ,mc,cann's reply is of special interest here3 7#a7 because it illustrates concretely the danger of rendering a refutation inconsequential and inept by failing to plumb the full depth of the difficulty one is seeking to solve2 7#b7 because it shows that it is vain to attempt to remove man's body from the scope of this argument by citing the inconsiderable structural differences which distinguish him from the ape1 so that1 unless the argument from homology proves upon closer scrutiny to be inherently inconclusive1 its applicability to the human body is a foregone conclusion1 and implies with irresistible logic the common ancestry of men and apes4 ,such are the reflections suggested by the meager measure of justice which ,mr4 ,mc,cann accords to the strongest zological evidence in favor of evolution1 and they contain in germ a feasible program for the present chapter1 which1 accordingly1 will address itself3 first1 to the task of ascertaining the true significance of homology in the abstract as well as the full extent of its application in the concrete2 second1 to that of determining with critical precision its intrinsic value as an argument for the theory of transmutation4 ,homology is a technical term used by the systematists of botany1 zology and comparative anatomy to signify basic structural similarity as distinguished from superficial functional similarity1 the latter being termed analogy4 ,organisms are said to exemplify the phenomenon of homology when1 beneath a certain amount of external diversity1 they possess in common a group of correlated internal resemblances of such a nature that the organisms possessing them appear to be constructed upon the same fundamental plan4 ,in cases of this kind1 the basic similarity is frequently masked by a veneer of unlikeness1 and it is only below this shallow surface of divergence that we find evidences of the identical structure or common type4 ,thus organs of different animals are said to be homologous when they are composed of like parts arranged in similar relation to one another4 ,homologous organs correspond bone for bone and tissue for tissue1 so that each component of the one finds its respective counterpart in the other4 ,the organs in question may be functionally specialized and externally differentiated for quite different purposes1 but the superficial diversity serves only to emphasize1 by contrast1 the underlying identity of structure which persists intact beneath it4 ,thus1 for example1 the wing of a pigeon1 the flipper of a whale1 the foreleg of a cat1 and the arm of a man are organs differing widely in function as well as outward appearance1 but they are called homologous1 none the less1 because they all exhibit the same basic plan1 being composed of similar bones similarly disposed with respect to one another4 ,organs1 on the other hand1 are called analogous which1 though fundamentally unlike in structure1 are1 nevertheless1 superficially modified and specialized for one and the same function4 ,the wing of a bird and the wing of an insect furnish a trite instance of such analogy4 ,functionally they subserve the same purpose1 but structurally they bear no relation to each other4 ,in like manner1 though both are devoted to the same function1 there exists between the leg of a man and the leg of a spider a fundamental disparity in structure4 ,at times1 specialization for the selfsame function involves the emergence of a similar modification or uniform structural adaptation from a substrate of basic dissimilarity4 ,in these instances of parallel modifications appearing on the surface of divergent types1 we have something more than mere functional resemblance4 ,structure is likewise involved1 albeit superficially1 in the modification which brings about this external uniformity4 ,in such cases1 analogy is spoken of as convergence1 a phenomenon of which the mole and the mole-cricket constitute a typical example4 ,the burrowing legs of the insect are1 so far as outward appearance goes1 the exact replica on a smaller scale of those of the mole1 though1 fundamentally1 their structure is quite unlike1 the mole being built on the endoskeletal plan of the vertebrates1 whereas the mole-cricket is constructed on the exoskeletal plan characteristic of the arthropods4 ,speaking of the first pair of legs of the mole-cricket1 ,thomas ,hunt ,morgan says3 8,by their use the mole-cricket makes a burrow near the surface of the ground1 similar to1 but of course much smaller than1 that made by the mole4 ,in both of these cases the adaptation is the more obvious1 because1 while the leg of the mole is formed on the same general plan as that of other vertebrates1 and the leg of the mole-cricket has the same fundamental structure as that of other insects1 yet in both cases the details of structure and the general proportions have been so altered that the leg is fitted for entirely different purposes from those to which the legs of other vertebrates and other insects are put40 7,quoted by ,dwight in 8,thoughts of a ,catholic ,anatomist10 p4 #bce47 ,in the analogies of convergence1 therefore1 we have the exact converse of the phenomenon so often encountered in connection with homology4 ,the latter exhibits a contrast between basic identity and superficial diversity1 the former a contrast between superficial convergence and fundamental divergence4 ,now the extreme importance of homology is manifest from the fact that the taxonomists of zology and botany have found it to be the most satisfactory basis for a scientific classification of animals and plants4 ,in both of these sciences1 organisms are arranged in groups according as they possess in common certain points of resemblance whereby they may be referred to this1 or that1 general type4 ,the resemblance is most complete between members of the same species1 which do not differ from one another by any major difference1 though they may exhibit certain minor differences justifying their subdivision into varieties or races4 ,these morphological considerations1 however1 must1 in the case of an organic species1 be supplemented by the additional physiological criteria of perfect sexual compatibility and normal viability1 as we have already had occasion to note in the previous chapter4 ,when organisms1 though distinguished from one another by some major difference1 agree1 notwithstanding1 in the main elements of structure1 the several species to which they belong are grouped under a common genus1 and similarly genera are grouped into families4 ,a relative major difference1 such as a difference in the size of the teeth1 suffices for the segregation of a new species1 while an absolute difference1 such as a difference in the number of teeth or the possession of an additional organ1 suffices for the segregation of a new genus4 ,in practice1 however1 the classifications of systematists are often very arbitrary1 and we find the latter divided into two factions1 the 8lumpers0 who wish to reduce the number of systematic groups and the 8splitters0 who have a passion for breaking up larger groups into smaller ones on the basis of tenuous differences4 ,above the families are the orders1 and they1 in turn1 are assembled in still larger groups called classes1 until finally we reach the phyla or branches1 which are the supreme categories into which the plant and animal kingdoms are divided4 ,as we ascend the scale of classification1 the points of resemblance between the organisms classified are constantly decreasing in number1 while the points of difference increase apace4 ,hence1 whereas members of the same species have very much in common1 members of the same phylum have very little in common1 and members of different phyla show such structural disparity that further correlation on the basis of similarities becomes impossible 7in the sense1 at least1 of a reliable and consistent scheme of classification71 all efforts to relate the primary phyla to one another in a satisfactory manner having proved abortive4 ,within the confines of each phylum1 however1 homology is the basic principle of classification4 ,but the scientist is not content to note the bare fact of its existence4 ,he seeks an explanation1 he wishes to know the raison d'tre of homology4 ,innumerable threads of similarity run through the woof of divergence1 and the question arises3 ,how can we account for the coxistence of this woof of diversity with a warp of similarity8 ,certainly1 if called upon to explain the similarity existent between members of one and the same species1 even the man in the street would resort instinctively to the principle of inheritance and the assumption of common ancestry1 exclaiming3 8,like sire1 like son60 ,it is a notorious fact that children resemble their parents1 and since members of the same species are sexually compatible and perfectly interfertile1 there is no difficulty whatever in the way of accepting the presumption of descent from common ancestral stock as a satisfactory solution of the problem of specific resemblance4 ,now1 it is precisely this selfsame principle of heredity which the ,transformist invokes to account for generic1 no less than for specific1 similarity4 ,in fact1 he presses it further still1 and professes to see therein the explanation of the resemblances observed between members of the different families1 orders1 and classes1 which systematists group under a common phylum4 ,this1 of course1 amounts to a bold extension of the principle of inheritance far beyond the barriers of interspecific sterility to remote applications that exceed all possibility of experimental verification4 ,transformists answer this difficulty1 however1 by contending that the period1 during which the human race has existed1 has been1 geologically speaking1 all too brief1 and characterized by environmental conditions much too uniform1 to afford us a favorable opportunity for ascertaining the extreme limits to which the genetic process may possibly extend2 and1 even apart from this consideration1 they say1 racial development 7phylogeny7 may be1 like embryological development 7ontogeny7 an irreversible process1 in which case no recurrence whatever of its past phenomena are to be expected in our times4 ,be that as it may1 the evolutionist interprets the resemblances of homology as surviving vestiges of an ancient ancestral type1 which have managed to persist in the descendants notwithstanding the transformations wrought in the latter by the process of progressive divergence4 ,moreover1 just as the existence of a common ancestor is inferred from the fact of resemblance1 so the relative position in time of the common ancestor is inferred from the degree of resemblance4 ,the common ancestor of forms closely allied is assumed to have been proximate1 that of forms but distantly resembling each other is thought to have been remote4 ,thus the common ancestor of species grouped under the same genus is supposed to have been less remote than the common ancestor of all the genera grouped under one family4 ,the same reasoning is applied1 mutatis mutandis1 to the ancestry of families1 orders and classes4 ,the logic of such inferences may be questioned1 but there is no blinking the fact that1 in practice1 the genetic explanation of homology is assumed by scientists to be the only reasonable one possible4 ,in fact1 so strong is their confidence in the necessity of admitting a solution of this kind1 that they do not hesitate to make it part and parcel of the definition of homology itself4 ,for instance1 on page #acj of ,woodruff's 8,foundations of ,biology0 7#aibb71 we are informed that homology signifies 8a fundamental similarity of structure based on descent from a common antecedent form40 ,the ,yale professor1 however1 has been outdone in this respect by ,professor ,calkins of ,columbia1 who discards the anatomical definition altogether and substitutes1 in lieu thereof1 its evolutionary interpretation4 8,when organs have the same ancestry10 he says1 8that is1 when they come from some common part of an ancestral type1 they are said to be homologous40 78,biology10 p4 #afe47 ,in short1 ,f4 ,a4 ,bather is using a consecrated formula culled from the modern biological creed when he says3 8,the old form of diagnosis was per genus et differentiam4 ,the new form is per proavum et modificationem40 7,science1 ,sept4 #ag1 #aibj1 p4 #bei47 ,a moment's reflection1 however1 will make it clear that1 in thus confounding the definition proper with its theoretical interpretation1 the modern biologist is guilty of a logical atrocity4 ,homology1 after all1 is a simple anatomical fact1 which can be quite adequately defined in terms of observation2 nor is the definition improved in the least by having its factual elements diluted with explanatory theory4 ,on the contrary1 the definition is decidedly weakened by such redundancy4 ,and as for those who insist on defining homology in terms of atavistic assumption instead of structural affinity1 their procedure is tantamount to defining the clear by means of the obscure1 an actual effect by means of a possible cause4 ,moreover1 this attempt to load the dice in favor of ,transformism by tampering with the definition of homology ends by defeating its own purpose4 ,for1 if homology is to serve as a legitimate argument for evolution1 then obviously evolution must not be included in its definition2 otherwise1 the conclusion is anticipated in the premise1 the question is begged1 and the argument itself rendered a vicious circle4 ,having formed a sufficiently clear conception of homology as a static fact1 we are now in a position to consider the problem of its causality with reference to the solution proposed by evolutionists4 ,transmutation1 they tell us1 results from the interaction of a twofold process1 namely1 the conservative and similifying process called inheritance1 and progressive and diversifying process known as variation4 ,inheritance by transmitting the ancestral likeness tends to bring about uniformity4 ,variation by diverting old currents into new channels adjust organisms to new situations and brings about modification4 ,homology1 therefore1 is the effect of inheritance1 while adaptedness or modification is the product of variation4 ,as here used1 the term inheritance denotes something more than a mere recurrence of parental characters in the offspring4 ,it signifies a process of genuine transmission from generation to generation4 ,strictly speaking1 it is not the characters1 such as coloration1 shape1 size1 chemical composition1 structural type1 and functional specificity1 that are 8inherited10 but rather the hereditary factors or chromosomal genes1 which are actually transmitted1 and of which the characters are but an external expression or manifestation4 ,hence1 it is scarcely accurate to speak of 8inherited10 as distinguished from 8acquired10 characters4 ,as a matter of fact1 all somatic characters are joint products of the interaction of germinal and environmental factors4 ,consequently1 the external character would be affected no less by a change in the environmental factors than by a change in the germinal factors4 ,in a word1 somatic characters are not the exclusive expression of the genetic factors1 but are equally dependent upon environmental influence1 and hence it is only to the extent that these characters are indicative of the specific constitution of the germ plasm that we may speak of them as 8inherited10 remembering that what is really transmitted to the offspring is a complex of genes or germinal factors1 and not the characters themselves4 ,the sense is1 therefore1 that 8inherited0 characters are manifestative of what is contained in the germ plasm1 whereas 8acquired0 characters have no specific germinal basis1 but are a resultant of the interaction between the somatic cells and the environment4 ,in modern terminology1 as we have seen1 the aggregate of germinal factors transmitted in the process of reproduction is called the genotype1 while the aggregate of somatic characters which manifest these germinal factors externally is spoken of as the phenotype4 ,only the genotype is transmitted1 the phenotype being the subsequent product of the interplay of genetic factors and environmental stimuli1 dependent upon1 and expressive of1 both4 ,variation1 therefore1 may be based upon a change in the germ plasm1 or in the environment1 or in both4 ,if it rests exclusively upon an extraordinary change in the environmental conditions1 the resulting modification is non-inheritable1 and will disappear so soon as the exceptional environmental stimulus that evoked it is withdrawn4 ,if1 on the contrary1 it is based upon a germinal change1 it will manifest itself1 even under ordinary1 i4e4 unchanged or uniform environmental influence4 ,in this case1 the modification is inheritable in the sense that it is the specific effect of a transmissible germinal factor1 which has undergone alteration4 ,as we have seen in the foregoing chapter1 there are three kinds of germinal change which result in 8inheritable0 modifications4 ,the first is called factorial mutation1 and is initiated by an alteration occurring in one or more of the chromosomal genes4 ,the second is called chromosomal mutation1 and is caused by duplication 7or reduction7 of the chromosomes4 ,the third may be termed recombination1 one type of which results from the crossover or exchange of genes between pairing chromosomes 78pseudomutation071 the other from random assortment in accordance with the ,mendelian law of the independence of allelomorphic pairs4 ,this so-called 8random assortment of the chromosomes0 is the result of the shuffling and free deals of the chromosomal cards of heredity which take place twice in the life-cycle of organisms3 viz4 first1 in the process of gametic reduction 7meiosis72 second1 in the chance meeting of variously-constituted sperms and eggs in fertilization4 ,a mischance of the first of these 8free deals0 is bewailed in the following snatch from a parody belonging to the ,woods ,hole anthology4 8,oh chromosomes1 my chromosomes1 ,how sad is my condition6 ,my grandsire's gift for writing well ,has gone to some lost polar cell ,and so ,i write this doggerel1 ,i cannot do much better40 ,these kinds of variation1 however1 in so far as they fall within the range of actual observation1 are confined within the limits of the organic species4 ,intra-specific variation1 however1 will not suffice4 ,to account for the adaptive modifications superimposed upon underlying structural identity1 ,transformism is obliged to assume the possibility of trans-specific variation4 ,yet in none of the foregoing processes of variation do we find a valid factual basis for this assumption4 ,factorial mutation1 for instance1 waiving its failure to produce naturally-viable forms1 or to meet the physiological sterility test of a new species1 admits of interpretation as a change of loss due to the 8dropping out0 of a gene from the germinal complex4 ,bateson's conception of evolution as a process consisting in the gradual loss of inhibitive genes1 whose elimination releases suppressed potentialities1 seems rather incredible4 ,many will be inclined to see in ,castle's facetious epigram a reductio ad absurdum of ,bateson's suggestion2 for1 according to the latter's view1 as the ,harvard professor remarks1 we should have to regard man as a simplified amba4 ,certainly1 it seems nothing short of a contradiction to ascribe the progressive complication of the phenotype to a simplification of the genotype by loss4 ,on the other hand1 not only is there no experimental evidence of a germinal change by positive acquisition1 that is1 by the addition of genes1 but it is hard to conceive how such a change could come about4 8,at first10 admits ,bateson1 8it may seem rank absurdity to suppose that the primordial form or forms of protoplasm could have contained complexity enough to produce the divers types of life40 8,but10 he asks1 8is it easier to imagine that these powers could have been conveyed by extrinsic addition8 ,of what nature could these additions be8 ,additions of material can not surely be in question4 ,we are told that salts of iron in the soil may turn a pink hydrangea blue4 ,the iron cannot be passed on to the next generation4 ,how can iron multiply itself8 ,the power to assimilate iron is all that can be transmitted4 ,a disease-producing organism like the pebrine of silkworms can in a very few cases be passed on through the germ cells4 ,but it does not become part of the invaded host1 and we can not conceive it taking part in the geometrically ordered processes of segregation4 ,these illustrations may seem too gross2 but what refinement will meet the requirements of the problem1 that the thing introduced must be1 as the living organism itself is1 capable of multiplication and of subordinating itself in a definite system of segregation80 7,heredity1 ,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiae1 p4 #cgc47 ,nor can we agree with ,prof4 ,t4 ,h4 ,morgan's contention that the foregoing difficulty of ,bateson has been solved by the discovery of the chromosomal mutation4 ,all unbalanced chromosomal mutants are subnormal in their viability and vitality1 not to speak of their marked sterility4 ,haploidy represents a regressive1 rather than a progressive1 step4 ,the triploid mutant is sterile4 ,the tetraploid race of ,daturas is inferior in fertility to the normal diploid plant4 ,the origin of balanced tetraploidy from diploidy must be presumed1 since it has never been observed4 ,moreover1 tetraploidy represents only quantitative1 and not qualitative1 progress4 ,the increased mass of the nucleus produces an enlargement of the cytoplasm1 the result of which is giantism4 ,this effect1 however1 is not specific2 for giant and normal races possessing each the same number of chromosomes are known to exist in nature4 ,hence giantism may be due to other causes besides chromosomal duplication4 ,the only effect of this doubling is a reinforcement and intensification of the former effect of the genetic factors1 their specificity remaining unchanged4 ,double doses are substituted for single doses of the factors1 but nothing really new is added4 ,morgan himself recognizes that this mere repetition of identical genes is insufficient1 and that their multiplication must be qualitative as well as numerical1 to answer the specifications of a progressive step in evolution4 ,hence he suggests that the chromosomal mutation is subsequently supplemented by appropriate factorial mutation4 ,once this supposition is made1 however1 all the objections we have mentioned in connection with factorial mutation 7e4g4 the subnormality of its products1 its intra-specific nature1 etc47 return to plague the speculator1 and1 in addition to these1 he is confronted with the new difficulty of explaining how the redundance of duplicate genes can be removed and replaced by cordinate differentiation in their respective specificities4 ,now we have no factual evidence whatever of such a solidaric redifferentiation of the germinal factors1 that would modify harmoniously the composition and rle of each and every gene in the factorial complex4 ,nor is there any possibility whatever of accounting for this telic superregulation of the germinal regulators upon a purely mechanistic basis4 ,how can the ultimate chemical determinants of heredity be thus redetermined8 ,consequently1 although there is gametic incompatibility between diploid races and the tetraploid races1 which are said to have arisen from the former1 we are not1 nevertheless1 warranted1 by what has been experimentally verified1 in regarding tetraploid races as new species1 or as progressive steps in the process of organic evolution4 ,to conclude1 therefore1 we have experimental verification of the efficacy of the similifying process said to have been at work in evolution1 namely1 inheritance4 ,the same1 however1 cannot be said of the correlative diversifying process of trans-specific variation1 which is said to have superficially modified old structures into new species4 ,the latter process1 accordingly1 is but a pure postulate of science known to us only through the effect hypothetically assigned to it1 namely1 the adaptive modification4 ,the adaptation1 however1 of which there is question here is not to be confounded with the 8acquired adaptation0 of ,lamarckian fame2 for1 unlike the latter1 it is an inheritable modification rooted in the germ plasm4 ,adaptations of this sort do1 indeed1 adjust the organism to its external environment1 but they are innate and not acquired4 ,hence they are often spoken of as preadaptations2 for they precede1 in a sense1 the organism's contact with the environing element to which they adjust it4 ,they may possibly1 it is true1 have been acquired in the distant past1 but they have now a specific germinal foundation1 and no one was ever privileged to witness their initial production de novo4 ,the whale1 for example1 though fundamentally a warm-blooded mammal1 is superficially a fish1 by reason of such a preadaptation to its marine environment4 ,preadaptation is of common occurrence1 especially among parasites1 symbiotes1 commensals1 and inquilines4 ,wasmann cites innumerable instances of beetles and flies so profoundly modified1 in accommodation to their mode of life as guests in termite nests1 that the systematist hesitates to classify them under any of the accepted orders of insects4 ,here the adaptive modification so disturbs the underlying homology as to make of these creatures taxonomical ambiguities4 ,in the case of ,termitomyia1 he tells us1 8the whole development of the individual has been so modified that it resembles that of a viviparous mammal rather than that of a fly40 78,the ,problem of ,evolution10 pp4 #ad1 #ae47 ,such modifications1 however1 amount to major1 and not merely minor1 differences4 ,we are not dealing1 therefore1 with varietal distinctions here1 but with specific1 generic1 and even ordinal differences4 ,with reference to the phenomenon of adaptive modification1#c three things1 consequently1 are worthy of note3 7#a7 it has the semblance of being adventitious to the underlying structural uniformity2 7#b7 it is of such magnitude that it cannot be ascribed to variation within the species2 7#c7 it has been appropriated by the hereditary process1 in the sense that it is now an 8inherited0 character based on the transmission of specific germinal factors4 #c ,it may be remarked1 in passing1 that experimental genetics and mutation furnish no clue to the origin of adaptive characters4 ,the ,lamarckian idea alone gives promise in this direction4 ,orthogenesis leaves unsolved the mystery of preadaptation2 yet only orthogenetic systems of evolution can be constructed on the basis of genetical facts4 8,mutations and ,mendelism10 says ,kellogg1 8may explain the origin of new species in some measure1 but they do not explain adaptation in the slightest degree40 7,atlantic ,monthly1 ,april1 #aibd1 pp4 #dhh1 #dhi47 ,we have seen in the previous chapter that they are impotent to explain in any measure the origin of new species4 ,now it is claimed that for the occurrence of this kind of modification in conjunction with homology only one rational explanation is possible1 and that explanation is evolution4 ,if this contention be a sound one1 and ,dorlodot1 who claims certitude for the evolutionary solution1 insists that it is such1 then1 in the name of sheer logical consistency1 but one course lies open to us4 ,we cannot stop at ,wasmann's comma1#d we must press on to the very end of the evolutionary sentence and sing with the choristers of ,woods ,hole3 #d ,rev4 ,erich ,wasmann1 ,s4 ,j41 accepts the evolutionary inference from homology as regards plants and animals4 ,when it comes to man1 however1 he attempts to draw the line1 and argues painstakingly against the assumption of a bestial origin of the human body4 8,it's a long way from ,amphioxus1 ,it's a long way to us2 ,it's a long way from ,amphioxus1 ,to the meanest human cuss4 ,good-bye fins and gill slits2 ,welcome skin and hair4 ,it's a long1 long way from ,amphioxus1 ,but we came from there40 ,in this predicament it will not do1 as we shall see presently1 to adopt ,mr4 ,mc,cann's expedient of balancing anatomical differences against anatomical resemblances4 ,to do so is to court certain and ignominious defeat4 ,we must1 therefore1 examine the argument dispassionately4 ,if it be solid1 we must accept it and give it general application4 ,if it be unsound1 we must detect its flaws and expose them4 ,intellectual honesty allows us no alternative6 ,moreover1 in weighing the argument from organic homology we must not lose sight of the two important considerations previously stressed3 7#a7 that the inference of common ancestry in the case of homologous forms is based1 not upon this or that particular likeness1 but upon an entire group of cordinated resemblances2 7#b7 that the resemblances involved are not exterior similarities1 but deep-seated structural uniformities perfectly compatible with diversities of a superficial and functional character4 8,nothing10 says ,dr4 ,w4 ,w4 ,keen1 8could be more unlike externally than the flipper of a whale and the arm of a man4 ,yet you find in the flipper the shoulderblade1 humerus1 radius1 ulna1 and a hand with the bones of four fingers masked in a mitten of skin40 7,science1 ,june #i1 #aibb1 p4 #fje47 ,in fact1 the resemblances may1 in certain instances1 be so deeply submerged that they no longer appear in the adult organism at all and are only in evidence during a transitory phase of the embryological process4 ,in such cases1 the embryo or larva exhibits1 at a particular stage1 traces of a uniformity completely obliterated from the adult form4 ,in short1 though frequently presented as a distinct argument1 embryological similarity1 together with all else of value that can still be salvaged from the wreck of the ,mller-,haeckel ,law of ,embryonic ,recapitulation1 is1 at bottom1 identical with the general evolutionary argument from homology4 ,in the latter argument we are directed to look beneath the modified surface of the adult organism for surviving vestiges of the ancestral type4 ,in the former1 we are bidden to go deeper still1 to the extent1 that is1 of descending into the very embryological process itself1 in order to discover lingering traces of the ancestral likeness1 which1 though now utterly deleted from the transformed adult1 are yet partially persistent in certain embryonic phases4 ,in sectioning a larval specimen of the fly-like termite-guest known as ,termitoxenia ,heimi1 ,father ,wasmann came across a typical exemplification of this embryological atavism4 ,in the adult insect1 a pair of oar-like appendages replace the wings characteristic of the ,diptera 7flies74 ,these appendages are organs of exudation1 which elaborate a secretion whereof the termites are very fond1 and thereby render their possessors welcome guests in the nests of their hosts4 ,the appendages1 therefore1 though now undoubtedly inherited characters1 are the specific means by which these inquilines are adapted to their peculiar environment and mode of life among the termites4 ,moreover1 the organs in question not only differ from wings functionally1 but1 in the adult1 they bear no structural resemblance whatever to the wings of flies4 ,nevertheless1 on examining his sections of the above-mentioned specimen1 ,wasmann found a developmental stage of brief duration during which wing veins appeared in the posterior branches of the embryonic appendages4 ,now1 assuming that ,wasmann's technique was faultless1 his specimen normal1 and his interpretation correct1 it is rather difficult to avoid his conclusion that we have here1 in this transitory larval phase1 the last surviving vestige of ancestral wings now wholly obliterated from the adult type1 that1 consequently1 this wingless termite guest is genetically related to the winged ,diptera1 and that we must see in the appendages aboriginal wings diverted from their primitive function and respecialized for the quite different purpose of serving as organs of exudation1 7cf4 8,modern ,biology10 p4 #che47 ,indeed1 phenomena of this kind seem to admit of no other explanation than the atavistic one4 ,it should be remembered1 however1 that ,wasmann does not appear to have verified the observation in more than one specimen1 and that a larger number of representative specimens would have to be accurately sectioned1 strained1 examined and interpreted1 before any reliable conclusion could be drawn4#e #e ,this transitory lymphatic1 or tracheal venation appearing in the appendages at the stenogastric stage may not have the particular significance that ,father ,wasmann assigns4 ,such venation1 even if vestigial and aborted1 need not necessarily be a vestige of former wing venation4 ,to demonstrate the validity of the atavistic interpretation1 all other possible interpretations would have to be definitively excluded4 ,such1 in its most general aspect1 is the atavistic solution of the problem presented by the homology of types4 ,in it1 similarity and diversity are harmoniously reconciled1 in the sense that they affect1 respectively1 different structural1 or different developmental1 levels4 ,it is futile1 therefore1 to look for contradictions where they do not exist4 ,in a word1 the attempt to create opposition between a group of basic and correlated uniformities1 on the one hand1 and some particular external difference1 on the other1 is not only abortive1 but absolutely irrelevant as well4 ,the reason is obvious4 ,only when likeness is associated with unlikeness is it an argument for ,transmutation4 ,likeness alone would demonstrate ,immutability by indicating a process of pure inheritance as distinguished from the process of variation4 ,hence evolutionists do not merely concede the coxistence of diversity with similarity1 they gladly welcome this fact as vitally necessary to their contention4 ,now it is precisely this point which ,mr4 ,mc,cann1 like many other critics of evolution1 fails utterly to apprehend4 ,consequently1 his efforts to extricate the human foot from the toils of simian homology are entirely unavailing4 ,to offset the force of the argument in question1 it is by no means sufficient1 as he apparently imagines1 to point to the fact that1 unlike the hallux of the ape1 the great toe in man is non-opposable 7cf4 8,god--or ,gorilla10 pp4 #ahc1 #ahd1 and legends under cuts opposite pp4 #ahd and #cah74 ,the evolutionist will reply at once that the non-opposability of man's great toe is correlated with the specialization of the human foot for progression only1 as distinguished from prehension2 while1 in the ape1 whose foot has retained both the progressive and the prehensile function1 the hallux is naturally opposable in adaptation to the animal's arboreal habits4 ,he will then call attention to the undeniable fact that1 despite these adaptational differences1 the bones in the foot of a ,troglodyte ape are1 bone for bone1 the counterparts of the bones in the human foot and not of those in the human hand4 ,he will readily concede1 that1 so far as function and adaptedness go1 this simian foot is a 8hand10 but he will not fail to point out that it is1 at the same time1 a heeled hand equipped with a calcaneum1 a talus1 a navicular1 a cuboid1 and all other structural elements requisite to ally it to the human foot and distinguish it from the human hand4 ,in fact1 ,mr4 ,mc,cann's own photographs of the gorilla skeleton show these features quite distinctly1 though he himself1 for some reason or other1 fails to speak of them4 ,it is to be feared1 however1 that his adversaries may not take a charitable view of his reticence concerning the simian heel1 but may be inclined to characterize his silence as 8discreet10 all the more so1 that he himself has uncomplimentarily credited them with similar discretions in their treatment of unmanageable facts4 ,in short1 ,mr4 ,mc,cann's case against homology resembles the ,homeric hero1 ,achilles1 in being vulnerable at the 8heel40 ,at all events1 the homology itself is an undeniable fact1 and it is vain to tilt against this fact in the name of adaptational adjustments like 8opposability0 and 8non-opposability40 ,since1 therefore1 our author has failed to prove that this feature is too radical to be classed as an adaptive modification1 our only hope of exempting the human skeleton from the application of the argument in question is to show that argument itself is inconsequential4 ,mr4 ,mc,cann's predicament resembles that of the unlucky disputant1 who having allowed a questionable major to pass unchallenged1 strives to retrieve his mistake by picking flaws in a flawless minor4 ,as ,dwight has well said of the human body1 8it differs in degree only from that of apes and monkeys10 and 8if we compare the individual bones with those of apes we cannot fail to see the correspondence40 78,thoughts of a ,catholic ,anatomist10 p4 #adi47 ,in short1 there exists no valid anatomical consideration whatever to justify us in subtracting the human frame from the extension of the general conclusion deduced from homology4 ,whosoever1 therefore1 sees in the homology of organic forms conclusive evidence of descent from a common ancestor1 cannot1 without grave inconsistency1 reject the doctrine of the bestial origin of man4 ,he may still1 it is true1 exclude the human mind or soul from the evolutionary account of origins1 but1 if homology is1 in any sense1 a sound argument for common descent1 the evolutionary origin of the human body is a foregone conclusion1 and none of the anatomical 8differences in degree0 will avail to spare us the humiliation of sharing with the ape a common family-tree4 ,it remains for us1 then1 to rexamine the argument critically for the purpose of determining as precisely as possible its adequacy as a genuine demonstration4 ,to begin with1 it must be frankly acknowledged that here the theory of transformism is1 to all appearances1 upon very strong ground4 ,its first strategic advantage over the theory of immutability consists in the fact that1 unlike the latter1 its attitude towards the problem is positive and not negative4 ,when challenged to explain the structural uniformities observed in organic ,nature1 the theory of immutability is mute1 because it knows of no second causes or natural agencies adequate to account for the facts4 ,it can only account for homology by ascribing the phenomenon exclusively to the unity of the ,first ,cause1 and1 while this may1 of course1 be the true and sole explanation1 to assume it is tantamount to removing the problem altogether from the province of natural science4 ,hence it is not to be wondered at that scientists prefer the theory of transformism1 which by assigning intermediate causes between the ,first ,cause and the ultimate effects1 vindicates the problem of organic origins for natural science1 in assuming the phenomena to be proximately explicable by means of natural agencies4 ,asked whether he believes that ,god created the now exclusively arboreal ,sloth 7,bradypus7 in a tree1 the most uncompromising defender of fixism will hesitate to reply in the affirmative4 ,yet1 in this case1 what is nowadays1 at least1 an inherited preadaptation1 dedicates the animal irrevocably to tree-life1 and makes its survival upon the ground impossible4 ,analogous preadaptations occur in conjunction with the phenomena of parasitism1 symbiosis and commensalism1 all of which offer instances of otherwise disparate and unrelated organisms that are inseparably bound together1 in some apparently capricious and fortuitous respect1 by a preadaptation of the one to the other4 ,parasites1 guests1 or symbiotes1 as the case may be1 they are now indissolubly wedded to some determinate species of host by reason of an appropriate and congenital adjustment4 ,for all that1 however1 the association seems to be a contingent one1 and it appears incredible that the associates were always united1 as at present1 by bonds of reciprocal advantage1 mutual dependence1 or one-sided exploitation4 ,yet the basis of the relationship is in each case a now inherited adaptation1 which1 if it does not represent the primitive condition of the race1 must at some time have been acquired4 ,for phenomena such as these1 orthogenesis1 which makes an organ the exclusive product of internal factors1 conceiving it as a preformed mechanism that subsequently selects a suitable function1 has no satisfactory explanation4 ,lamarckism1 which asserts the priority of function and makes the environment mold the organ1 is equally inacceptable1 in that it flouts experience and ignores the now demonstrated existence of internal hereditary factors4 ,but1 if between these two extremes some evolutionary via media could be found1 one must confess that it would offer the only conceivable 8natural explanation0 of preadaptation4#f ,all this1 of course1 is pure speculation1 but it serves to show that here1 at any rate1 the theory of ,transformism occupies a position from which it cannot easily be dislodged4 #f ,vernon ,kellogg has expressed this same view in a recent article1 though he frankly admits that it is an as yet unrealized desideratum4 8,altogether10 he says1 8it must be fairly confessed that evolutionists would welcome the discovery of the actual possibility and the mechanism of transferring into the heredity of organisms such adaptive changes as can be acquired by individuals in their lifetime4 ,it would give them an explanation of evolution1 especially of adaptation1 much more satisfactory than any other explanation at present claiming the acceptance of biologists40 7,atlantic ,monthly1 ,april1 #aibd1 p4 #dhh47 ,but1 besides the advantage of being able to offer a 8natural explanation0 of the association of homology with adaptation1 ,transformism enjoys the additional advantage of being able to make the imagination its partisan by means of a visual appeal4 ,such an appeal is always more potent than that of pure logic stripped of sensuous imagery4 ,when it comes to vividness and persuasiveness1 the syllogism is no match for the object-lesson4 ,retinal impressions have a hypnotic influence that is not readily exorcised by considerations of an abstract order--8,segnius irritant demissa per aurem1 ,quam quae sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus10 says ,horace1 in the 8,ars ,poetica40 ,philosophers may distinguish between the magnetic appeal of a graphic presentation and the logical cogency of the doctrine so presented1 but there is no denying that1 in practice1 imagination is often mistaken for reason and persuasion for conviction4 ,be that as it may1 the ordinary method of bringing home to the student the evolutionary significance of homology is certainly one that utilizes to the full all the advantages of visual presentation4 ,given a class of impressionable premedics and coeds2 given an instructor's table with skeletons of a man1 a flamingo1 an ape and a dog hierarchically arranged thereon2 given an instructor sufficiently versed in comparative osteology to direct attention to the points in which the skeletons concur3 and there can be no doubt whatever as to the psychological result4 ,the student forms spontaneously the notion of a common vertebrate type1 and the instructor assures him that this 8general type0 is not1 as it would be with respect to other subject matter1 a mere universal idea with no formal existence outside the mind1 but rather a venerable family likeness1 posed for originally by a single pair of ancestors 7or could it possibly have been1 by one self-fertilizing hermaphrodite87 and recopied from generation to generation1 with certain variations on the original theme1 by the hand of an artist called ,heredity4 ,this explanation may be true1 but logically consequential it is not4 ,however1 if the dialectic is poor1 the pedagogy is beyond reproach1 and the solution proposed has in its favor the fact that it accords well with the student's limited experience4 ,he is aware of the truism that children resemble their parents4 ,why look for more recondite explanations when one so obvious is at hand8 ,the atavistic theory gratifies his instinct for simplification1 and1 if he be of a mechanistic turn of mind1 the alternative conception of creationism is quite intolerable4 ,nevertheless1 it goes without saying that the 8inference0 of common descent from the data of homology is not a ratiocination at all1 it is only a simple apprehension1 a mere abstraction of similarity from similars--8,unde quaecumque inveniuntur convenire in aliqua intentione intellecta10 says ,aquinas1 8voluerunt quod convenirent in una re40 7,in lib4 ,,ii sent41 dist4 #ag1 q4 ,i1 a4 #a7 ,philosophy tells us that the oneness of the universal is conceptual and not at all extramental or real1 but the transformist insists that the universal types of ,zology and ,botany are endowed with real as well as logical unity1 that real unity being the unity of the common ancestor4 ,certainly1 from the standpoint of practical effectiveness1 the evolutionary argument leaves little to be desired4 ,the presentation is graphic and the solution simple4 ,but for the critic1 to whom logical sequence is of more moment than psychological appeal1 this is not enough4 ,to withstand the gnawing tooth of ,time and the remorseless probing of corrosive human reason1 theories must rest on something sounder than a mirage of visual imagery6 ,tell me where is fancy bred1 ,or in the heart or in the head8 ,how begot1 how nourished8 ,reply1 reply4 ,it is engendered in the eyes1 ,with gazing fed2 and fancy dies ,in the cradle where it lies4 ,but is it fair thus to characterize the 8common ancestors0 of ,transformism as figments which1 like all other abstractions1 have no extramental existence apart from the concrete objects whence they were conceived8 ,to be sure1 their claim to be real entities cannot be substantiated by direct observation or experiment1 and so a factual proof is out of the question4 ,man1 the late-comer1 not having been present at the birth of organic forms1 can give no reliable testimony regarding their parentage4 ,in like manner1 no a priori proof from the process of inheritance is available1 because heredity1 as revealed to us by the experimental science of ,genetics1 can account for specific resemblances only1 and cannot be invoked1 at present1 as an empirically tested explanation for generic1 ordinal1 or phyletic resemblances4 ,it has still to be demonstrated experimentally that the hereditary process is transcendental to limits imposed by specific differentiation4 ,there remains1 however1 the a posteriori argument1 which interprets homology and adaptation as univocal effects ascribable to no other agency than the dual process of inheritance and variation4 ,what are we to think of this argument8 ,does it generate certainty in the mind1 or merely probability8 ,a moment's reflection will bring to light the preliminary flaw of incomplete enumeration of possibilities4 ,to suppose that inheritance alone can account for structural resemblance is an unwarranted assumption4 ,without a doubt1 there are other similifying influences at work in ,nature besides inheritance4 ,true1 inheritance is one possible explanation of the similarity of organisms1 but it is not the only one4 ,even among the chemical elements of inorganic nature we find analogous uniformities or 8family traits10 which1 in the absence of any reproductive process whatever1 we cannot possibly attribute to inheritance4 ,mendeleff's discovery of the periodicity of the elements1 arranged in the order of their atomic weights1 is well-known4 ,at each interval of an octave1 a succession of chemical types1 similar to those of the preceding octave1 recur4 ,hence elements appearing in the same vertical column of the ,periodic ,table have many properties in common and exhibit what may be called a family resemblance4 ,now1 we have in the process of atomic disintegration1 as observed in radioactive elements and interpreted by the electronic theory of atomic structure1 a reasonably satisfactory basis upon which to account for the existence of these inorganic uniformities4 ,here analogous chemical constitution1 produced in accordance with a general law1 results in uniformity that implies a similar1 rather than an identical1 cause4 ,the hypothesis of parallelistic derivation from similar independent origins accounts quite as well for the observed uniformities as does the hypothesis of divergent derivation from a single common origin4 ,why1 then1 should we lean so heavily on the already overtaxed principle of inheritance1 when parallelism is as much a possibility in the organic world as it is an actuality in the inorganic world8 ,as to the contrast here drawn between inheritance and other similifying factors1 it is hardly necessary to remark that we are speaking of inheritance as defined in terms of ,mendelian experiment and cytological observation4 ,in the so-called chemical theory of inheritance1 the distinction would be meaningless and the contrast would not exist4 ,ehrlich's disciple1 ,adami1 sets aside all self-propagating germinal determinants1 like the chromomeres1 in favor of a hypothetical 8biophoric molecule10 which is to be conceived as a benzine-like ring bristling with sidechains4 ,around this determining core the future organism is built up in definite specificity1 as an arch is constructed about a template4 ,adami has merely applied ,paul ,ehrlich's ideas concerning metabolism and immunity to the question of heredity1 commandeering for this purpose the latter's entire toolkit of receptors1 haptophores1 amboceptors1 etc41 as though this grotesque paraphernalia of crude and clumsy mechanical symbols 7which look for all the world like the wrenches of a machinist1 or the lifters used by the cook to remove hot lids from the kitchen range7 could throw any valuable light whatsoever on the exceedingly complex1 and manifestly vital1 phenomenon of inheritance4 ,it does not even deserve to be called a chemical theory1 for1 as ,starling correctly remarks concerning ,ehrlich's conception1 8though chemical in form10 it is not so in reality1 because 8it does not explain the phenomenon by reference to the known laws of chemistry40 7,cf4 ,physiology1 ed4 of #aibj1 p4 #ajhd47 ,in a word1 the theory of heredity1 which seeks to strip inheritance of its uniqueness as a vital process by identifying it with the more general physicochemical processes occurring in the organism1 is a groundless speculation1 that1 far from explaining1 flouts the very observational data which it pretends to elucidate4 ,kurz und gut6 to requite the mechanist1 ,schfer1 with his own ,danielesque phrase1 here1 as elsewhere1 the mechanists have succeeded in extracting from the facts1 not what the facts themselves proclaim1 but what prexisted in their own highly-cultured imaginations so well-stocked with cogs1 cranks1 ball bearings1 and other sthetic imagery emanating from polytechnic schools and factories4 ,but in arguing from the existence of parallelism in the inorganic world to its possibility in the organic world1 we are less liable to displease the mechanists than those other extremists1 the neo-vitalists1 who will be prone to deny all parity between living1 and inanimate1 matter4 ,fortunately1 we are in a position to appease the scruples of the latter by referring to the facts of convergence as universally accepted evidence that the phenomenon of parallelism occurs in animate1 no less than inanimate1 nature4 ,admitting1 therefore1 that the laws of organic morphology are of a higher order than those which regulate atomic1 molecular1 and multimolecular structure1 these facts attest1 nevertheless1 that parallelisms arise in organisms of separate ancestry which are due1 not to heredity1 but to the uniform action of universal morphogenetic forces4 ,hence general laws can be invoked to account for organic uniformities with the same right that they are invoked to account for resemblances existing between the various members of a chemical 8family0 like the ,halogens4 ,and why should this not be so8 ,organisms have much in common that transcends any possible scheme of evolution and that cannot be brought into alignment with the position arbitrarily assigned them in the evolutionary family-tree4 ,they all originate as single cells4 ,their common means of growth and reproduction is mitotic cell division4 ,this leads to the production of a somatella1 among the protista1 and of a soma differentiated by histogenesis into two or three primary tissues1 among the metista4 ,all these fundamental processes are strikingly uniform throughout the entire plant and animal world4 ,in these universal properties of living matter1 therefore1 we have a common basis for general structural and organizational laws1 which1 though irreducible to the 8common ancestors0 of ,transformism1 is quite adequate to account for both the homologies and analogies of living matter4 ,accept this basis of general laws regulating the development of living matter1 and there is no difficulty in seeing why the problems posed by exposure to analogous environmental conditions are solved in parallel fashion by organisms1 irrespective of whether they are nearly1 or distantly1 related in the sense of morphology4 ,transformism1 on the other hand1 can only account for homology at the expense of convergence1 and for convergence at the expense of homology4 ,so far as a common ancestral basis is concerned1 the two kinds of resemblance are1 from the very nature of the case1 irreducible phenomena4 ,it is only1 in fact1 by surrendering the principle that similarity entails community of origin1 and by falling back on the suggested common basis of general laws1 that ,transformism makes room in its system for the troublesome facts of convergence4 8,it might be reiterated in passing10 says ,dwight1 8that this #8convergence' business is a very ticklish one4 ,we have been taught almost word for word that resemblance implies relationship1 or almost predicates it2 but according to this doctrine it has nothing to do with it whatever40 78,thoughts of a ,cath4 ,anat410 p4 #aij47 ,and in a subsequent chapter he says3 8,no very deep knowledge of comparative anatomy is needed for us to know that very similar adaptations for particular purposes are found in very diverse animals4 ,the curious low grade mammal1 the ,ornithorhynchus1 with a hairy coat and the bill of a duck1 is a familiar instance4 ,we all know that the whales have the general form of the fish1 although they are mammals1 and going more into details we know that the whale's flipper is on the same general plan as that of the ancient saurians4444 ,the origin of the eye1 according to evolutionary doctrines1 has been a very difficult problem1 which gets worse rather than better the more you do for it4 ,even if we could persuade ourselves that certain cells blundered along by the lucky mating of individuals in whom they were a bit better developed than in the others till they came to form a most complicated organ of sight1 it would be a sufficient tax on our credulity to believe that this could come off successfully in some extraordinary lucky species2 but that it should have turned out so well with all kinds of vertebrates is really too much to ask us to swallow4 ,but this is not all3 eyes are very widely spread among different classes of invertebrates4 ,more wonderful still1 the eyes of certain molluscs and crustacea are on stalks1 and this is found also in various and very different families of fishes4 ,how did this happen8 ,was it by way of descent from the molluscs or the crustacea8 ,if not1 how could chance have brought about such a similar result in diverse forms80 7,op4 cit41 pp4 #bcc-bcf47 ,it may be objected that the resemblances of convergence are superficial analogies1 not to be confounded with fundamental homologies4 ,this contention may be disputed2 for1 as we shall see in the next chapter1 there are cases where the convergence is admittedly radical1 and not merely superficial4 ,the distinction1 moreover1 between shallow and basic characters is somewhat arbitrary1 and its validity is often questionable4 ,when the skeletal homology that relates the amphibia to the mammals1 for instance1 is traced to the root of the vertebrate family tree1 we find it all but disappearing in a primitive ,amphioxus-like chordate1 whose so-called skeleton contains no trace of bone or cartilage4 ,hence1 if we go back far enough1 the homologies of today become the convergences of a geological yesterday1 and we find the vertebrate type of skeleton arising independently in reptiles1 mammals1 amphibia1 and fishes4 ,again1 there are times when convergent analogies appear to be more representative of the common racial heritage than the underlying structure itself1 tempting the evolutionist to fly in the face of the orthodox interpretation1 which rigidly rules out analogy in favor of homology1 and refuses to accept the eloquent testimony of a remarkable resemblance merely because of a slight technical discrepancy in the structural substrate4 ,a large pinching claw1 or chela1 for example1 occurs in two organisms belonging to the phylum of the arthropods1 namely1 the lobster and the ,african scorpion4 ,both chel are practically identical in structure1 but1 unfortunately1 the chela of the lobster arises from a different appendage than that from which the scorpion's chela emerges4 ,if they arose from corresponding appendages1 they would be pronounced 8homologous organs0 and acclaimed1 without hesitation1 as strong evidence in favor of the common origin of all the arthropods4 ,in proof of this1 we call attention to the importance attached to the adaptations affecting homologous bones in fossil 8horses40 ,as it is1 however1 the two chel are analogous1 and not homologous1 organs4 ,hence1 technically speaking1 the two chel are utterly unrelated structures4 ,to the eye of common sense1 however1 the likeness appears to be far more important than the difference1 and the average person will be inclined to view the resemblance as evidence of a community of type4 ,in fact1 the tendency to discard superficial1 and to retain only fundamental1 uniformities1 is dangerous to the theory of ,transformism4 ,when we confine our attention to what is really basic1 we find that the resemblances become so generalized and widespread that specific conclusions as to descent become impossible1 and we lose all sense of direction in a clueless labyrinth of innumerable1 yet mutually contradictory1 possibilities4 ,finally1 it may be noted in passing that1 though it is customary with evolutionists to regard homologous characters as the tenaciously persistent heritage of primeval days1 and to look upon adaptational characters as adventitious and accessory to the aforesaid primitive heritage1 the supposedly older and more fundamental characters fail to give1 by the manifestation of greater fixity1 any empirical evidence whatever of their being more deeply or firmly rooted in the hereditary process than the presumably newer adaptational characters4 ,we have1 therefore1 no experimental warrant for appropriating homologous1 rather than adaptational1 characters to the process of inheritance4 8,it is sometimes asserted10 says ,goodrich1 8that old-established characters are inherited1 and that newly begotten ones are not1 or are less constant1 in their reappearance4 ,this statement will not bear critical examination4 ,for1 on the one hand1 it has been conclusively shown by experimental breeding that the newest characters may be inherited as constantly as the most ancient4444 ,while1 on the other hand1 few characters in plants can be older than the green color due to chlorophyll1 yet it is sufficient to cut off the light from a germinating seed for the greenness to fail to appear4 ,again1 ever since ,devonian times vertebrates have inherited paired eyes2 yet1 as ,professor ,stockard has shown1 if a little magnesium chloride is added to the sea water in which the eggs of the fish ,fundulus are developing1 they will give rise to embryos with one median cyclopean eye6 ,nor is the suggestion any happier that the1 so to speak1 more deep-seated and fundamental characters are more constantly inherited than the trivial or superficial4 ,a glance at the organisms around us1 or the slightest experimental trial1 soon convinces us that the apparently least important character may reappear as constantly as the most fundamental4 ,but while an organism may live without some trivial character1 it can rarely do so when a fundamental character is absent1 hence such incomplete individuals are seldom met in ,nature40 7,science1 ,dec4 #b1 #aiba1 p4 #ecj47 ,but1 whether it be upon1 or beneath1 the surface1 similitude of any kind suffices to establish our contention that inheritance is not the only similifying influence present in organisms1 and that resemblance is perfectly compatible with independence of ancestry4 ,we have1 therefore1 an alternative for inheritance in the explanation of organic uniformities1 and by the admission of this alternative1 which1 for the rest1 is factually attested by the universally acknowledged phenomena of convergence1 the inference of common descent from structural resemblance is shorn of the last remnant of its demonstrative force1 as an a posteriori argument4 ,but a still more serious objection to the evolutionary interpretation of homology and preadaptation arises from its intrinsic incoherency4 ,evolution1 as previously stated1 is assumed to be the resultant of a twofold process1 namely1 inheritance and variation4 ,the first is a conservative and similifying process1 which transmits4 ,the second is a progressive and diversifying process1 which diverts4 ,to the former process are due the uniformities of homology1 to the latter the deviations of adaptation4 ,upon the admission of evolutionists themselves1 however1 neither of these processes behaves in a manner consistent with its general nature1 and both of them are flagrantly unfaithful to the principal rles assigned to them4 ,nowadays the hereditary process transmits adaptational1 as well as homologous1 characters4 ,if1 then1 adaptational characters are more recent than homologous characters1 there must have been a time when inheritance ceased to similify and become a diversifying process by transmitting what it did not receive from the previous generation4 ,there were times when1 not content with simply reiterating the past1 it began to divert former tendencies into novel channels4 ,in other words1 inheritance becomes dualized into a paradoxical process1 which both perpetuates the old and appropriates the new4 ,the same inconsistency is manifest in the process of variation1 which capriciously produces convergent1 no less than divergent1 adaptations4 ,in two fundamentally identical structures1 like the wing of a bird and the foreleg of a cat1 variation is said to have produced diverse adaptations4 ,in two fundamentally diverse structures1 like the head of an octopus and the head of a frog1 variation is said to have produced an identical adaptation1 namely1 the vertebrate type of eye4 ,it appears1 therefore1 that the essentially diversifying process of variation can become1 on occasion1 a simplifying process1 which1 instead of solving environmental problems in an original manner1 prefers to employ uniform and standardized solutions1 and to cling to its old stereotyped methods4 ,inheritance similifies and diversifies1 variation converges and diverges4 ,it is futile to attempt to reduce either of these protean processes to a condition that even approximates consistency4 ,the evolutionist blows hot and cold with the same breath4 ,verily1 his god is ,proteus1 or the double-headed ,janus6 ,summa summarum3 ,the evolutionary argument from homology is defective in three important respects3 7#a7 in its lack of experimental confirmation2 7#b7 in its incomplete enumeration of the disjunctive possibilities2 7#c7 in its inability to construct a scheme of transmutation that synthesizes inheritance and variation in a logically coherent1 and factually substantiated formula4 ,the first two defects are not necessarily fatal to the argument as such4 ,though they destroy its pretensions to conclusiveness1 they do not preclude the fulfilment of the moderate claim made in its behalf by ,prof4 ,t4 ,h4 ,morgan1 who says3 8,in this sense 7i4e41 as previously stated7 the argument from comparative anatomy1 while not a demonstration1 carries with it1 ,i think1 a high degree of probability40 78,a ,critique of the ,theory of ,evolution10 p4 #ad47 ,the third defect is more serious4 ,the apparently irreducible antagonism which the evolutionary assumption introduces between inheritance and variation has been sensed even by the adherents of transformism themselves1 and they have searched in vain for a formula1 which1 without sacrificing the facts1 would bring into concord the respective rles of these discordant factors4 8,it follows10 says ,osborn1 8as an unprejudiced conclusion from our present evidence that upon ,weismann's principle we can explain inheritance but not evolution1 while with ,lamarck's principle and ,darwin's selection principle we can explain evolution1 but not1 at present1 inheritance4 ,disprove ,lamarck's principle and we must assume that there is some third factor in evolution of which we are ignorant40 7,popular ,science ,monthly1 ,jan41 #aije47 ,the point is well taken1 and unless1 as ,osborn suggests1 there is a tertium quid by means of which the discord can be resolved into ultimate harmony1 we see no way of liberating the theory of ,transmutation from this embarrassing dilemma4 ,,chapter ,,iii ,,fossil ,,pedigrees 8,by dint of such great efforts we succeeded only in piecing together genial romances more or less historical40--,b4 ,grassi1 ,prof4 of ,comparative ,anatomy1 ,univ4 of ,rome1 8,la vita0 7#aijf71 p4 #bbg4 #a4 ,the ,argument in the ,abstract ,the palontological argument for evolution is based upon the observed gradual approximation in type of the earlier forms of life1 as represented by the fossils still preserved in successive geological strata1 to the later forms of life1 as represented by the contemporary species constituting our present flora and fauna4 ,here the observed distribution in time supplements and confirms the argument drawn from mere structural affinity4 ,here we are no longer dealing with the spatial gradation of contemporary forms1 arranged on a basis of greater or lesser similarity 7the gradation whence the zologist derives his argument for evolution71 but with a temporal gradation1 which is simultaneously a morphological series and an historical record4 ,the lower sedimentary rocks contain specimens of organic life very unlike modern species1 but1 the higher we ascend in the geological strata1 the more closely do the fossil forms resemble our present organisms4 ,in fact1 the closeness of resemblance is directly proportional to the proximity in time1 and this seems to create a presumption that the later forms of life are the modified descendants of the earlier forms4 ,considered in the abstract1 at least1 such an argument is obviously more formidable than the purely anatomical argument based on the degrees of structural affinity observable in contemporary forms4 ,it ought1 therefore1 to be extremely persuasive1 provided1 of course1 it proceeds in rigorous accord with indubitably established facts and rules out relentlessly the alloy of uncritical assumptions4 ,here1 likewise1 we find the theory of transformism asserting its superiority over the theory of immutability1 on the ground that evolutionism can furnish a natural explanation for the gradational distribution of fossil types in the geological strata1 whereas the theory of permanence resorts1 it is said1 to a supernaturalism of reiterated 8new creations0 alternating with 8catastrophic exterminations40 ,now1 if this claim is valid1 and it can be shown conclusively that fixism is inevitably committed to a postulate of superfluously numerous 8creations10 then the latter theory is shorn of all right to consideration by ,occam's ,razor3 ,entia non sunt multiplicanda sine ratione4 ,it is rather difficult to conceive of the ,creator as continually blotting out1 and rewriting1 the history of creation1 as ruthlessly exterminating the organisms of one age1 only to repopulate the earth subsequently with species differing but little from their extinct predecessors--ad quid perditio haec8 ,such procedure hardly comports with the continuity1 regularity and irrevisable perfection to be expected in the works of that ,divine ,wisdom1 which 8reacheth 444 from end to end mightily and disposeth all things sweetly0 7,wisdom1 viii2 #a71 which 8ordereth all things in measure1 and number and weight40 7,wis4 xi2 #ba47 ,following the lead of other evolutionists1 ,wasmann has striven to saddle fixism with the fatuity of periodic catastrophism and 8creation on the installment plan40 ,but even ,cuvier1 who is credited with having originated the theory of catastrophism1 did not go to the absurd extreme of hypothecating reiterated creations1 but sought to explain the repopulation of the earth after each catastrophe by means of migrations from distant regions unaffected by the catastrophe4 ,historically1 too1 fixism has had its uniformitarian1 as well as its catastrophic1 versions4 ,in fact1 ,huxley classifies both uniformitarianism and catastrophism as fixistic systems1 when he says3 8,i find three more or less contradictory systems of geologic thought 444 standing side by side in ,britain4 ,i shall call one of them ,catastrophism1 another ,uniformitarianism1 the third ,evolutionism40 78,lay ,sermons10 p4 #bbi47 ,obviously1 then1 fixism is separable from the hypothesis of repeated catastrophes alternating with repeated 8creations40 ,stated in proper terms1 it is at one with evolutionism in rejecting as undemonstrated and improbable the postulate of reiterated cataclysms4 ,it freely acknowledges that1 in the absence of positive evidence of their occurrence1 the presumption is against extraordinary events1 like wholesale catastrophes4 ,it sanctions the uniformitarian tenet that ordinary cosmic processes are to be preferred to exceptional ones as a basis of geological explanation1 and it repudiates as unscientific any recourse to the unusual or the miraculous in accounting for natural phenomena4 ,its sole point of disagreement with evolutionism is its refusal to admit organic changes of specific magnitude4 ,it does1 however1 admit germinal changes of varietal magnitude4 ,it also recognizes that the external characters of the phenotype are the joint product of germinal factors and environmental stimuli1 and admits1 in consequence1 the possibility of purely somatic changes of considerable profundity being induced by widespread and persistent alterations in environmental conditions4 ,like ,darwin1 the uniformitarian fixist ascribes the origination of organic life to a single vivifying act on the part of the ,creator1 an act1 however1 that was formative rather than creative1 because the primal forms of life1 whether few or many1 were all evolved through ,divine influence from prexistent inorganic matter4 ,unlike ,darwin1 he ascribes the continuation of organic life to generative processes that were univocal 7generationes univocae71 and not gradually-equivocal 7generationes paulatim aequivocae74 ,in the next chapter1 we shall see that1 in attributing the initial formation of species to a ,divine act1 neither ,darwin nor the creationists exposed themselves to the charge of explaining the 8natural0 by means of the 8miraculous40 ,and1 as for the process by which living forms were continued upon earth1 the univocal reproductive process upheld by fixism is more manifestly a natural process than the gradually-equivocal generation of variable inheritance hypothecated by the theory of transmutation4 ,the sole matter of dispute between the two views is whether the life-cycles of organisms are circles or spirals4 ,but all this1 it will be said1 is purely negative4 ,merely to refrain from any recourse to the extraordinary or the supernatural is by no means sufficient4 8,natural explanations0 must be explanatory as well as natural4 ,unless there be a simplification1 a reduction of plurality to unity1 a resolution of many particular problems into a common general problem1 we have no explanation worthy of the name4 ,granting1 therefore1 that uniformitarian fixism does not recur to the anomalous or the miraculous1 it still lies open to the charge of failing in its function as an explanation1 because it multiplies origins in both space and time4 ,transformism1 on the contrary1 is said to elucidate matters1 inasmuch as it unifies origins spatially and temporally4 ,that transformism successfully plausibleizes a unification of origins in space1 is true only in a limited and relative sense4 ,the most that can be said for the assumption1 that resemblances rest on the principle of common inheritance1 is that it permits of a numerical reduction of origins1 but this numerical reduction will1 by an intrinsic necessity1 always fall short of absolute unification4 ,the monophyletic derivation of all organic forms from one primordial cell or protoblast is a fantastic dream1 for which1 from the very nature of things1 natural science does not1 and can not1 furnish even the semblance of an objective basis4 ,the ground is cut from under our feet1 the moment we attempt to extend the principle of descent outside the limits of an organic phylum4 ,the sole basis of inference is a group of uniformities1 and1 unless these uniformities predominate over the diversities1 there can be no rational application of the principle of transformism4 ,hence1 the hypothesis1 that organisms are consanguineous notwithstanding their differences1 loses all value as a solution at the point where resemblances are outweighed by diversities4 ,the transmutation assumed to have taken place must be never so complete as to have obliterated all recognizable vestiges of the common ancestral type4 8,whenever10 says ,driesch1 8the theory that1 in spite of their diversities1 the organisms are related by blood1 is to be really useful for explanation1 it must necessarily be assumed in every case that the steps of change1 which have led the specific form ,a to become the specific form ,b1 have been such as only to change in part that original form ,a4 ,that is to say3 the similarities between ,a and ,b must never be overshadowed by their diversities40 78,science and ,philosophy of the ,organism10 v4 ,i1 p4 #bed47 ,when1 therefore1 the reverse is true and diversities are prevalent over uniformities1 we are left without clue or compass in the midst of a labyrinth of innumerable possibilities4 ,such are the limits imposed by the very nature of the evidence itself1 and the scientists1 who transgress these limits1 by attempting to correlate the primary phyla1 are on a par with those unconvincible geniuses1 who continually besiege the ,patent ,office with schemes ever new and weird for realizing the chimera of 8perpetual motion40 ,thus scientific transformism is unable to simplify the problem beyond a certain irreducible plurality of forms1 lesser only in degree than the plurality postulated by fixism4 ,this being the case1 the attempts of ,wasmann and ,dorlodot to prune the works of ,creation with ,occam's ,razor are not only presumptuous1 but precarious as well4 ,qui nimis probat1 nihil probat6 ,if it be unworthy of ,god to multiply organic origins in space1 then monophyletic descent is the only possible alternative1 and polyphyletic transformism falls under the same condemnation as fixism4 ,yet the polyphyletic theory of descent is that to which both ,wasmann and ,dorlodot subscribe1 as it is1 likewise1 the only kind of transformism which science can ever hope to plausibleize4 ,besides1 too close a shave with ,occam's ,razor would eliminate creation altogether1 since all theologians cheerfully admit that it was the result of a free and unnecessary act on the part of ,god4 ,when we apply our rationes convenientiae to the ,divine operations1 we must not make the mistake of applying them to the ,divine action itself instead of the created effects of that action4 ,we may be competent to discern disorder and irregularity in finite things1 but we are wholly incompetent to prescribe rules for ,divine conduct4 ,to say that ,god is constrained by ,his infinite ,wisdom to indirect1 rather than direct1 production1 or that ,he must evolve a variety of forms out of living1 rather than non-living1 matter1 is to be guilty of ridiculous anthropomorphism4 ,there is no a priori reason1 founded upon the ,divine attributes1 which restricts ,god's creative action to the production of this1 or that1 number of primordial organisms1 or which obliges him to endow primitive organisms with the power of transmutation4 ,but the fact that these rationes convenientiae fail to establish the a priori necessity of a unification of organic origins in space1 does not imply that they are without value in suggesting the unification of organic origins in time4 ,order and regularity are not excluded by spatial multiplicity1 but they may easily be excluded by the incongruities of an irregular succession of events4 ,indeterminism and chance are1 indeed1 inseparable from the course of ,nature4 ,there is in matter an unlimited potentiality1 incommensurate with the limited efficacy of natural agencies4 ,hence it evades the absolute control of all finite factors and forces4 ,but the anomalies and irregularities1 which are contingent upon the limitation or frustration of second causes unable to impose an iron necessity upon evasive matter1 are not referable to the ,first ,cause1 but rather to the finite efficacy of second causes4 ,such anomalies in natural processes1 consequently1 are not inconsistent with infinite wisdom and power on the part of the ,creator4 ,if1 on the contrary1 the anomaly occurs1 not in the form of an accidental frustration of a natural agency1 but in the form of an intrusive 8new creation10 the irregularity in question would then be referable to the ,creator ,himself1 and such derogations of order are inadmissible1 except as manifestations of the supernatural4 ,in fact1 the abrupt and capricious insertion of a 8new creation0 into an order already constituted1 say1 for instance1 the sudden introduction of ,angiosperms in the ,comanchian period1 or of mammals in the ,tertiary1 would be out of harmony with both reason and revelation4 ,unless there is a positive reason for supposing the contrary1 we must presume that1 subsequent to the primordial constitution of things1 the ,divine influence upon the world has been concurrent rather than revolutionizing4 ,hence a theory of origins1 compatible with the simultaneous 8creation0 of primal organisms1 is decidedly preferable to a theory1 which involves successive 8creations0 at random4 ,that transformism dispenses with the need of assuming a succession of 8creative0 acts1 is perfectly obvious1 and1 unless fixism can emulate its rival system in this respect1 it cannot expect to receive serious attention4 ,but once fixism assumes the simultaneousness of organic origins1 it encounters1 in the absence of modern organic types from ancient geological strata1 a new and formidable difficulty4 ,cuvier's theory of numerous catastrophes followed by wholesale migrations of the forms1 which had escaped extinction1 is tantamount to an appeal to the extraordinary and the improbable for purposes of explanation1 and this1 as we have seen1 is an expedient1 which natural science is justified in refusing to sanction4 ,nor does the appeal to the incompleteness of the geological record offer a more satisfactory solution4 ,it is tax enough1 as we shall see1 upon our credulity1 when the transformist seeks to account thereby for the absence of intermediate types1 but to account in this fashion for the absence of palozoic ,angiosperms and mammals is asking us to believe the all-but-incredible4 ,it would not1 therefore1 be advisable for the fixist to appropriate the line of defense suggested for him by ,bateson--8,it has been asked how do you know for instance that there were no mammals in ,palozoic times8 ,may there not have been mammals somewhere on the earth though no vestige of them has come down to us8 ,we may feel confident there were no mammals then1 but are we sure8 ,in very ancient rocks most of the great orders of animals are represented4 ,the absence of the others might by no great stress of imagination be ascribed to accidental circumstances40 ,but the sudden rise of the ,angiosperms in the early part of the ,mesozoic era is an instance of de novo origin that is not so easily explained away4 ,hence ,bateson continues3 8,happily1 however1 there is one example of which we can be sure4 ,there were no ,angiosperms--that is to say #8higher plants' with protected seeds--in the carboniferous epoch4 ,of that age we have abundant remains of a worldwide and rich flora4 ,the ,angiosperms are cosmopolitan4 ,by their means of dispersal they must immediately have become so4 ,their remains are very readily preserved4 ,if they had been in existence on the earth in carboniferous times they must have been present with the carboniferous plants1 and must have been preserved with them4 ,hence we may be sure that they did appear on earth since those times4 ,we are not certain1 using certain in the strict sense1 that ,angiosperms are the lineal descendants of the carboniferous plants1 but it is much easier to believe that they are than that they are not40 7,science1 ,jan4 #bj1 #aibb1 p4 #eh47 ,it would thus appear1 that not all the organic types of either the plant1 or the animal1 kingdom are of equal antiquity1 and that the belated rise of unprecedented forms has the status of an approximate certainty1 wherewith every theory of origins must inevitably reckon4 ,how1 then1 is the fixist to reconcile this successive appearance of organisms with the simultaneous 8creation0 advocated by ,st4 ,augustine and ,st4 ,thomas of ,aquin8 ,unless there be some other gradual process besides transmutation1 to bridge the interval between the creative fiat and the eventual appearance of modern types1 there seems to be no escape from the dilemma4 ,this brings us to ,st4 ,augustine's theory of the evolution of organic life from inorganic matter1 which ,dorlodot sophistically construes as supporting the theory of descent4 ,according to ,st4 ,augustine1 for whose view the ,angelic ,doctor expressed a deliberate preference1 the creation of the corporeal world was the result of a single creative act1 having an immediate effect in the case of minerals1 and a remote or postponed effect in the case of plants and animals 7cf4 8,de ,genesi ad litteram10 lib4 ,v1 c4 #e74 ,living beings1 therefore1 were created1 not in actuality1 but in germ4 ,god imparted to the elements the power of producing the various plants and animals in their proper time and place4 ,hence living beings were created causally rather than formally1 by the establishment of causal mechanisms or natural agencies especially ordained to bring about the initial formation of the ancestral forms of life4 ,the ,divine act initiating these 8natural processes0 7rationes seminales1 rationes causales7 in inorganic1 and not in living1 matter1 was instantaneous1 but the processes1 which terminated in the formation of plants and animals1 in their appointed time and place1 were in themselves gradual and successive4 ,thus by an influx of ,divine power the earth was made pregnant with the promise of every form of life--8,sicut matres gravidae sunt foetibus1 sic ipse mundus est gravidus causis nascentium40 7,augustine1 lib4 ,,iii1 8de ,trinitate10 c4 #i47 ,by reason of this doctrine1 the ,louvain professor claims that ,st4 ,augustine was an evolutionist1 and so1 indeed1 he was1 if by evolution is meant a gradual production of organisms from inorganic matter4 ,but if1 on the contrary1 by evolution is meant a progressive differentiation and multiplication of organic species by transmutation of prexistent forms of life1 or1 in other words1 if evolution is taken in its usual sense as synonym for transformism1 then nothing could be more absurdly anachronistic than to ascribe the doctrine to ,st4 ,augustine4 ,the subject of the gradual process postulated by the latter was1 not living1 but inorganic1 matter1 and the process was conceived as leading to the formation1 and not the transformation1 of species4 ,the idea of variable inheritance did not occur to ,st4 ,augustine1 and he conceived organisms1 once they were in existence1 as being propagated exclusively by univocal reproduction 7generatio univoca74 ,it is the fixist1 therefore1 rather than the transformist1 who is entitled to exploit the ,augustinian hypothesis4 ,in fact1 it is only the vicious ambiguity and unlimited elasticity of the term evolution1 which avail to extenuate the astounding confusion of ideas and total lack of historic sense1 that can bracket together under a common term the ideology of ,darwin and the view of ,st4 ,augustine4 #b4 ,the ,argument in the ,concrete ,but it is our task to criticize the theory of transformism1 and not to throw a life-line to fixism1 by advocating gradual formation of species as the only feasible alternative to gradual transformation of species4 ,perhaps1 this particular life-line will not be appreciated any way2 for the fixist may1 not without reason1 prefer to rest his case on the contention that the intrinsic time-value of geological formations is far too problematic for certain conclusions of any sort4 ,in maintaining this position1 he will have the support of some present-day geologists1 and can point1 as we shall see1 to facts that seem to bear out his contention4 ,in fact1 the cogency of the palontological argument appears to be at its maximum in the abstract1 and to evaporate the moment we carry it into the concrete4 ,the lute seems perfect1 until we begin to play thereon1 and then we discover certain rifts that mar the effect4 ,it is to these rifts that our attention must now be turned4 ,the first and most obvious flaw1 in the evolutionary interpretation of fossil series1 is the confounding of succession with filiation4 ,thinkers1 from time immemorial1 have commented on the deep chasm of distinction1 which divides historical from causal sequence1 and philosophers have never ceased to inveigh against the sophistical snare of3 ,post hoc1 ergo propter hoc4 ,that one form of life has been subsequent in time to another form of life is1 in itself1 no proof of descent4 8,let us suppose10 says ,bather1 8all written records to be swept away1 and an attempt made to reconstruct ,english history from coins4 ,we could set out our monarchs in true order1 and we might suspect that the throne was hereditary2 but if on that assumption we were to make ,james ,i1 the son of ,elizabeth--well1 but that's just what palontologists are constantly doing4 ,the famous diagram of the ,evolution of the ,horse which ,huxley used in his ,american lectures has had to be corrected in the light of the fuller evidence recently tabulated in a handsome volume by ,prof4 ,h4 ,f4 ,osborn and his coadjutors4 ,palotherium1 which ,huxley regarded as a direct ancestor of the horse1 is now held to be only a collateral1 as the last of the ,tudors were collateral ancestors of the ,stuarts4 ,the later ,ancitherium must be eliminated from the true line as a side branch--a ,young ,pretender4 ,sometimes an apparent succession is due to immigration of a distant relative from some other region--#8,the glorious ,house of ,hanover and ,protestant ,succession4' ,it was1 you will remember1 by such migrations that ,cuvier explained the renewal of life when a previous fauna had become extinct4 ,he admitted succession but not descent40 7,science1 ,sept4 #ag1 #aibj1 p4 #bfa47 ,but1 if succession does not imply descent1 descent1 at least1 implies succession1 and the fact that succession is the necessary corollary of descent1 may be used as a corrective for the erroneous allocations made by neontologists on the basis of purely morphological considerations4 ,the priority of a type is the sine qua non condition of its being accepted as ancestral4 ,it is always embarrassing when1 as sometimes happens1 a 8descendant0 turns out to be older than1 or even coval with1 his 8ancestor40 ,if1 however1 the historical position of a form can be made to coincide with its anatomical pretensions to ancestry1 then the inference of descent attains to a degree of logical respectability that is impossible in the case of purely zological evidence4 ,recent years have witnessed a more drastic application of the historical test to morphological speculations1 and the result has been a wholesale revision of former notions concerning phylogeny4 8,i could easily10 says ,bather1 8occupy the rest of this hour by discussing the profound changes wrought by this conception on our classification4 ,it is not that orders and classes hitherto unknown have been discovered1 not that some erroneous allocations have been corrected1 but the whole basis of our system is being shifted4 ,so long as we were dealing with a horizontal section across the tree of life--that is to say1 with an assemblage of approximately contemporaneous forms--or even with a number of such horizontal sections1 so long were we confined to simple description4 ,any attempt to frame a causal connection was bound to be speculative40 7,ibidem1 p4 #beh47 ,whether zologists will take kindly to this 8shifting of the whole basis0 of classification1 remains to be seen4 ,personally1 we think they would be very ill-advised to exchange the solid observational basis of homology for the scanty facts and fanciful interpretations of palontologists4 ,the second stumbling block in the path of ,transformism is the occurrence of convergence4 ,we have seen that1 in the palontological argument1 descent is inferred conjointly from similarity and succession1 and that1 in the abstract1 this argument is very persuasive4 ,one of the concrete phenomena1 however1 that tend to make it inconsequential1 is the undoubted occurrence of convergence4 ,prof4 ,h4 ,woods of ,cambridge1 in the ,introduction to the #eth edition of his 8,palontology0 7#aiai71 speaks of three kinds of convergence 7cf41 pp4 #ad1 #ae1 #af71 which1 as a matter of convenience1 we may term the parallelistic1 the radical1 and the adaptational1 types of convergence4 ,a brief description of each type will serve to elucidate its nature and its significance3 7#a7 ,parallelistic convergence implies the appearance of parallel modifications in the homologous parts of organisms regarded as diverging from common stock in two distinct collateral lines1 that were independent at the time of the appearance in both of the said parallel modifications4 ,speaking of the fossil clenterates known as ,graptolites1 ,professor ,woods says3 8,in some genera the hydrothec of different species show great variety of form1 those of one species being often much more like those of a species belonging to another genus than to other species of the same genus40 78,palontology10 #eth ed41 #aiai1 p4 #fi47 ,as another instance of this phenomenon1 the case of the fossil ungulates of ,south ,america1 spoken of as ,litopterna1 may be cited1 and the case is peculiarly interesting because of its bearing on that pice de rsistance of palontological evidence1 the ,pedigree of the ,horse4 8,the second family of ,litopterna10 says ,wm4 ,b4 ,scott1 8the ,proterotheriid1 were remarkable for their many deceptive resemblances to horses4 ,even though those who contend that the ,litopterna should be included in the ,perissodactyla should prove to be in the right1 there can be no doubt that the proterotheres were not closely related to the horses1 but formed a most striking illustration of the independent acquisition of similar characters through parallel or convergent development4 ,the family was not represented in the ,pleistocene1 having died out before that epoch1 and the latest known members of it lived in the upper ,pliocene4444 ,not that this remarkable character was due to grotesque proportions2 on the contrary1 they looked far more like the ordinary ungulates of the northern hemisphere than did any of their ,south ,american contemporaries2 it is precisely this resemblance that is so notable4444 ,the feet were three-toed1 except in one genus 7,thoatherium7 in which they were single-toed1 and nearly or quite the whole weight was carried upon the median digit1 the laterals being mere dew-claws4 ,the shape of the hoofs and the whole appearance of the foot was surprisingly like those of the three-toed horses1 but there were certain structural differences of such great importance1 in my judgment1 as to forbid the reference of these animals1 not merely to the horses1 but even to the perissodactyls40 78,a ,history of ,land ,mammals in the ,western ,hemisphere10 p4 #dii47 ,for this sort of parallelism1 the ,lamarckian and ,darwinian types of evolution by addition can offer no rational explanation4 ,it could1 perhaps1 be accounted for upon the ,batesonian hypothesis of evolution by loss of inhibition1 that is to say1 the coincident appearance of convergent characters in collateral lines might be interpreted as being due to a parallel loss in both lines of the inhibitive genes1 which had suppressed the convergent feature in the primitive or common stock4 ,we say that the convergence might be so interpreted1 because the interpretation in question would1 at best1 be merely optional and not at all necessary2 for in the third1 or adaptational1 type of convergence1 we shall see instances of parallel modifications occurring in completely independent races1 whose morphology and history alike exclude all possibility of hereditary connection between them4 ,hence1 even in the present case1 nothing constrains us to accept the genetic interpretation4 7#b7 ,radical convergence1 which ,woods styles heterogenetic homomorphy1 is described by him as follows3 8,sometimes two groups of individuals resemble each other so closely that they might be regarded as belonging to the same genus or even to the same species 7italics mine71 but they have descended from different ancestors since they are found to differ in development 7ontogeny7 or in their palontological history2 this phenomenon1 of forms belonging to different stocks approaching one another in character1 is known as convergence or heterogenetic homomorphy1 and may occur at the same geological period or at widely separated intervals4 ,thus the form of oyster known as ,gryphaea has originated independently from oysters of the ordinary type in the ,lias1 in the ,olites1 and again in the ,chalk2 these forms found at different horizons closely resemble one another and have usually been regarded as belonging to one genus 7,gryphaea71 but they have no direct genetic connection with one another40 78,palontology10 #eth ed41 #aiai1 p4 #ae47 ,comment is almost superfluous4 ,if even specific resemblance is no proof of common origin1 then what right have we to interpret any resemblance whatever in this sense8 ,with such an admission1 the whole bottom drops out of the evolutionary argument4 ,when the theory of descent is forced to account for heterogenetic resemblance at expense of all likelihood and consistency1 when it cannot save itself except by blowing hot and cold with one breath1 one is tempted to exclaim3 8,oh1 why bother with it60 7#c7 ,adaptational convergence is the occurrence of parallel modifications due to analogous specialization in unrelated forms1 whose phylogeny has been obviously diverse4 8,also1 animals belonging to quite distinct groups10 says ,woods1 8may1 when living under similar conditions1 come to resemble one another owing to the development of adaptive modifications1 though they do not really approach one another in essential characters2 thus analogous or parallel modifications may occur in independent groups--such are the resemblances between flying reptiles 7,ornithosaurs7 and birds1 and between sharks1 icthyosaurs and dolphins40 7,op4 cit41 p4 #af47 ,as this type of convergence has been discussed in a previous article1 with reference to the mole and mole-cricket1 it need not detain us further4 ,all these types of convergence1 but especially the second type1 are factual evidence of the compatibility of resemblance with independent origin1 and the fact of their occurrence tends to undermine the certainty of the phylogenetic inferences based on fossil evidence2 all the more so1 that1 thanks to its bad state of preservation1 and the impossibility of dissection1 even superficial resemblances may give rise to false interpretations4 ,and1 as for the cases of radical convergence1 there is no denying that they strike at the very heart of the theory of descent4 ,the third difficulty for ,transformism arises from the discontinuity of the geological record4 ,it was one of the very first discrepancies to be discovered between evolutionary expectation and the actual results of research4 ,the earliest explorations revealed a state of affairs1 that subsequent investigations have failed to remedy3 on the one hand1 namely1 a notable absence of intermediate species to bridge the gaps between the fossil genera1 and on the other hand1 the sudden and simultaneous appearance of numerous new and allied types unheralded by transitional forms4 ,since ,darwin had stressed the gradualness of transmutation1 the investigators expected to find the transitional means more numerous than the terminal extremes1 and were surprised to find1 in the real record of the past1 the exact reverse of their anticipation4 ,they found that the classes and families of animals and plants had always been as widely separated and as sharply differentiated as they are today1 and that they had always formed distinct systems1 unconnected by transitional links4 ,the hypothetical 8generalized types10 supposed to combine the features of two or three families1 have never been found1 and most probably never will be2 for it is all but certain that they never existed4 ,occasionally1 it is true1 palontologists have discovered isolated types1 which they interpreted as annectant forms1 but a single pier does not make a bridge1 and only too often it chanced that the so-called annectant type1 though satisfactory from the morphological standpoint1 was more recent than the two groups1 to which it was supposed to be ancestral4 ,but it will make matters plainer1 if we illustrate what is meant by the discontinuity or incompleteness of the fossil record1 by reference to some concrete series1 such as the so-called ,pedigree of the ,horse4 ,whenever a series of fossils1 arranged in the order of their historical sequence1 exhibits a gradation of increasing resemblance to the latest form1 with which the series terminates1 such a series is called a palontological pedigree1 and is said to represent so many stages in the racial development or phylogeny of the respective modern type4 ,the classical example of this sort of 8pedigree0 is that of the ,horse4 ,it is1 perhaps1 one of the most complete among fossil 8genealogies10 and yet1 as has been frequently pointed out1 it is1 as it stands1 extremely incomplete4 ,modern representatives of the ,equidae1 namely1 the horse1 the ass and the zebra1 belong to a common genus1 and are separated from one another by differences which are merely specific1 but the differences which separate the various forms1 that compose the 8pedigree of the ,horse10 are generic4 ,we have1 to borrow ,gerard's simile1 nothing more than the piers of the evolutionary bridge1 without the arches1 and we do not know whether there ever were any arches4 ,there is1 indeed1 a sort of progression1 e4g41 from the four-toed to a one-toed type1 so that the morphological gradation does1 in some degree1 coincide with temporal succession4 ,but1 on the other hand1 the fossil forms1 interpreted as stages in the phylogeny of the ,horse1 are separated from one another by gaps so enormous1 that1 in the absence of intermediate species to bridge the intervals1 it is practically impossible1 particularly in the light of our experimental knowledge of ,genetics1 to conceive of any transition between them4 ,nor is this all4 ,the difficulty is increased tenfold1 when we attempt to relate the ,equidae to other mammalian groups4 ,fossil ungulates appear suddenly and contemporaneously in the ,tertiary of ,north ,america1 ,south ,america and ,europe1 without any transitional precursors1 to connect them with the hypothetical proto-mammalian stock1 and to substantiate their collaterality with other mammalian stocks4 ,to all such difficulties the evolutionist replies by alleging the incompleteness of the geological record1 and modern handbooks on palontology devote many pages to the task of explaining why incompleteness of the fossil record is just what we should expect1 especially in the case of terrestrial animals4 ,the reasons which they assign are convincing1 but this particular mode of solving the difficulty is a rather precarious one4 ,evolutionists should not forget that1 in sacrificing the substantial completeness of the record to account for the absence of intermediate species1 they are simultaneously destroying its value as a proof of the relative position of organic types in time4 ,yet this1 as we have seen1 is precisely the feature of greatest strategic value in the palontological 8evidence0 for evolution4 ,we must have absolute certainty that the reputed 8ancestor0 was in existence prior to the appearance of the alleged 8descendant10 or the peculiar force of the palontological argument is lost4 ,it would be preposterous for the progeny to be prior to1 or even coval with1 the progenitor1 and so we must be quite sure that what we call 8posterity0 is really posterior in time4 ,now the sole argument that palontology can adduce for the posteriority of one organic type as compared with another is the negative evidence of its non-occurrence1 or rather of its non-discovery1 in an earlier geological formation4 ,the lower strata do not1 so far as is known1 contain the type in question1 and so it is concluded that this particular form had no earlier history4 ,such an inference1 as is clear1 is not only liable to be upset by later discoveries1 but has the additional disadvantage of implicitly assuming the substantial completeness of the fossil record1 whereas the absence of intermediate species is only explicable by means of the assumed incompleteness of the selfsame record4 ,the evolutionist is thus placed in the dilemma of choosing between a substantially complete1 and a substantially incomplete1 record4 ,which of the alternatives1 he elects1 matters very little2 but he must abide by the consequences of his decision1 he cannot eat his cake and have it4 ,when the evolutionist appeals to the facts of palontology1 it goes without saying that he does so in the hope of showing that the differences1 which divide modern species of plants and animals1 diminish as we go backward in time1 until the stage of identity is reached in the unity of a common ancestral type4 ,hence from the very nature of the argument1 which he is engaged in constructing1 he is compelled to resort to intermediate types as evidence of the continuity of allied species with the hypothetical ancestor1 or common type1 whence they are said to have diverged4 ,now1 even supposing that his efforts in this direction were attended with a complete measure of success1 evidence of this kind would not of itself1 as we shall see1 suffice to demonstrate the common origin of the extremes1 between which a perfect series of intergradent types can be shown to mediate4 ,unquestionably1 however1 unless such a series of intergradent fossil species can be adduced as evidence of the assumed transition1 the presumption is totally against the hypothesis of transformism4 ,now1 as a matter of fact1 the geological record rarely offers any evidence of the existence in the past of intermediate species4 ,for those1 who have implicit confidence in the time-value of geological 8formations10 there are indications of a general advance from lower to higher forms1 but1 even so1 there is little to show that this seeming progress is to be interpreted as an increasing divergence from common ancestral types4 ,with but few exceptions1 the fossil record fails to show any trace of transitional links4 ,yet pedigrees made up of diverse genera are poor evidence for filiation or genetic continuity1 so long as no intermediate species can be found to bridge the chasm of generic difference4 ,by intermediate species1 we do not mean the fabulous 8generalized type40 ,annectants of this kind are mere abstractions1 which have never existed1 and never could have existed4 ,we refer rather to actual fossil types separated from one another by differences not greater than specific2 for 8not until we have linked species into lineages10 can fossil pedigrees lay claim to serious attention4 ,but let us suppose the case for evolution to be ideally favorable1 and assume that in every instance we possessed a perfect gradation of forms between two extremes1 such1 for example1 as occurs in the ,ammonite series1 even then we would be far from having a true demonstration of the point at issue4 ,bateson has called our attention to the danger of confounding sterile and instable hybrids with intergradent species4 8,examine10 he says1 8any two thoroughly distinct species which meet each other in their distribution1 as for instance1 ,lychnis diurna and vespertina do4 ,in areas of overlap are many intermediate forms4 ,these used to be taken to be transitional steps1 and the specific distinctness of vespertina and diurna was on that account questioned4 ,once it is known that these supposed intergrades are merely mongrels between the two species the transition from one to the other is practically beyond our powers of imagination to conceive4 ,if both these can survive1 why has their common parent perished8 ,why1 when they cross1 do they not reconstruct it instead of producing partially sterile hybrids8 ,i take this example to show how entirely the facts were formerly misrepresented40 7,heredity1 ,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiae1 p4 #cfi47 ,similarly1 ,t4 ,h4 ,morgan has shown1 with reference to mutants1 the fallacy of inferring common descent from the phenomenon of intergradence1 and what holds true for a series of intergradent mutants would presumably also hold true of a series of intergradent species1 could such a series be found and critically distinguished from hybrid and mutational intermediates4 ,in short1 the ,darwinian deduction of common origin from the existence of intergradence must now be regarded as a thoroughly discredited argument4 8,because we can often arrange the series of structures in a line extending from the very simple to the more complex1 we are apt to become unduly impressed by this fact and conclude that if we found the complete series we should find all the intermediate steps and that they have arisen in the order of their complexity4 ,this conclusion is not necessarily correct40 78,a ,critique of the ,theory of ,evolution10 p4 #i47 ,having cited such a series of gradational mutations ranging between the long-winged1 and completely wingless condition1 in the case of the ,vinegar ,fly 7,drosophila melanogaster71 as well as two similar graded series based on pigmentation and eye color1 he concludes3 8,these types1 with the fluctuations that occur within each type1 furnish a complete series of gradations2 yet historically they have arisen independently of each other4 ,many changes in eye color have appeared4 ,as many as thirty or more races differing in eye color are now maintained in our cultures4 ,some of them are so similar that they can scarcely be separated from each other4 ,it is easily possible beginning with the darkest eye color1 sepia1 which is a deep brown1 to pick out a perfectly graded series ending with pure white eyes4 ,but such a serial arrangement would give a totally false idea of the way the different types have arisen2 and any conclusion based on the existence of such a series might very well be entirely erroneous1 for the fact that such a series exists bears no relation to the order in which its members have appeared40 7,op4 cit41 pp4 #ab1 #ac47 ,such facts must give us pause in attaching undue importance to phenomena like the occurrence of a gradual complication of sutures in the ,chalk ,ammonites1 particularly as parallel series of perfectly similar sutures occurs 8by convergence0 in the fossil ,ceratites1 which have no genetic connection with the ,ammonites4 7,cf4 ,woods' 8,palontology10 #eth ed41 p4 #af47 ,but1 if even mutational and specific intergradents are not sufficient evidence of common ancestry1 what shall we say of a discontinuous series1 whose links are separate genera1 orders1 or even classes1 instead of species4 ,even the most enthusiastic transformist is forced to admit the justice of our insistence that the gaps which separate the members of a series must be reduced from differences of the generic1 to differences of the specific1 order1 before that series can command any respect as hypothetical 8genealogy40 8,you will have observed10 says ,f4 ,a4 ,bather1 8that the precise methods of the modern palontologist1 on which this proof is based1 are very different from the slap-dash conclusions of forty years ago4 ,the discovery of ,archopteryx1 for instance1 was thought to prove the evolution of birds from reptiles4 ,no doubt it rendered that conclusion extremely probable1 especially if the major promise--that evolution was the method--were assumed4 ,but the fact of evolution is precisely what men were then trying to prove4 ,these jumpings from class to class or from era to era1 by aid of a few isolated stepping-stones1 were what ,bacon calls anticipations 8hasty and premature but very effective1 because as they are collected from a few instances1 and mostly from those which are of familiar occurrence1 they immediately dazzle the intellect and fill the imagination40 7,nov4 ,org41 ,i1 #bh47 ,no secure step was taken until the modern palontologist began to affiliate mutation with mutation and species with species1 working his way back1 literally inch by inch1 through a single small group of strata4 ,only thus could he base on the laboriously collected facts a single true interpretation2 and to those who preferred the broad path of generality his interpretations seemed1 as ,bacon says they always 8must seem1 harsh and discordant--almost like mysteries of faith40 444 ,thus by degrees we reject the old slippery stepping-stones that so often toppled us into the stream1 and1 foot by foot1 we build a secure bridge over the waters of ignorance40 7,science1 ,sept4 #ag1 #aibj1 pp4 #bfc1 #bfd47 ,we cannot share ,bather's confidence in the security of a bridge composed of even linked species4 ,let such a series be never so perfect1 let the gradation be never so minute1 as it might conceivably be made1 when not merely distinct species1 but also hybrids1 mutants and fluctuants are available as stopgaps1 the bare fact of such intergradation tells nothing whatever concerning the problem of genetical origin and specific relationship4 ,the species-by-species method does1 however1 represent the very minimum of requirement imposed upon the palontologist1 who professes to construct a fossil pedigree4 ,but1 when all is said and done1 such a method1 even at its best1 falls considerably short of the mark4 ,however perfectly intergradent a series of fossils may be1 the fact remains that these petrified remnants of former life cannot be subjected to breeding tests1 and that1 in the consequent absence of genetical experimentation1 we have no means of determining the real bearing of these facts upon the problem of interspecific relationship4 ,only the somatic characters of extinct floras and faunas have been conserved in the rock record of the past1 and even these are often rendered dubious1 as we shall see presently1 by their imperfect state of preservation4 ,now1 it is solely in conjunction with breeding experiments1 that somatic characters can give us any insight into the nature of the germinal constitution of an organism1 which1 after all1 is the cardinal consideration upon which the whole question of interspecific relationship hinges4 ,all inferences1 therefore1 regarding the descent of fossil forms are irremediably speculative and conjectural4 ,when we are dealing with living forms1 we can always check up the inferences based on somatic characteristics by means of genetical experiments1 and in so doing we have found that it is as unsafe to judge of an organism from the exclusive standpoint of its external characters as it is to judge of a book by the cover2 for1 apart from the check of breeding tests1 it is impossible to say just which somatic characters are genetically significant1 and which are not4 ,forms externally alike may be so unlike in germinal constitution as to be sexually incompatible2 forms externally unlike may be readily crossed without any discernible diminution of fertility4 8,who could have foreseen10 exclaims ,bateson1 8that the apple and the pear--so like each other that their botanical differences are evasive--could not be crossed together1 though species of ,antirrhinum 7,snapdragon7 so totally unlike each other as majus and molle can be hybridized1 as ,baur has shown1 without a sign of impaired fertility80 7,heredity1 ,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiae1 p4 #cgj47 ,we cannot distinguish between alleged specific1 and merely mutational 7varietal71 change1 nor between hybridizations and factorial1 chromosomal1 or pseudo-1 mutations1 solely on the basis of such external characters as are preserved for us in fossils4 ,it is impossible1 therefore1 to demonstrate trans-specific variation by any evidence that ,palontology can supply4 ,the palontologist 7pace ,osborn7 is utterly incompetent to pass judgment on the problem of interspecific relationship4 ,as ,bateson remarks3 8,in discussing the physiological problem of interspecific relationship evidence of a more stringent character is now required2 and a naturalist acquainted with genetical discoveries would be as reluctant to draw conclusions as to the specific relationship of a series of fossils as a chemist would be to pronounce on the nature of a series of unknown compounds from an inspection of them in a row of bottles40 7,science1 ,april #ag1 #aibb1 p4 #cgc47 8,when the modern student of variation and heredity10 says ,t4 ,h4 ,morgan1 8looks over the different #8continuous' series1 from which certain #8laws' and #8principles' have been deduced1 he is struck by two facts3 that the gaps1 in some cases1 are enormous as compared with the single changes with which he is familiar1 and 7what is more important7 that they involve numerous parts in many ways4 ,the geneticist says to the palontologist1 since you do not know1 and from the nature of your case can never know1 whether your differences are due to one change or to a thousand1 you cannot with certainty tell us anything about the hereditary units which have made the process of evolution possible40 7,op4 cit41 pp4 #bf1 #bg47 ,and without accurate knowledge on this subject1 we may add1 there is no possibility of demonstrating specific change or genetic relationship in the case of any given fossil4 ,in our discussion of the third defect in the fossil 8evidence10 allusion was made to a fourth1 namely1 its imperfect state of preservation4 ,the stone record of bygone days has been so defaced by the metamorphism of rocks1 by the solvent action of percolating waters1 by erosion1 weathering and other factors of destruction1 that1 like a faded manuscript1 it becomes1 even apart from its actual lacunae1 exceedingly difficult to decipher4 ,so unsatisfactory1 indeed1 is the condition of the partially obliterated facts that human curiosity1 piqued at their baffling ambiguity1 calls upon human imagination to supply what observation itself fails to reveal4 ,nor does the invitation remain unheeded4 ,romance hastens to the rescue of uncertain ,science1 with an impressive display of 8reconstructed fossils10 and the hesitation of critical caution is superseded by the dogmatism of arbitrary assumption4 ,scattered fragments of fossilized bones are integrated into skeletons and clothed by the magic of creative fancy with an appropriate musculature and flesh1 renacting for us the marvelous vision of ,ezekiel3 8,and the bones came together1 each one to its joint4 ,and ,i beheld and1 lo1 there were sinews upon them1 and the flesh came upon them3 and the skin was stretched over them40 7,chap4 ,,xxxvii1 #g1 #h47 8,it is also true10 says ,osborn 7who1 like ,haeckel1 evinces a veritable mania for 8retouching0 incomplete facts71 8that we know the mode of origin of the human species2 our knowledge of human evolution has reached a point not only where a number of links are thoroughly known but the characters of the missing links can be very clearly predicated40 7,science1 ,feb4 #bd1 #aibb47 ,we will not dispute his contention2 for it is perfectly true1 that1 in each and every case1 all the missing details can be so exactly predicated that the resulting description might well put to shame the account of a contemporary eyewitness4 ,the only difficulty is that such predication is the fruit of pure imagination4 ,scientific reconstructions1 whether in the literary1 plastic1 or pictorial1 form1 are no more scientific than historical novels are historical4 ,both are the outcome of a psychological weakness in the human makeup1 namely1 its craving for a 8finished picture0--a craving1 however1 that is never gratified save at the expense of the fragmentary basis of objective fact4#g #g ,see ,addenda4 ,in calling into question1 however1 the scientific value of the so-called 8scientific reconstruction10 so far as its pretensions to precision and finality are concerned1 it is not our intention to discredit those tentative restorations based upon ,cuvier's ,law of ,correlation1 provided they profess to be no more than provisional approximations4 ,many of the structural features of organisms are physiologically interdependent1 and there is frequently a close correlation among organs and organ-systems1 between which no causal connection or direct physiological dependence is demonstrable4 ,in virtue of this principle1 one structural feature may connote another1 in which case it would be legitimate to supply by inference any missing structure implied in the actual existence of its respective correlative4 ,but if any one imagines that the law of correlation enables a scientist to restore the lost integrity of fossil types with any considerable degree of accuracy and finality1 he greatly overestimates the scope of the principle in question4 ,at best it is nothing more than an empirical generalization1 which must not be pressed to an extent unwarranted by the inductive process1 that first established it4 8,certain relations of structure10 says ,bather1 8as of cloven hoofs and horns with a ruminant stomach1 were observed1 but as ,cuvier himself insisted1 the laws based on such facts were purely empirical40 7,science1 ,sept4 #ag1 #aibj1 p4 #beh47 ,the palontologist1 then1 is justified in making use of correlation for the purpose of reconstructing a whole animal out of a few fragmentary remains1 but to look for anything like photographic precision in such 8restorations0 of extinct forms is to manifest a more or less complete ignorance of the nature and scope of the empirical laws1 upon which they are based4 ,the imprudence of taking these 8reconstructions0 of extinct forms too seriously1 however1 is inculcated not merely by theoretical considerations1 but by experience as well4 ,even in the case of the mammoth1 a comparatively recent form1 whose skeletal remains had been preserved more completely and perfectly than those of other fossil types1 the discovery of a complete carcass buried in the ice of the ,siberian 8taiga0 on the ,beresovka river showed the existing restorations to be false in important respects4 ,all1 without exception1 stood in need of revision1 proving1 once and for all1 the inadequacy of fossil remains as a basis for exact reconstruction4 ,e4 ,pfizenmayer1 a member of the investigating expedition1 comments on the fact as follows3 8,in the light of our present knowledge of the mammoth1 and especially of its exterior1 the various existing attempts at a restoration need important corrections4 ,apart from the many fanciful sketches intended to portray the exterior of the animal1 all the more carefully made restorations show the faults of the skeleton1 hitherto regarded as typical1 on which they are based1 especially the powerful semicircular and upward-curved tusks1 the long tail1 etc4 8,as these false conceptions of the exterior of the mammoth1 both written and in the form of pictures1 are contained in all zological and palontological textbooks1 and even in scientific monographs1 it seems necessary to construct a more nearly correct picture1 based on our present knowledge4 ,i have ventured on this task1 because as a member of the latest expedition for mammoth remains1 ,i was permitted not only to become acquainted with this newest find while still in its place of deposit and to take part in exhuming it1 but also to visit the zological museum of ,st4 ,petersburg1 which is so rich in mammoth remains1 for the purpose of studying the animal more in detail40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aijf1 pp4 #cba1 #cbb47 ,the example is but one of many1 which serve to emphasize not merely the inadequacy of the generality of palontological restorations1 but also the extreme difficulty which the palontologist experiences in interpreting aright the partially effaced record of a vanished past4 ,the fifth and most critical flaw in the fossil 8evidence0 for evolution is to be found in the anomalies of the actual distribution of fossils in time4 ,it is the boast of evolutionary ,palontology that it is able to enhance the cogency of the argument from mere structural resemblance by showing1 that1 of two structurally allied forms1 one is more ancient than the other1 and may1 therefore1 be presumed to be ancestral to the later form4 ,antecedence in time is the sine qua non qualification of a credible ancestor1 and1 unless the relative priority of certain organic types1 as compared with others1 can be established with absolute certainty1 the whole palontological argument collapses1 and the boast of evolutionary geology becomes an empty vaunt4 ,whenever the appearance of a so-called annectant type is antedated by that of the two forms1 which it is supposed to connect1 this fact is1 naturally1 a deathblow to its claim of being the 8common ancestor10 even though1 from a purely morphological standpoint1 it should possess all the requisites of an ancestral type4 ,commenting upon the statement that a certain genus 8is a truly annectant form uniting the ,melocrinidae and the ,platycrinidae10 ,bather takes exception as follows3 8,the genus in question appeared1 so far as we know1 rather late in the ,lower ,carboniferous1 whereas both ,platycrinidae and ,melocrinidae were already established in ,middle ,silurian time4 ,how is it possible that the far later form should unite these two ancient families8 ,even a msalliance is inconceivable40 7,science1 ,sept4 #ag1 #aibj1 p4 #bfj47 ,certainty1 therefore1 with respect to the comparative antiquity of the fossiliferous strata is the indispensable presupposition of any palontological argument attempting to show that there is a gradual approximation of ancient1 to modern1 types4 ,yet1 of all scientific methods of reckoning1 none is less calculated to inspire confidence1 none less safeguarded from the abuses of subjectivism and arbitrary interpretation1 than that by which the relative age of the sedimentary rocks is determined6 ,in order to date the strata of any given series with reference to one another1 the palontologist starts with the principle that1 in an undisturbed area1 the deeper sediments have been deposited at an earlier period than the overlying strata4 ,such a criterion1 however1 is obviously restricted in its application to local areas1 and is available only at regions of outcrop1 where a vertical section of the strata is visibly exposed4 ,to trace the physical continuity1 however1 of the strata 7if such continuity there be7 from one continent to another1 or even across a single continent1 is evidently out of the question4 ,hence1 to correlate the sedimentary rocks of a given region with those of another region far distant from the former1 some criterion other than stratigraphy is required4 ,to supply this want1 recourse has been had to index fossils1 which have now come into general use as age-markers and means of stratigraphical correlation1 where the criterion of superposition is either absent or inapplicable4 ,certain fossil types are assumed to be infallibly indicative of certain stratigraphical horizons4 ,in fact1 when it comes to a decision as to the priority or posteriority of a given geological formation1 index fossils constitute the court of last appeal1 and even the evidences of actual stratigraphical sequence and of physical texture itself are always discounted and explained away1 whenever they chance to conflict with the presumption that certain fossil forms are typical of certain geological periods4 ,if1 for example1 the superposed rock contains fossils alleged to be typical of an 8earlier0 stratigraphic horizon than that to which the fossils of the subjacent rock belong1 the former is pronounced to be 8older10 despite the fact that the actual stratigraphic order conveys the opposite impression4 8,we still regard fossils10 says ,j4 ,w4 ,judd1 8as the #8medals of creation1' and certain types of life we take to be as truly characteristic of definite periods as the coins which bear the image and superscription of a ,roman emperor or of a ,saxon king40 7,cf4 ,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiab1 p4 #cef47 ,thus it comes to pass1 in the last analysis1 that fossils1 on the one hand1 are dated according to the consecutive strata1 in which they occur1 and strata1 on the other hand1 are dated according to the fossils which they contain4 ,such procedure1 if not actually tantamount to a vicious circle1 is1 to say the least1 in imminent danger of becoming so4 ,for1 even assuming the so-called empirical generalization1 that makes certain fossils typical of certain definitely-aged geological 8formations10 to be based upon induction sufficiently complete and analytic to insure certainty1 at least1 in the majority of instances1 and taking it for granted that we are dealing with a case1 where the actual evidence of stratigraphy is not in open conflict with that of the index fossils1 who does not see that such a system of chronology lends itself only too readily to manipulation of the most arbitrary kind1 whenever the pet preconceptions of the evolutionary chronologist are at stake8 ,how1 then1 can we be sure1 in a given case1 that a verdict based exclusively on the 8evidence0 of index fossils will be reliably objective8 ,it is to be expected that the evolutionist will refrain from the temptation to give himself the benefit of every doubt8 ,will there not be an almost irresistible tendency on the part of the convinced transformist to revise the age of any deposit1 which happens to contain fossils that1 according to his theory1 ought not to occur at the time hitherto assigned8 ,the citation of a concrete example will serve to make our meaning clear4 ,a series of fresh-water strata occur in ,india known as the ,siwalik beds4 ,the formation in question was originally classed as ,miocene4 ,later on1 however1 as a result1 presumably1 of the embarrassing discovery of the genus ,equus among the fossils of the ,upper ,siwalik beds1 ,wm4 ,blanford saw fit to mend matters by distinguishing the ,upper1 from the ,lower1 beds and assigning the former 7which contain fossil horses7 to the ,pliocene period4 ,the title ,miocene being restricted by this ingenious step to beds destitute of equine remains1 namely the ,nahun1 or ,lower ,siwalik1 deposits1 all danger of the horse proving to be older than his ancestors was happily averted4 ,a mere shifting of the conventional labels1 apparently1 was amply sufficient to render groundless the fear1 to which ,professor ,a4 ,sedgwick had given expression in the following terms3 8,the genus ,equus appears in the upper ,siwalik beds1 which have been ascribed to the ,miocene age4444 ,if ,equus really existed in the ,upper ,miocene1 it was antecedent to some of its supposed ancestors40 78,students' ,textbook of ,zology10 p4 #eii47 ,evidently1 the ,horse must reconcile himself perforce to the pedigree assigned to him by the ,american ,museum of ,natural ,history2 for he is to be given but scant opportunity of escaping it4 ,this classic genealogy has already entailed far too great an expenditure of time1 money and erudition to permit of any reconsideration2 and should it chance1 in the ironic perversity of things1 that the ,horse has been so inconsiderate as to leave indubitable traces of himself in any formation earlier than the ,pliocene1 it goes without saying that the formation in question will at once be dated ahead1 in order to secure for the 8ancestors0 that priority which is their due4 ,an elastic criterion like the index fossil is admirably adapted for readjustments of this sort1 and the evolutionist who uses it need never fear defeat4 ,the game he plays can never be a losing one1 because he gives no other terms than3 ,heads ,i win1 tails you lose4 ,in setting forth the foregoing difficulties1 we have purposely refrained from challenging the cardinal dogma of orthodox palontology concerning the unimpeachable time-value of index fossils as age-markers4 ,the force of these considerations1 therefore1 must be acknowledged even by the most fanatical adherents of the aforesaid dogma4 ,our forbearance in this instance1 however1 must not be construed as a confession that the dogma in question is really unassailable4 ,on the contrary1 not only is it not invulnerable1 but there are many and weighty reasons for rejecting it lock1 stock1 and barrel4 ,the palontological dogma1 to which we refer1 is reducible to the following tenets3 7#a7 ,the earth is swathed with fossiliferous strata1 in much the same fashion that an onion is covered with a succession of coats1 and these strata are universal over the whole globe1 occurring always in the same invariable order and characterized not by any peculiar uniformity of external appearance1 physical texture1 or mineral composition1 but solely by peculiar groups of fossil types1 which enable us to distinguish between strata of different ages and to correlate the strata of one continent with their counterparts in another continent--8,even the minuter divisions10 says ,scott1 8the substages and zones of the ,european ,jura1 are applicable to the classification of the ,south ,american beds40 78,introduction to ,geology10 p4 #fha47 7#b7 ,in determining the relative age of a given geological formation1 its characteristic fossils form the exclusive basis of decision1 and all other considerations1 whether lithological or stratigraphic1 are subordinated to this--8,the character of the rocks10 says ,h4 ,s4 ,williams1 8their composition or their mineral contents have nothing to do with settling the question as to the particular system to which the new rocks belong4 ,the fossils alone are the means of correlation40 78,geological ,biology10 pp4 #cg1 #ch47 ,to those habituated to the common notion that stratigraphical sequence is the foremost consideration in deciding the comparative age of rocks1 the following statement of ,sir ,archibald ,geikie will come as a distinct shock3 8,we may even demonstrate10 he avers1 8that in some mountainous ground the strata have been turned completely upside down1 if we can show that the fossils in what are now the uppermost layers ought properly to lie underneath those in the beds below them40 78,textbook10 ed4 of #aijc1 p4 #hcg47 ,in fact1 the palontologist1 ,h4 ,a4 ,nicholson1 lays it down as a general principle that1 wherever the physical evidence 7founded on stratigraphy and lithology7 is at variance with the biological evidence 7founded on the presence of typical fossil organisms71 the latter must prevail and the former must be ignored3 8,it may even be said10 he tells us1 8that in any case where there should appear to be a clear and decisive discordance between the physical and the palontological evidence as to the age of a given series of beds1 it is the former that is to be distrusted rather than the latter40 78,ancient ,life ,history of the ,earth10 p4 #dj47 ,george ,mc,cready ,price1 ,professor of ,geology at a denominational college in ,kansas1 devotes more than fifty pages of his recent work1 8,the ,new ,geology0 7#aibc71 to an intensely destructive criticism of this dogma of the supremacy of fossil evidence as a means of determining the relative age of strata4 ,to cite ,price as an 8authority0 would1 of course1 be futile4 ,all orthodox geologists have long since anathematized him1 and outlawed him from respectable geological society4 ,charles ,schuchert of ,yale refers to him as 8a fundamentalist harboring a geological nightmare40 7,science1 ,may #cj1 #aibd1 p4 #dhg47 ,arthur ,m4 ,miller of ,kentucky ,university speaks of him as 8the man who1 while a member of no scientific body and absolutely unknown in scientific circles1 has 444 had the effrontery to style himself a #8geologist4'0 7,science1 ,june #cj1 #aibb1 pp4 #gjb1 #gjc47 ,miller1 however1 is just enough to admit that he is well-informed on his subject1 and that he possesses the gift of persuasive presentation4 8,he shows10 says ,miller1 8a wide familiarity with geological literature1 quoting largely from the most eminent authorities in this country and in ,europe4 ,any one reading these writings of ,price1 which possess a certain charm of literary style1 and indicate on the part of the author a gift of popular presentation which makes one regret that it had not been devoted to a more laudable purpose1 must constantly marvel at the character of mind of the man who can so go into the literature of the subject and still continue to hold such preposterous opinions40 7,loc4 cit41 p4 #gjb47 ,in the present instance1 however1 our interest centers1 not on the unimportant question of his official status in geological circles1 but exclusively on the objective validity of his argument against the chronometric value of the index fossil4 ,all citations1 therefore1 from his work will be supported1 in the sequel1 by collateral testimony from other authors of recognized standing4 ,it is possible1 of course1 to inject irrelevant issues4 ,price1 for example1 follows ,sir ,henry ,howorth in his endeavor to substitute an aqueous catastrophe for the glaciation of the ,quaternary ,ice ,age1 and he adduces many interesting facts to justify his preference for a deluge4 ,but this is neither here nor there2 for we are not concerned with the merits of his 8new catastrophism40 ,it is his opportune revival in modern form of the forgotten1 but extremely effective1 objection raised by ,huxley and ,spencer against the alleged universality of synchronously deposited fossiliferous sediments1 that constitutes our sole preoccupation here4 ,it is ,price's merit to have shown that1 in the light of recently discovered facts1 such as 8deceptive conformities0 and 8overthrusts10 this objection is far graver than it was when first formulated by the authors in question4 ,mere snobbery and abuse is not a sufficient answer to a difficulty of this nature1 and we regret that men1 like ,schuchert1 have replied with more anger than logic4 ,the orthodox geologist seems unnecessarily petulant1 whenever he is called upon to verify or substantiate the foundational principles of lithic chronology4 ,one frequently hears him make the excuse that 8geology has its own peculiar method of proof40 ,to claim exemption1 however1 from the universal criterions of criticism and logic is a subterfuge wholly unworthy of a genuine science1 and1 if ,price insists on discussing a subject1 which the orthodox geologist prefers to suppress1 it is the latter1 and not the former1 who is really reactionary4 ,price begins by stating the issue in the form of a twofold question3 7#a7 ,how can we be sure1 with respect to a given fauna 7or flora71 say the ,cambrian1 that at one time it monopolized our globe to the complete exclusion of all other typical faunas 7or floras71 say the ,devonian1 or the ,tertiary1 of which it is assumed that they could not1 by any stretch of imagination1 have been contemporaneous1 on either land or sea1 with the aforesaid 8older0 fauna 7or flora78 7#b7 ,do the formations 7rocks containing fossils7 universally occur in such a rigidly invariable order of sequence with respect to one another1 as to warrant our being sure of the starting-point in the time-scale1 or to justify us in projecting any given local order of succession into distant localities1 for purposes of chronological correlation8 ,his response to the first of these questions constitutes what may be called an aprioristic refutation of the orthodox view1 by placing the evolutionary palontologist in the trilemma3 7a7 of making the awkward confession that1 except within limited local areas1 he has no means whatever of distinguishing between a geographical distribution of coval fossil forms among various habitats and a chronological distribution of fossils among sediments deposited at different times2 7b7 or of denying the possibility of geographical distribution in the past1 by claiming dogmatically that the world during ,cambrian times1 for example1 was totally unlike the modern world1 of which alone we have experimental knowledge1 inasmuch as it was then destitute of zological provinces1 districts1 zones1 and other habitats peculiar to various types of fauna1 so that the whole world formed but one grand habitat1 extending over land and sea1 for a limited group of organisms made up exclusively of the lower types of life2 7c7 or of reviving the discredited onion-coat theory of ,abraham ,werner under a revised biological form1 which asserts that the whole globe is enveloped with fossiliferous rather than mineral strata1 whose order of succession being everywhere the same enables us to discriminate with precision and certainty between cases of distribution in time and cases of distribution in space4 ,in his response to the second question1 ,professor ,price adduces numerous factual arguments1 which show that the invariable order of sequence postulated by the theory of the time-value of index fossils1 not only finds no confirmation in the actual or concrete sequences of fossiliferous rocks1 but is often directly contradicted thereby4 8,older0 rocks may occur above 8younger0 rocks1 the 8youngest0 may occur in immediate succession to the 8oldest10 ,tertiary rocks may be crystalline1 consolidated1 and 8old in appearance10 while ,cambrian and even pre-,cambrian rocks sometimes occur in a soft1 incoherent condition1 that gives them the physical appearance of being as young as ,pleistocene formations4 ,these exceptions and objections to the 8invariable order0 of the fossiliferous strata accumulate from day to day1 and it is only by means of ,procrustean tactics of the most drastic sort that the facts can be brought into any semblance of harmony with the current dogmas1 which base geology upon evolution rather than evolution upon geology4 ,price1 then1 proposes for serious consideration the possibility that ,cretaceous dinosaurs and even ,tertiary mammals may have been living on the land at the same time that the ,cambrian graptolites and trilobites were living in the seas4 8,who10 he exclaims1 8will have the hardihood1 the real dogmatism to affirm in a serious way that ,cambrian animals and seaweeds were for a long time the only forms of life existing anywhere on earth80 ,should we1 nevertheless1 make bold enough to aver that for countless centuries a mere few of the lower forms of life monopolized our globe1 as one universal habitat unpartitioned into particular biological provinces or zones1 we are thereupon confronted with two equally unwelcome alternatives4 ,we must either fly in the face of experience and legitimate induction by denying the existence in the past of anything analogous to our present-day geographical distribution of plants and animals into various biological provinces1 or be prepared to show by what infallible criterion we are enabled to distinguish between synchronously deposited formations indicative of a geographical distribution according to regional diversity1 and consecutively deposited formations indicative of comparative antiquity4 ,the former alternative does not merit any consideration whatever4 ,the latter1 as we shall presently see1 involves us in an assumption1 for which no defense either aprioristic or factual is available4 ,we can1 indeed1 distinguish between spatial1 and temporal1 distribution within the narrow limits of a single locality by using the criterion of superposition2 for in regions of outcrop1 where one sedimentary rock overlies another1 the obvious presumption is that the upper rock was deposited at a later date than the lower rock4 ,but the criterion of superposition is not available for the correlation of strata in localities so distant from each other that no physical evidence of stratigraphic continuity is discernible4 ,moreover the induction1 which projects any local order of stratigraphical sequence into far distant localities on the sole basis of fossil taxonomy1 is logically unsound and leads to conclusions at variance with the actual facts4 ,hence the alleged time-value of index fossils becomes essentially problematic1 and affords no basis whatever for scientific certainty4 ,as previously stated1 the sequence of strata is visible only in regions of outcrop1 and nowhere are we able to see more than mere parts of two or1 at most1 three systems associated together in a single locality4 ,moreover1 each set of beds is of limited areal extent1 and the limits are frequently visible to the eye of the observer4 ,in any case1 their visible extent is necessarily limited4 ,it is impossible1 therefore1 to correlate the strata of one continent with those of another continent by tracing stratigraphic continuity4 ,hence1 in comparing particular horizons of various ages and in distinguishing them from other horizons over large areas1 we are obliged to substitute induction for direct observation4 ,scientific induction1 however1 is only valid when it rests upon some universal uniformity or invariable sequence of nature4 ,hence1 to be specific1 the assumption that the time-scale based on the ,european classification of fossiliferous strata is applicable to the entire globe as a whole1 is based on the further assumption that we are sure of the universality of fossiliferous stratification over the face of the earth1 and that1 as a matter of fact1 fossils are always and everywhere found in the same order of invariable sequence4 ,but this is tantamount to reviving1 under what ,spencer calls 8a transcendental form10 the exploded 8onion-coat0 hypothesis of ,werner 7#agdi-ahag74 ,werner conceived the terrestrial globe as encircled with successive mineral envelopes1 basing his scheme of universal stratification upon that order of sequence among rocks1 which he had observed within the narrow confines of his native district in ,germany4 ,his hypothesis1 after leading many scientists astray1 was ultimately discredited and laughed out of existence4 ,for it finally became evident to all observers that ,werner's scheme did not fit the facts1 and men were able to witness with their own eyes the simultaneous deposition1 in separate localities1 of sediments which differed radically in their mineral contents and texture4 ,thus it came to pass that this classification of strata according to their mineral nature and physical appearance lost all value as an absolute time-scale1 while the theory itself was relegated to the status of a curious and amusing episode in the history of scientific fiascos4 ,thanks1 however1 to ,wm4 ,smith and to ,cuvier1 the discarded onion-coat hypothesis did not perish utterly1 but was rehabilitated and bequeathed to us in a new and more subtle form4 ,werner's fundamental idea of the universality of a given kind of deposit was retained1 but his mineral strata were replaced by fossiliferous strata1 the lithological onion-coats of ,werner being superseded by the biological onion-coats of our modern theory4 ,the geologist of today discounts physical appearance1 and classifies strata according to their fossil1 rather than their mineral1 contents1 but he stands committed to the same old postulate of universal deposits4 ,he has no hesitation in synchronizing such widely-scattered formations as the ,devonian deposits of ,new ,york ,state1 ,england1 ,germany1 and ,south ,america4 ,he pieces them all together as parts of a single system of rocks4 ,he has no misgiving as to the universal applicability of the ,european scheme of stratigraphic classification1 but assures us1 in the words of the geologist1 ,wm4 ,b4 ,scott1 that3 8,even the minuter divisions1 the subdivisions and zones of the ,european ,jura1 are applicable to the classification of the ,south ,american beds40 78,introduction to ,geology10 p4 #fha;f47 ,the limestone and sandstone strata of ,werner are now things of the past1 but1 in their stead1 we have1 to quote the criticism of ,herbert ,spencer1 8groups of formations which everywhere succeed each other in a given order1 and are severally everywhere of the same age4 ,though it may not be asserted that these successive systems are universal1 yet it seems to be tacitly assumed that they are so4444 ,though probably no competent geologist would contend that the ,european classification of strata is applicable to the globe as a whole1 yet most1 if not all geologists1 write as though it were so4444 ,must we not say that though the onion-coat hypothesis is dead1 its spirit is traceable1 under a transcendental form1 even in the conclusions of its antagonists40 78,illustrations of ,universal ,progress10 pp4 #cbi-chj1 ed4 of #ahij47 ,but overlooking1 for the moment1 the mechanical absurdity involved in the notion of a regular succession of universal layers of sediment1 and conceding1 for the sake of argument1 that the substitution of fossiliferous1 for lithological1 strata may conceivably have remedied the defects of ,werner's geological time-scale1 let us confine ourselves to the one question1 which1 after all1 is of prime importance1 whether1 namely1 without the aid of ,procrustean tactics1 the actual facts of geology can be brought into alignment with the doctrine of an invariable order of succession among fossil types1 and its sequel1 the intrinsic time-value of index fossils4 ,the question1 in other words1 is whether or not a reliable time-scale can be based on the facts of fossiliferous stratification as they are observed to exist in the concrete4 ,price's answer is negative1 and he formulates several empirical laws to express the concrete facts1 on which he bases his contention4 ,the laws and facts to which he appeals may be summarized as follows3 #a4 ,the concrete facts of geology do not warrant our singling out any fossiliferous deposit as unquestionably the oldest1 and hence we have no reliable starting-point for our time-scale1 because3 7a7 ,we may lay it down as an empirical law that 8any kind of fossiliferous rock 7even the #8youngest'71 that is1 strata belonging to any of the systems or other subdivisions1 may rest directly upon the ,archan or primitive crystalline rocks1 without any other so-called #8younger' strata intervening2 also these rocks1 ,permian1 ,cretaceous1 ,tertiary1 or whatever thus reposing directly on the ,archan may be themselves crystalline or wholly metamorphic in texture4 ,and this applies not alone to small points of contact1 but to large areas40 7b7 ,conversely3 any kind of fossiliferous strata 7even the 8oldest07 may not only constitute the surface rocks over wide areas1#h but may consist of loose1 unconsolidated materials1 thus in both position and texture resembling the 8late0 ,tertiaries or the ,pleistocene--8,in some regions1 notably in the ,baltic province and in parts of the ,united ,states10 says ,john ,allen ,howe1 alluding to the ,cambrian rocks around the ,baltic ,sea and in ,wisconsin1 8the rocks still retain their original horizontality of deposition1 the muds are scarcely indurated1 and the sands are incoherent40 7,encycl4 ,brit41 vol4 ,v1 p4 #hf47 #h 8,it is a common occurrence10 says ,charles ,schuchert1 8on the ,canadian ,shield to find the ,archozoic formations overlain by the most recent ,pleistocene glacial deposits1 and even these may be absent4 ,it appears as if in such places no rocks had been deposited1 either by the sea or by the forces of the land1 since ,archozoic time1 and yet geologists know that the shield has been variously covered by sheets of sediments formed at sundry times in the ,proterozoic1 ,palozoic1 and1 to a more limited extent1 in the ,mesozoic40 78,textbook of ,geology10 ed4 of #aibj1 ,,ii1 p4 #efi47 ,it may be remarked that1 when geologists 8know0 such things1 they know them in spite of the facts6 ,a large number of striking instances are cited by ,price to substantiate the foregoing rule and its converse4 ,the impression left is that not only is the starting-point of the time-scale in doubt1 but that1 if we were to judge the age of the rocks by their physical appearance and position1 we could not accept the conventional verdicts of modern geology1 which makes fossil evidence prevail over every other consideration4 #b4 ,when two contiguous strata are parallel to each other1 and there is no indication of disturbance in the lower bed1 nor any evidence of erosion along the plane of contact1 the two beds are said to exhibit conformity1 and this is ordinarily interpreted by geologists as a sign that the upper bed has been laid down in immediate sequence to the lower1 and that there has been a substantial continuity of deposition1 with no long interval during which the lower bed was exposed as surface to the agents of erosion4 ,when such a conformity exists1 as it frequently does1 between a 8recent0 stratum1 above1 and what is said 7according to the testimony of the fossils7 to be a very 8ancient0 stratum1 below1 and though the two are so alike lithologically as to be mistaken for one and the same formation1 nevertheless1 such a conformity is termed a 8non-evident disconformity10 or 8deceptive conformity10 implying that1 inasmuch as the 8lost interval10 representing1 perhaps1 a lapse of 8several million years10 is entirely unrecorded by any intervening deposition1 or any erosion1 or any disturbance of the lower bed1 we should not have suspected that so great a hiatus had intervened1 were it not for the testimony of the fossils4 ,price cites innumerable examples1 and sums them up in the general terms of the following empirical law3 8,any sort of fossiliferous formation may occur on top of any other #8older' fossiliferous formation1 with all the physical evidences of perfect conformity1 just as if these alleged incongruous or mismated formations had in reality followed one another in quick succession40 ,a quotation from ,schuchert's 8,textbook of ,geology10 7#aibj71 may be given by way of illustration3 8,the imperfection10 we read1 8of the geologic column is greatest in the interior of ,north ,america and more so in the north than in the south4 ,this imperfection is in many places very marked1 since an entire period or several periods may be absent4 ,with such great breaks in the local sections the natural assumption is that these gaps are easily seen in the sequence of the strata1 but in many places the beds lie in such perfect conformity upon one another that the breaks are not noticeable by the eye and can be proved to exist only by the entombed fossils on each side of a given bedding plane4444 ,stratigraphers are1 as a rule1 now fully aware of the imperfections in the geologic record1 but the rocks of two unrelated formations may rest upon each other with such absolute conformability as to be completely deceptive4 ,for instance1 in the ,bear ,grass quarries at ,louisville1 ,ky41 a face of limestone is exposed in which the absolute conformability of the beds can be traced for nearly a mile1 and yet within #e feet of vertical thickness is found a ,middle ,silurian coral bed overlain by another coral zone of ,middle ,devonian4 ,the parting between these two zones is like that between any two limestone beds1 but this insignificant line represents a stratigraphic hiatus the equivalent of the last third of ,silurian and the first of ,devonian time4 ,but such disconformities are by no means rare1 in fact are very common throughout the wide central basin area of ,north ,america40 7,op4 cit41 ,,ii1 pp4 #ehf-ehh47 ,in such cases1 the stratigraphical relations give no hint of any enormous gap at the line of contact4 ,on the contrary1 there is every evidence of unbroken sequence1 and the physical appearances are as if these supposed 8geological epochs0 had never occurred in the localities1 of which there is question4 ,everything points to the conclusion that the alleged long intervals of time between such perfectly conformable1 and1 often1 lithologically identical1 formations are a pure fiction elaborated for the purpose of bolstering up the dogma of the universal applicability of the ,european classification of fossiliferous rocks4 ,why not take the facts as we find them8 ,why resort to tortuous explanations for the mere purpose of saving an arbitrary time-scale8 ,why insist on a definite time-value for fossils1 when it drives us to the extremity of discrediting the objective evidence of physical facts in deference to the preconceptions of orthodox geology8 ,were it not for theoretical considerations1 these stratigraphic facts would be taken at their face value1 and the need of saving the reputation of the fossil as an infallible time index is not sufficiently imperative to warrant so drastic a revision of the physical evidence4 #c4 ,the third class of facts militating against the time-value of index fossils1 are what ,price describes as 8deceptive conformities turned upside down10 and what orthodox geology tries to explain away as 8thrusts10 8thrust faults10 8overthrusts10 8low-angle faulting10 etc4#i ,in instances of this kind we find the accepted order of the fossiliferous strata reversed in such a way that the 8younger0 strata are conformably overlain by 8older0 strata1 and the 8older0 strata are sometimes interbedded between 8younger0 strata4 8,in many places all over the world10 says ,price1 8fossils have been found in a relative order which was formerly thought to be utterly impossible4 ,that is1 the fossils have been found in the #8wrong' order1 and on such a scale that there can be no mistake about it4 ,for when an area #ejj miles long and from #bj to #ej miles wide is found with ,palozoic rocks on top1 or composing the mountains1 and with ,cretaceous beds underneath1 or composing the valleys1 and running under these mountains all around1 as in the case of the ,glacier ,national ,park and the southern part of ,alberta1 the old notion about the exact and invariable order of the fossils has to be given up entirely40 #i ,thus1 to explain away 8wrong sequences0 of fossils1 ,heim and ,rothpletz postulate the great ,glaurus overthrust in the ,alps1 ,geikie the great overthrust in ,scotland1 ,mc,connell1 ,campbell1 and ,willis a great overthrust along the eastern front of the ,rockies in ,montana and ,alberta1 while ,hayes recognizes numerous overthrusts in the southern ,appalachians4 8,the deciphering of such great displacements10 says ,pirrson1 speaking of thrust faults1 8is one of the greatest triumphs of modern geological research40 78,textbook of ,geology10 #aibj1 ,i1 p4 #cfg47 ,desperate measures are evidently justifiable1 when it is a question of saving the time-value of fossils6 ,price formulates his third law as follows3 8,any fossiliferous formation1 #8old' or #8young1' may occur conformably on any other fossiliferous formation1 #8younger' or #8older4'0 ,the corollary of this empirical law is that we are no longer justified in regarding any fossils as intrinsically older than other fossils1 and that our present classification of fossiliferous strata has a taxonomic1 rather than a historical1 value4 ,low-angle faulting is the phenomenon devised by geologists to meet the difficulty of 8inverted sequence10 when all other explanations fail4 ,immense mountain masses are said to have been detached from their roots and pushed horizontally over the surface 7without disturbing it in the least71 until they came finally to rest in perfect conformity upon 8younger0 strata1 so that the plane of slippage ended by being indistinguishable from an ordinary horizontal bedding plane4 ,these gigantic 8overthrusts0 or 8thrust faults0 are a rather unique phenomenon4 ,normal faulting is always at a high angle closely approaching the vertical1 but 8thrust faults0 are at a low angle closely approximating the horizontal1 and there is enormous displacement along the plane of slippage4 ,the huge mountain masses are said to have been first lifted up and then thrust horizontally for vast distances1 sometimes for hundreds of miles1 over the face of the land1 being thus pushed over on top of 8younger0 rocks1 so as to repose upon the latter in a relation of perfectly conformable superposition4 ,r4 ,g4 ,mc,connell1 of the ,canadian ,survey1 comments on the remarkable similarity between these alleged 8thrust planes0 and ordinary stratification planes1 and he is at a loss to know why the surface soil was not disturbed by the huge rock masses which slid over it for such great distances4 ,speaking of the ,bow ,river ,gap1 he says3 8,the fault plane here is nearly horizontal1 and the two formations1 viewed from the valley appear to succeed one another conformably10 and then having noted that the underlying ,cretaceous shales are 8very soft10 he adds that they 8have suffered little by the sliding of the limestones over them40 7,an4 ,rpt4 #ahhf1 part ,d41 pp4 #cc1 #cd1 #hd47 ,credat ,iudaeus ,apella1 non ego6 ,schuchert describes the ,alpine overthrust as follows3 8,the movement was both vertical and thrusting from the south and southeast1 from the southern portion of ,tethys1 elevating and folding the ,tertiary and older strata of the northern areas of this mediterranean into overturned1 recumbent1 and nearly horizontal folds1 and pushing the southern or ,lepontine ,alps about #fj miles to the northward into the ,helvetic region4 ,erosion has since carved up these overthrust sheets1 leaving remnants lying on foundations which belong to a more northern portion of the ancient sea4 ,most noted of these residuals of overthrust masses is the ,matterhorn1 a mighty mountain without roots1 a stranger in a foreign geologic environment10 7,pirsson ,schuchert's 8,textbook of ,geology10 #aibj1 ,,ii1 p4 #ibd47 ,with such a convenient device as the 8overthrust0 at his disposal1 it is hard to see how any possible concrete sequence of fossiliferous strata could contradict the preconceptions of an evolutionary geologist4 ,the hypotheses and assumptions involved1 however1 are so tortuous and incredible1 that nothing short of fanatical devotion to the theory of transformism can render them acceptable4 8,examples10 says ,price1 8of strata in the #8wrong' order were first reported from the ,alps nearly half a century ago4 ,since that time1 whole armfuls of learned treatises in ,german1 in ,french1 and in ,english have been written to explain the wonderful conditions there found4 ,the diagrams that have been drawn to account for the strange order of the strata are worthy to rank with the similar ones by the ,ptolemaic astronomers picturing the cycles and epicycles required to explain the peculiar behavior of the heavenly bodies in accordance with the geocentric theory of the universe then prevailing4444 ,in ,scandinavia1 a district some #a1abj miles long by #hj miles wide is alleged to have been pushed horizontally eastward #8at least #hf miles4' 7,schuchert47 ,in ,northern ,china1 one of these upside down areas is reported by the ,carnegie ,research ,expedition to be #ejj miles long40 78,the ,new ,geology10 #aibc1 pp4 #fcc1 #fcd47 ,nor are the epicyclic subterfuges of the evolutionary geologist confined to 8deceptive conformities0 and 8overthrusts40 ,his inventive genius has hit upon other methods of explaining away inconvenient facts4 ,when1 for example1 8younger0 fossils are found interbedded with 8older0 fossils1 and the discrepancy in time is not too great1 he rids himself of the difficulty of their premature appearance by calling them a 8pioneer colony40 ,similarly1 when a group of 8characteristic0 fossils occur in one age1 skip another 8age10 and recur in a third1 he recognizes the possibility of 8recurrent faunas10 some of these faunas having as many as five successive 8recurrences40 ,clearly1 the assumption of gradual approximation and the dogma that the lower preceded the higher forms of life are things to be saved at all costs1 and it is a foregone conclusion that no facts will be suffered to conflict with these irrevisable articles of evolutionary faith4 8,what is the use10 exclaims ,price1 8of pretending that we are investigating a problem of natural science1 if we already know beforehand that the lower and more generalized forms of animals and plants came into existence first1 and the higher and the more specialized came only long afterwards1 and that specimens of all these successive types have been pigeonholed in the rocks in order to help us illustrate this wonderful truth80 7,op4 cit41 pp4 #ffg1 #ffh47 ,the predominance of extinct species in certain formations is said to be an independent argument of their great age4 ,most of the species of organisms found as fossils in ,cambrian1 ,ordovician1 and ,silurian rocks are extinct1 whereas modern types abound in ,cretaceous and ,tertiary rocks4 ,hence it is claimed that the former must be vastly older than the latter4 ,but this argument gratuitously assumes the substantial perfection of the stone record of ancient life and unwarrantedly excludes the possibility of a sudden impoverishment of the world's flora and fauna as the result of a sweeping catastrophe1 of which our present species are the fortunate survivors4 ,now the fact that certain floras and faunas skip entire systems of rocks to reappear only in later formations is proof positive that the record of ancient life is far from being complete1 and we have in the abundant fossil remains of tropical plants and animals1 found in what are now the frozen arctic regions1 unmistakable evidence of a sudden catastrophic change by which a once genial climate 8was abruptly terminated4 ,for carcasses of the ,siberian elephants were frozen so suddenly and so completely that the flesh has remained untainted40 7,dana47 ,again1 the mere fact of extinction tells us nothing about the time of the extinction4 ,for this we are obliged to fall back on the index fossil whose inherent time-value is based on the theory of evolution and not on stratigraphy4 ,hence the argument from extinct species is not an independent argument4 ,to sum up1 therefore1 the aprioristic evolutional series of fossils is not a genuine time-scale4 ,the only safe criterion of comparative age is that of stratigraphic superposition1 and this is inapplicable outside of limited local areas4#aj ,the index fossil is a reliable basis for the chronological correlation of beds only in case one is already convinced on other grounds of the actuality of evolution1 but for the unbiased inquirer it is destitute of any inherent time-value4 ,in other words1 we can no longer be sure that a given formation is old merely because it happens to contain ,cambrian fossils1 nor that a rock is young merely because it chances to contain ,tertiary fossils4 ,our present classification of rocks according to their fossil contents is purely arbitrary and artificial1 being tantamount to nothing more than a mere taxonomical classification of the forms of ancient life on our globe1 irrespective of their comparative antiquity4 ,this scheme of classification is1 indeed1 universally applicable1 and places can usually be found in it for new fossiliferous strata1 whenever and wherever discovered4 ,its universal applicability1 however1 is due not to any prevalent order of invariable sequence among fossiliferous strata1 but solely to the fact that the laws of biological taxonomy and ecology are universal laws which transcend spatial and temporal limitation4 ,if a scheme of taxonomy is truly scientific1 all forms of life1 whether extant or extinct1 will fit into it quite readily4 #aj 8,all that geology can prove10 says ,huxley1 8is local order of succession40 78,discourses ,biological and ,geological10 pp4 #bgi-bhh47 ,the anomalies of spatial distribution constitute a sixth difficulty for transformistic palontology4 ,in constructing a phylogeny the most diverse and widely-separated regions are put under tribute to furnish the requisite fossils1 no heed being paid to what are now at any rate impassable geographical barriers1 not to speak of the climatic and environmental limitations which restrict the migrations of non-cosmopolitan species within the boundaries of narrow habitats4 ,hypothetical lineages of a modern form of life are frequently constructed from fossil remains found in two or more continents separated from one another by immense distances and vast oceanic expanses4 ,when taxed with failure to plausibleize this procedure1 the evolutionist meets the difficulty by hypothecating wholesale and devious migrations to and fro1 and by raising up alleged land bridges to accommodate plants and animals in their suppositional migrations from one continent to another1 etc4 ,the ,european horse1 with his so-called ancestry interred1 partly in the ,tertiary deposits of ,europe1 but mostly in those of ,north ,america1 is a typical instance of these anomalies in geographical distribution4 ,it would1 of course1 be preposterous to suppose that two independent lines of descent could have fortuitously terminated in the production of one and the same type1 namely1 the genus ,equus4 ,moreover1 to admit for a moment that the extinct ,american ,equus and the extant ,european ,equus had converged by similar stages from distinct origins would be equivalent1 as we have seen1 to a surrender of the basic postulate that structural similarity rests on the principle of inheritance4 ,nothing remains1 therefore1 but to hypothecate a ,tertiary land bridge between ,europe and ,north ,america4 ,modern geologists1 however1 are beginning to resent these arbitrary interferences with their science in the interest of biological theories4 ,land bridges1 they rightly insist1 should be demonstrated by means of positive geological evidence and not by the mere exigencies of a hypothetical genealogy4 ,whosoever postulates a land bridge between continents should be able to adduce solid reasons1 and to assign a mechanism capable of accomplishing the five-mile uplift necessary to bring a deep-sea bottom to the surface of the hydrosphere4 ,such an idea is extravagant and not to be easily entertained in our day1 when geologists are beginning to understand the principle of isostasy4 ,to-day1 the crust of the earth1 that is1 the entire surface of the lithosphere1 is conceived as being constituted of earth columns1 all of which rest with equal weight upon the level of complete compensation1 which exists at a depth of some #gf miles below land surfaces4 ,at this depth viscous flows and undertows of the earth take place1 compensating all differences of gravitational stress4 ,hence the materials constituting a mountain column are thought to be less dense than those constituting the surrounding lowland columns1 and for this reason the mountains are buoyed up above the surrounding landscape4 ,the columns under ocean bottoms1 on the contrary1 are thought to consist of heavy materials like basalt1 which tend to depress the column4 ,to raise a sea floor1 therefore1 some means of producing a dilatation of these materials would have to be available4 ,arthur ,b4 ,coleman called attention to this difficulty in his ,presidential ,address to the ,geological ,society of ,america 7,december #bi1 #aiae71 and we cannot do better than quote his own statement of the matter here3 8,admitting10 he says1 8that in the beginning the lithosphere bulged up in places1 so as to form continents1 and sagged in other places1 so as to form ocean beds1 there are interesting problems presented as to the permanence of land and seas4 ,all will admit marginal changes affecting large areas1 but these encroachments of the sea on the continents and the later retreats may be of quite a subordinate kind1 not implying an interchange of deep-sea bottoms and land surfaces4 ,the essential permanence of continents and oceans has been firmly held by many geologists1 notably ,dana among the older ones1 and seems reasonable2 but there are geologists1 especially palontologists1 who display great recklessness in rearranging land and sea4 ,the trend of a mountain range1 or the convenience of a running bird1 or a marsupial afraid to wet his feet seems sufficient warrant for hoisting up any sea bottom to connect continent with continent4 ,a ,gondwana ,land arises in place of an ,indian ,ocean and sweeps across to ,south ,america1 so that a spore-bearing plant can follow up an ice age2 or an ,atlantis ties ,new ,england to ,old ,england to help out the migrations of a shallow-water fauna2 or a #8,lost ,land of ,agulhas' joins ,south ,africa and ,india4 8,it is curious to find these revolutionary suggestions made at a time when geodesists are demonstrating that the earth's crust over large areas1 and perhaps everywhere1 approaches a state of isostatic equilibrium1 and that isostatic compensation is probably complete at a depth of only #gf miles0 444 and 7having noted the difference of density that must exist between the continental1 and submarine1 earth columns7 ,coleman would have us bear in mind 8that to transform great areas of sea bottom into land it would be necessary either to expand the rock beneath by several per cent or to replace heavy rock1 such as basalt1 by lighter materials1 such as granite4 ,there is no obvious way in which the rock beneath a sea bottom can be expanded enough to lift it #bj1jjj feet1 as would be necessary in parts of the ,indian ,ocean1 to form a ,gondwana land2 so one must assume that light rocks replace heavy ones beneath a million square miles of ocean floor4 ,even with unlimited time1 it is hard to imagine a mechanism that could do the work1 and no convincing geological evidence can be brought forward to show that such a thing ever took place4444 ,the distribution of plants and animals should be arranged for by other means than by the wholesale elevation of ocean beds to make dry land bridges for them40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiaf1 pp4 #bfi-bga47 ,a seventh anomaly of palontological phylogeny is what may be described as contrariety of direction4 ,we are asked to believe1 for example1 that in mammals racial development resulted in dimensional increase4 ,the primitive ancestor of mammoths1 mastodons1 and elephants is alleged to have been the ,moeritherium1 8a small tapirlike form1 from the ,middle ,eocene ,qasr-el-,sagha beds of the ,faym in ,egypt4444 ,moeritherium measured about #c feet in height40 7,lull3 ,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aijh1 pp4 #fee1 #fef47 ,the ancestor of the modern horse1 we are told1 was 8a little animal less than a foot in height1 known as ,eohippus1 from the rocks of the ,eocene age40 7,woodruff3 8,foundations of ,biology10 p4 #cfa47 ,in the case of insects1 on the other hand1 we are asked to believe the exact reverse1 namely1 that racial development brought about dimensional reduction4 8,in the middle of the ,upper ,carboniferous periods10 says ,anton ,handlirsch1 8the forest swamps were populated with cockroaches about as long as a finger1 dragonfly-like creatures with a wing spread of about #b feet1 while insects that resemble our ,may flies were as big as a hand40 78,die fossilen ,insekten1 und die ,phylogenie der recenten ,formen10 #aijh1 ,l4 c41 p4 #aaej47 ,contrasting one of these giant palozoic dragonflies1 ,meganeura monyi ,brongn41 with the largest of modern dragonflies1 ,aeschna grandis ,l41 ,chetverikov exclaims with reference to the latter3 8,what a pitiful pigmy it is and its specific name 7grandis7 sounds like such a mockery40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiah1 p4 #ddf47 ,chetverikov1 it is true1 proposes a teleological reason for this progressive diminution1 but the fact remains that for dysteleological evolutionism1 which dispenses with the postulate of a ,providential cordination and regulation of natural agencies1 this diminuendo of the 8evolving0 insects stands in irreconcilable opposition to the crescendo of the 8evolving0 mammals1 and constitutes a difficulty which a purely mechanistic philosophy can never surmount4 ,not to prolong excessively this already protracted enumeration of discrepancies between fossil fact and evolutionary assumption1 we shall mention1 as an eighth and final difficulty1 the indubitable persistence of unchanged organic types from the earliest geological epochs down to the present time4 ,this phenomenon is all the more wonderful in view of the fact that the decision as to which are to be the 8older0 and which the 8younger0 strata rests with the evolutionary geologist1 who is naturally disinclined to admit the antiquity of strata containing modern types1 and whose position as arbiter enables him to date formations aprioristically1 according to the exigencies of the transformistic theory4 ,using1 as he does1 the absence of modern types as an express criterion of age1 and having1 as it were1 his pick among the various fossiliferous deposits1 one would expect him to be eminently successful in eliminating from the stratigraphic groups selected for senior honors all strata containing fossil types identical with modern forms4 ,since1 however1 even the most ingenious sort of geological gerrymandering fails to make this elimination complete1 we must conclude that the evidence for persistence of type is inescapable and valid under any assumption4 ,when we speak of persistent types1 we mean generic and specific1 rather than phyletic1 types1 although it is assuredly true that the persistence of the great phyla1 from their abrupt and contemporaneous appearance in ,cambrian and pre-,cambrian rocks down to the present day1 constitutes a grave difficulty for progressive evolution in general and monophyletic evolution in particular4 ,all the great invertebrate types1 such as the protozoa1 the annelida1 the brachiopoda1 and large crustaceans called eurypterids1 are found in rocks of the ,proterozoic group1 despite the damaged condition of the ,archan record1 while in the ,cambrian they are represented by a great profusion of forms4 8,the ,lower ,cambrian species10 says ,dana1 8have not the simplicity of structure that would naturally be looked for in the earliest ,palozoic life4 ,they are perfect of their kind and highly specialized structures4 ,no steps from simple kinds leading up to them have been discovered2 no line from the protozoans up to corals1 echinoderms1 or worms1 or from either of these groups up to brachiopods1 mollusks1 trilobites1 or other crustaceans4 ,this appearance of abruptness in the introduction of ,cambrian life is one of the striking facts made known by geology40 78,manual10 p4 #dhg47 ,thus1 as we go backward in time1 we find the great organic phyla retaining their identity and showing no tendency to converge towards a common origin in one or a few ancestral types4 ,for this reason1 as we shall see presently1 geologists are beginning to relegate the evolutionary process to unknown depths below the explored portion of the 8geological column40 ,what may lurk in these unfathomed profundities1 it is1 of course1 impossible to say1 but1 if we are to judge by that part of the column which is actually exposed to view1 there is no indication whatever of a steady progression from lower1 to higher1 degrees of organization1 and it takes all the imperturbable idealism of a scientific doctrinaire to discern in such random1 abrupt1 and unrelated 8origins0 any evidence of what ,blackwelder styles 8a slow but steady increase in complexity of structure and in function40 7,science1 ,jan4 #bg1 #aibb1 p4 #ij47 ,but1 while the permanence of phyletic types excludes progress1 that of generic and specific types excludes change1 and hence it is in the latter phenomenon1 especially1 that the theory of transformism encounters a formidable difficulty4 ,palobotany furnishes numerous examples of the persistence of unchanged plant forms4 ,ferns identical with the modern genus ,marattia occur in rocks of the ,palozoic group4 ,cycads indistinguishable from the extant genera ,zamia and ,cycas are found in strata belonging to the ,triassic system1 etc41 etc4 ,the same is true of animal types4 ,in all the phyla some genera and even species have persisted unchanged from the oldest strata down to the present day4 ,among the ,protozoa1 for example1 we have the genus ,globigerina 7one of the ,foraminifera71 some modern species of which are identical with those found in the ,cretaceous4 ,to quote the words of the ,protozoologist1 ,charles ,a4 ,kofoid3 8,the ,protozoa are found in the oldest fossiliferous rocks and the genera of ,radiolaria therein conform rather closely to genera living today1 while the fossil ,dinoflagellata of the flints of ,delitzsch are scarcely distinguishable from species living in the modern seas4 ,the striking similarities of the most ancient fossil ,protozoa to recent ones afford some ground for the inference that the ,protozoa living today differ but little from those when life was young40 7,science1 ,april #f1 #aibc1 p4 #cig47 ,the ,metazoa offer similar examples of persistence4 ,among the ,clenterata1 we have the genus ,springopora1 whose representatives from the ,carboniferous limestones closely resemble some of the present-day reef builders of the ,east ,indies4 ,species of the brachiopod genera ,lingula and ,crania occurring in the ,cambrian rocks are indistinguishable from species living today1 while two other modern genera of the ,brachiopoda1 namely1 ,rhynchonella and ,discina1 are represented among the fossils found in ,mesozoic formations4 ,terebratulina striata1 a fossil species of brachiopod occurring in the rocks belonging to the ,cretaceous system1 is identical with our modern species ,terebratulina caput serpentis4 ,among the ,mollusca such genera as ,arca1 ,nucula1 ,lucina1 ,astarte1 and ,nautilus have had a continuous existence since the ,silurian1 while the genera ,lima and ,pecten can be traced to the ,permian4 ,one genus ,pleurotomaria goes back to pre-,cambrian times4 ,as to ,tertiary fossils1 ,woods informs us that 8in some of the later ,cainozoic formations as many as #ij per cent of the species of mollusks are still living40 78,palontology10 #ast ed41 p4 #b47 ,among the ,echinodermata1 two genera1 ,cidaris 7a sea urchin7 and ,pentacrinus 7a crinoid7 may be mentioned as being persistent since the ,triassic 78oldest0 system of the ,mesozoic group74 ,among the ,arthropoda1 the horseshoe crab ,limulus polyphemus has had a continuous existence since the ,lias 7i4e4 the lowest series of the ,jurassic system74 ,even among the ,vertebrata we have instances of persistence4 ,the extant ,australian genus ,ceratodus1 a ,dipnoan1 has been in existence since the ,triassic4 ,among the fossils of the ,jurassic 7middle system of the ,mesozoic group71 ,sharks1 ,rays1 and ,chimaeroids occur in practically modern forms1 while some of the so-called 8ganoids0 are extremely similar to our present sturgeons and gar pikes--8,some of the ,jurassic fishes approximate the teleosts so closely that it seems arbitrary to call them ganoids40 7,scott47 ,the instances of persistence enumerated above are those acknowledged by evolutionary palontologists themselves4 ,this list could be extended somewhat by the addition of several other examples1 but even so1 it would still be small and insufficient to tip the scales decisively in favor of fixism4 ,on the other hand1 we must not forget that the paucity of this list is due in large measure to the fact that our present method of classifying fossiliferous strata was deliberately framed with a view to excluding formations containing modern types from the category of 8ancient0 beds4 ,moreover1 orthodox palontology has minimized the facts of persistence to an extent unwarranted even by its own premises4 ,as the following considerations indicate1 the actual number of persistent types is far greater1 even according to the evolutionary time-scale1 than the figure commonly assigned4 ,first of all1 we must take into account the deplorable1 if not absolutely dishonest1 practice1 which is in vogue1 of inventing new names for the fossil duplicates of modern species1 in order to mask or obscure an identity which conflicts with evolutionary preconceptions4 ,when a given formation fails to fit into the accepted scheme by reason of its fossil anachronisms1 or when1 to quote the words of ,price1 8species are found in kinds of rock where they are not at all expected1 and where1 according to the prevailing theories1 it is quite incredible that they should be found 444 the not very honorable expedient is resorted to of inventing a new name1 specific or even generic1 to disguise and gloss over the strange similarity between them and the others which have already been assigned to wholly different formations40 78,the ,new ,geology10 p4 #bia47 ,the same observation is made by ,heilprin4 8,it is practically certain10 says the latter1 8that numerous forms of life1 exhibiting no distinctive characters of their own1 are constituted into distinct species for no other reason than that they occur in formations widely separated from those holding their nearest kin40 78,geographical and ,geological ,distribution of ,animals10 pp4 #ahc1 #ahd47 ,an instance of this practice occurs in the foregoing list1 where a fossil brachiopod identical with a modern species receives the new specific name 8striata40 ,its influence is also manifest in the previously quoted apology of ,scott for calling teleost-like fish 8ganoids40 ,we must also take into account the imperfection of the fossil record1 which is proved by the fact that most of the acknowledged 8persistent types0 listed above 8skip0 whole systems and even groups of 8later0 rocks 7which are said to represent enormous intervals of time71 only to reappear1 at last1 in modern times4 ,it is evident that their existence has been continuous1 and yet they are not represented in the intervening strata4 ,clearly1 then1 the fossil record is imperfect1 and we must conclude that many of our modern types actually did exist in the remote past1 without1 however1 leaving behind any vestige of their former presence4 ,again1 we must frankly confess our profound ignorance with respect to the total number and kinds of species living in our modern seas4 ,hence our conventional distinction between 8extinct0 and 8extant0 species has only a provisory value4 ,future discoveries will unquestionably force us to admit that many of the species now classed as 8extinct0 are in reality living forms1 which must be added to our list of 8persistent types40 8,it is by no means improbable10 says ,heilprin1 8that many of the older genera1 now recognized as distinct by reason of our imperfect knowledge concerning their true relationships1 have in reality representatives in the modern sea40 7,op4 cit4 pp4 #bjc1 #bjd47 ,finally1 the whole of our present taxonomy of plants and animals1 both living and fossil1 stands badly in need of revision4 ,systematists1 as we have seen in the second chapter1 base their classifications mainly on what they regard as basic or homologous structures1 in contradistinction to superficial or adaptive characters4 ,both kinds of structure1 however1 are purely somatic1 and somatic characters1 as previously observed1 are not1 by themselves1 a safe criterion for discriminating between varieties and species4 ,in the light of recent genetical research1 we cannot avoid recognizing that there has been far too much 8splitting0 of organic groups on the basis of differences that are purely fluctuational1 or1 at most1 mutational4 ,moreover1 the distinction between homologous and adaptive structures is often arbitrary and largely a matter of personal opinion1 especially when numerous specimens are not available4 ,what the 8,cambridge ,natural ,history0 says in allusion to the ,asteroidea is of general application4 8,while there is considerable agreement10 we read1 8amongst authorities as to the number of families1 or minor divisions of unequivocal relationship1 to be found in the class ,asteroidea1 there has been great uncertainty both as to the number and limits of the orders into which the class should be divided1 and also as to the limits of the various species4 ,the difficulty about the species is by no means confined to the group ,echinodermata2 in all cases where the attempt is made to determine species by an examination of a few specimens of unknown age there is bound to be uncertainty2 the more so1 as it becomes increasingly evident that there is no sharp line to be drawn between local varieties and species4 ,in ,echinodermata1 however1 there is the additional difficulty that the acquisition of ripe genital cells does not necessarily mark the termination of growth2 the animals can continue to grow and at the same time slightly alter their characters4 ,for this reason many of the species described may be merely immature forms4444 8,the disputes1 however1 as to the number of orders included in the ,asteroidea proceed from a different cause4 ,the attempt to construct detailed phylogenies involves the assumption that one set of structures1 which we take as the mark of the class1 has remained constant1 whilst the others which are regarded as adaptive1 may have developed twice or thrice4 ,as the two sets of structures are about of equal importance it will be seen to what an enormous extent the personal equation enters in the determination of these questions40 7,op4 cit41 vol4 ,i1 pp4 #dei1 #dfj47 ,in dealing with fossil forms1 these difficulties of the taxonomist are intensified3 7#a7 by the sparse1 badly-preserved1 and fragmentary character of fossil remains2 7#b7 by the fact that here breeding experiments are impossible1 and hence the diagnosis based on external characters cannot be supplemented by a diagnosis of the germinal factors4 ,fossil taxonomy is1 in consequence1 extremely arbitrary and unreliable4 ,many fossil forms classed as distinct species1 or even as distinct genera1 may be nothing more than fluctuants1 mutants1 hybrids1 or immature stages of well-known species living today4 ,again1 many fossils mistaken for distinct species are but different stages in the life-history of a single species1 a mistake1 which is unavoidable1 when specimens are few and the age of the specimens unknown4 ,the great confusion engendered in the classification of the hydrozoa by nineteenth-century ignorance of the alternation of hydroid and medusoid generations is a standing example of the danger of classifying forms without a complete knowledge of the entire life-cycle4 ,when due allowance is made for mutation1 hybridization1 metagenesis1 polymorphism1 age and metamorphosis1 the number of distinct fossil species will undergo considerable shrinkage4 ,nor must we overlook the possibility of environmentally-induced modifications4 ,many organisms1 such as mollusks1 undergo profound alteration as a result of some important1 and1 perhaps1 relatively permanent1 change in their environmental conditions1 though such alterations affect only the phenotype1 and do not involve a corresponding change in the specific genotype1 i4e4 the germinal constitution of the race4 ,in the degree that these considerations are taken into account the number of 8extinct0 fossil species will diminish and the number of 8persistent0 species will increase4 ,this is a consummation devoutly to be wished for1 but it means that hundreds of thousands of described species must needs be reviewed for the purpose of weeding out the duplicates1 and who will have the knowledge1 the courage1 or even the span of life1 necessary to accomplish so gigantic a task8 ,but so far as the practical purposes of our argument are concerned1 the accepted list of persistent types needs no amplification4 ,it suffices1 as it stands1 to establish the central fact 7which1 for the rest1 is admitted by everyone7 that some generic and even specific types have remained unchanged throughout the enormous lapse of time which has intervened between the deposition of the oldest strata and the advent of the present age4 ,our current theories1 far from diminishing the significance of this fact1 tend to intensify it by computing the duration of such persistence in millions1 rather than in thousands1 of years4 ,now1 whatever one's views may be on the subject of transformism1 this prolonged permanence of certain genera and species is an indubitable fact1 which is utterly irreconcilable with a universal law of organic evolution4 ,the theory of transformism is impotent to explain an exception so palpable as this2 for persistence and transmutation cannot be subsumed under one and the same principle4 ,that which accounts for change cannot account for unchange4 ,yet unchange is an observed fact1 while the change1 in this case1 is an inferred hypothesis4 ,hence1 even if we accept the principle of transformism1 there will always be scope for the principle of permanence4 ,the extraordinary tenacity of type manifested by persistent genera and species is a phenomenon deserving of far more careful study and investigation than the evolutionally-minded scientist of today deigns to bestow upon it4 ,to the latter it may seem of little consequence1 but1 to the genuine scientist1 the actual persistence of types should be of no less interest than their possible variability4 ,with these reflections1 our criticism of the palontological argument terminates4 ,the enumeration of its various deficiencies was not intended as a refutation4 ,to disprove the theory of organic evolution is a feat beyond our power to accomplish4 ,we can only adduce negative evidence1 whose scope is to show that the various evolutionary arguments are inconsequential or inconclusive4 ,we cannot rob the theory of its intrinsic possibility1 and sheer justice compels us to confess that certain facts1 like those of symbiotic preadaptation1 lend themselves more readily to a transformistic1 than to a fixistic1 interpretation4 ,on the other hand1 nothing is gained by ignoring flaws so obvious and glaring as those which mar the cogency of palontological 8evidence40 ,the man who would gloss them over is no true friend either of ,science or of the scientific theory of ,evolution6 ,they represent so many real problems to be frankly faced and fully solved1 before the palontological argument can become a genuine demonstration4 ,but until such time as a demonstration of this sort is forthcoming1 the evolutionist must not presume to cram his unsubstantiated theory down our reasonably reluctant throats4 ,to accept as certain what remains unproved1 is to compromise our intellectual sincerity4 ,true certainty1 which rests on the recognition of objective necessity1 will never be attainable so long as difficulties that sap the very base of evolutionary argumentation are left unanswered2 and1 as for those who1 in the teeth of discordant factual evidence1 profess1 nevertheless1 to have certainty regarding the 8fact0 of evolution1 we can only say that such persons cannot have a very high or exacting conception of what scientific certainty really means4 ,for the rest1 it cannot even be said that the palontological record furnishes good circumstantial evidence that our globe has been the scene of a process of organic evolution4 ,in fact1 so utterly at variance with this view is the total impression conveyed by the visible portion of the geological column1 that the modern geologist proposes1 as we have seen1 to probe depths beneath its lowest strata for traces of that alleged transmutation1 which higher horizons do not reveal4 ,there are six to eight thick terranes below the ,cambrian1 we are told1 and igneous masses that were formerly supposed to be basal have turned out to be intrusions into sedimentary accumulations1 all of which1 of course1 is fortunate for the theory of organic evolution1 as furnishing it with a sadly needed new court of appeal4 ,the bottom1 so to speak1 has dropped out of the geological column1 and ,prof4 ,t4 ,c4 ,chamberlin announces the fact as follows3 8,the sharp division into two parts1 a lifeless igneous base and a sedimentary fossiliferous superstructure1 has given place to the general concept of continuity with merely minor oscillations in times and regions of major activity4 ,life has been traced much below the ,cambrian1 but its record is very imperfect4 ,the recent discoveries of more ample and varied life in the lower ,palozoic1 particularly the ,cambrian1 implies1 under current evolutional philosophy1 a very great downward extension of life4 ,in the judgment of some biologists and geologists1 this extension probably reaches below all the pre-,cambrian terranes as yet recognized1 though this pre-,cambrian extension is great4 ,the #8,azoic' bottom has retired to depths unknown4 ,this profoundly changes the life aspect of the #8column4'0 7,science1 ,feb4 #h1 #aibd1 p4 #abh47 ,all this is doubtless true1 but such an appeal1 from the known to the unknown1 from the actual to the possible1 is not far-removed from a confession of scientific insolvency4 ,life must1 of course1 have had an earlier history than that recorded in the pre-,cambrian rocks4 ,but even supposing that some portion of an earlier record should become accessible to us1 it could not be expected to throw much light on the problem of organic origins4 ,most of the primordial sediments have long since been sapped and engulfed by fiery magmas1 while terranes less deep have1 in all probability1 been so metamorphosed that every trace of their fossil contents has perished4 ,the sub-,archan beginnings of life will thus remain shrouded forever in a mystery1 which we have no prospect of penetrating4 ,hence it is the exposed portion of the geological column which continues and will continue to be our sole source of information1 and it is preminently on this basis that the evolutionary issue will have to be decided4 ,yet what could be more enigmatic than the rock record as it stands8 ,for in nature it possesses none of that idealized integrity and coherence1 with which geology has invested it for the purpose of making it understandable4 ,rather it is a mighty chaos of scattered and fragmentary fossiliferous formations1 whose baffling complexity1 discontinuity1 and ambiguity tax the ingenuity of the most sagacious interpreters4 ,transformism is the key to one possible synthesis1 which might serve to unify that intricate mass of facts1 but it is idle to pretend that this theory is the unique and necessary corollary of the facts as we find them4 ,the palontological argument is simply a theoretical construction which presupposes evolution instead of proving it4 ,its classic pedigrees of the horse1 the camel1 and the elephant are only credible when we have assumed the 8fact0 of evolution1 and even then1 solely upon condition that they claim to approximate1 rather than assign1 the actual ancestry of the animals in question4 ,in palontology1 as in the field of zology1 evolution is not a conclusion1 but an interpretation4 ,in palontology1 otherwise than in the field of genetics1 evolution is not amenable to the check of experimental tests1 because here it deals not with that which is1 but with that which was4 ,here the sole objective basis is the mutilated and partially obliterated record of a march of events1 which no one has observed and which will never be repeated4 ,these obscure and fragmentary vestiges of a vanished past1 by reason of their very incompleteness1 lend themselves quite readily to all sorts of theories and all sorts of speculations4 ,of the 8,stone ,book of the ,universe0 we may say with truth that which ,oliver ,wendell ,holmes says of the privately-interpreted ,bible1 namely1 that its readers take from it the same views which they had previously brought to it4 8,i am1 however1 thoroughly persuaded10 say the late ,yves ,delage1 8that one is or is not a transformist1 not so much for reasons deduced from natural history1 as for motives based on personal philosophic opinions4 ,if there existed some other scientific hypothesis besides that of descent to explain the origin of species1 many transformists would abandon their present opinion as not being sufficiently demonstrated4444 ,if one takes his stand upon the exclusive ground of the facts1 it must be acknowledged that the formation of one species from another species has not been demonstrated at all40 78,l'herdit et les grands problmes de la biologie gnrale10 ,paris1 #aijc1 pp4 #bjd1 #cbb47 ,,ii ,,the ,,problem ,,of ,,origins ,,chapter ,i ,,the ,,origin ,,of ,,life #a4 ,the ,theory of ,spontaneous ,generation ,strictly speaking1 the theory of ,transformism is not concerned with the initial production of organic species1 but rather with the subsequent differentiation and multiplication of such species by transmutation of the original forms4 ,this technical sense1 however1 is embalmed only in the term transformism and not in its synonym evolution4 ,the signification of the latter term is less definite4 ,it may be used to denote any sort of development or origination of one thing from another4 ,hence the problem of the formation of organic species is frequently merged with the problem of the transformation of species under the common title of evolution4 ,this extension of the evolutionary concept1 in its widest sense1 to the problem of the origin of life on our globe is known as the hypothesis of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation4 ,it regards inorganic matter as the source of organic life not merely in the sense of a passive cause1 out of which the primordial forms of life were produced1 but in the sense of an active cause inasmuch as it ascribes the origin of life to the exclusive agency of dynamic principles inherent in inorganic matter1 namely1 the physicochemical energies that are native to mineral matter4 ,life1 in other words1 is assumed to have arisen spontaneously1 that is1 by means of a synthesis and convergence of forces resident in inorganic matter1 and not through the intervention of any exterior agency4 ,the protagonists of spontaneous generation1 therefore1 assert not merely a passive1 but an active1 evolution of living1 from lifeless matter4 ,as to the fact of the origin of the primal organisms from inorganic matter1 there is no controversy whatever4 ,all agree that1 at some time or other1 the primordial plants and animals emanated from inorganic matter4 ,the sole point of dispute is whether they arose from inorganic matter by active evolution or simply by passive evolution4 ,the passive evolution of mineral matter into plants and animals is an everyday occurrence4 ,the grass assimilates the nitrates of the soil1 and is1 in turn1 assimilated by the sheep1 whose flesh becomes the food of man1 and mineral substance is thus finally transformed into human substance4 ,in the course of metabolic processes1 the inorganic molecule may doff its mineral type and don1 in succession1 the specificities of plant1 animal1 and human protoplasm2 and this transition from lower to higher degrees of perfection may be termed an evolution4 ,it is an ascent of matter from the lowermost grade of an inert substance1 through the intermediate grades of vegetative and animal life1 up to the culminating and ultimate term of material perfection1 in the partial constitution of a human nature and personality1 in the concurrence as a coagent in vegetative and sensile functions1 and in the indirect participation1 as instrument1 in the higher psychic functions of rational thought and volition4 ,at the present time1 the inorganic world is clearly the exclusive source of all the matter found in living beings4 ,all living beings construct their bodies out of inorganic substances in the process of nutrition1 and render back to the inorganic world1 by dissimilation and death1 whatever they have taken from it4 ,we must conclude1 therefore1 the matter of the primordial organisms was likewise derived from the inorganic world4 ,but we are not warranted in concluding that this process of derivation was an active evolution4 ,on the contrary1 all evidence is against the supposition that brute matter is able to evolve of itself into living matter4 ,it can1 indeed1 be transformed into plants1 animals1 and men through the action of an appropriate external agent 7i4e4 solely through the agency of the living organism71 but it cannot acquire the perfections of living matter by means of its own inherent powers4 ,it cannot vitalize1 or sensitize1 itself through the unaided activity of its own physicochemical energies4 ,only when it comes under the superior influence of prexistent life can it ascend to higher degrees of entitive perfection4 ,it does not become of itself life1 sensibility1 and intelligence4 ,it must first be drawn into communion with what is already alive1 before it can acquire life and sensibility1 or share indirectly in the honors of intelligence 7as the substrate of the cerebral imagery whence the human mind abstracts its conceptual thought74 ,apart from this unique influence1 inorganic matter is impotent to raise itself in the scale of existence1 but1 if captured1 molded1 and transmuted by a living being1 it may progress to the point of forming with the human soul one single nature1 one single substance1 one single person4 ,the evolution of matter exemplified in organic metabolism is obviously passive1 and such an evolution of the primal organisms out of non-living matter even the opponents of the hypothesis of spontaneous generation concede4 ,but spontaneous generation implies an active evolution of the living from the lifeless1 and this is the point around which the controversy wages4 ,it would1 of course1 be utterly irrational to deny to the ,supreme ,lord and ,author of ,life the power of vivifying matter previously inanimate and inert1 and hence the origin of organic life from inorganic matter by a formative 7not creative7 act of the ,creator is the conclusion to which the denial of abiogenesis logically leads4 ,the hypothesis of spontaneous generation is far older than the theory of transformism4 ,it goes back to the ,greek predecessors of ,aristotle1 at least1 and may be of far greater antiquity4 ,it was based1 as is well known1 upon an erroneous interpretation of natural facts1 which was universally accepted up to the close of the #agth century4 ,as we can do no more than recount a few outstanding incidents of its long and interesting history here1 the reader is referred to the ,,vii chapter of ,wasmann's 8,modern ,biology0 and the ,,viii chapter of ,windle's 8,vitalism and ,scholasticism0 for the details which we are obliged to omit4 #b4 ,the ,law of ,genetic ,continuity-- ,from time immemorial the sudden appearance of maggots in putrescent meat had been a matter of common knowledge1 and the ancients were misled into regarding the phenomenon as an instance of a de novo origin of life from dead matter4 ,the error in question persisted until the year #afih1 when it was decisively disproved by a simple experiment of the ,italian physician ,francesco ,redi4 ,he protected the meat from flies by means of gauze4 ,under these conditions1 no maggots appeared in the meat1 while the flies1 unable to reach the meat1 deposited their eggs on the gauze4 ,thus it became apparent that the maggots were larval flies1 which emerged from fertilized eggs previously deposited in decaying meat by female flies4 ,antonio ,vallisnieri1 another ,italian1 showed that the fruit-fly had a similar life-history4 ,as a result of these discoveries1 ,redi rejected the theory of spontaneous generation and formulated the first article of the ,law of ,genetic ,vital ,continuity3 ,omne vivum ex vivo4 ,meanwhile1 the first researches conducted by means of the newly invented compound microscope disclosed what appeared to be fresh evidence in favor of the discarded hypothesis4 ,the unicellular organisms known as infusoria were found to appear suddenly in hay infusions1 and their abrupt appearance was ascribed to spontaneous generation4 ,towards the end of the #ahth century1 however1 a ,catholic priest named ,lazzaro ,spallanzani refuted this new argument by sterilizing the infusions with heat and by sealing the containers as protection against contamination by floating spores or cysts4 ,after the infusions had been boiled for a sufficient time and then sealed1 no organisms could be found in them1 no matter how long they were kept4 ,we now know that protozoa and protophytes do not originate de novo in infusions4 ,their sudden appearance in cultures is due to the deposition of spores or cysts from the air1 etc4 ,the possibility that the non-germination of life in sterilized infusions kept in sealed containers might be due to the absence of oxygen1 removed by boiling and excluded by sealing1 left open a single loophole1 of which the #aith century defenders of abiogenesis proceeded to avail themselves4 ,pasteur1 however1 by employing sterilized cultures1 which he aerated with filtered air exclusively1 succeeded in depriving his opponents of this final refuge1 and thereby completely demolished the last piece of evidence in favor of spontaneous generation4 ,prof4 ,wm4 ,sydney ,thayer1 in an address delivered at the ,sorbonne1 ,may #bb1 #aibc1 gives the following account of ,pasteur's experiments in this field3 8,then1 naturally 7#ahfj-ahgf7 came the famous studies on spontaneous generation undertaken against the advice of his doubting masters1 ,biot and ,dumas4 ,on the basis of careful and well-conceived experiments he demonstrated the universal presence of bacteria in air1 water1 dust2 he showed the variation in different regions of the bacterial content of the air2 he demonstrated the permanent sterility of media protected from contamination1 and he insisted on the inevitable derivation of every living organism from one of its kind4 #8,no1' he said1 #8there is no circumstance known today which justifies us in affirming that microscopic organisms have come into the world1 without parents like themselves4 ,those who made this assertion have been the playthings of illusions or ill-made experiments invalidated by errors which they have not been able to appreciate or to avoid4' ,in the course of these experiments he demonstrated the necessity of reliable methods of sterilization for instruments or culture media1 of exposure for half an hour to moist heat at #abj or to dry air at #ahj4 ,and behold6 our modern procedures of sterilization and the basis of antiseptic surgery40 7,science1 ,dec4 #ad1 #aibc1 p4 #dgg47 ,pasteur brought to a successful completion the work of ,redi and ,spallanzani4 ,henceforth spontaneous generation was deprived of all countenance in the realm of biological fact4 ,meanwhile1 the cytologists and embryologists of the last century were adding article after article to the law of genetic cellular continuity1 thus forging link by link the fatal chain of severance that inexorably debars abiogenesis from the domain of natural science4 ,with the formulation of the great ,cell ,theory by ,schleiden and ,schwann 7#ahch-ahci71 it became clear that the cell is the fundamental unit of organization in the world of living matter4 ,it has proved to be1 at once1 the simplest organism capable of independent existence and the basic unit of structure and function in all the more complex forms of life4 ,the protists 7unicellular protozoans and protophytes7 consist each of a single cell1 and no simpler type of organism is known to science4 ,the cell is the building brick out of which the higher organisms or metists 7i4e4 the multicellular and tissued metazoans and metaphytes7 are constructed1 and all multicellular organisms are1 at one time or other in their career1 reduced to the simplicity of a single cell 7v4g4 in the zygote and spore stages74 ,the somatic or tissue cells1 which are associated in the metists to form one organic whole1 are of the same essential type as germ cells and unicellular organisms1 although the parallelism is more close between the unicellular organism and the germ cell4 ,the germ cell1 like the protist1 is equipped with all the potentialities of life1 whereas tissue cells are specialized for one function rather than another4 ,the protist is a generalized and physiologically-balanced cell1 one which performs all the vital functions1 and in which the suppression of one function leads to the destruction of all the rest2 while the tissue cell is a specialized and physiologically-unbalanced cell limited to a single function1 with the other vital functions in abeyance 7though capable of manifesting themselves under certain circumstances74 ,normally1 therefore1 the tissue cell is functionally incomplete1 a part and not a whole1 whereas the protist is an independent individual1 being1 at once1 the highest type of cell and the lowest type of organism4 ,according to the classic definition of ,franz ,leydig and ,max ,schultze1 the cell is a mass of protoplasm containing a nucleus1 both protoplasm and nucleus arising through division of the corresponding elements of a prexistent cell4 ,in this form the definition is quite general and applies to all cells1 whether tissue cells1 germ cells1 or unicellular organisms4 ,moreover1 it embodies two principles which still further determine the law of genetic cellular continuity1 namely3 ,omnis cellula ex cellula1 enunciated by ,virchow in #ahee1 and ,flemming's principle3 ,omnis nucleus ex nucleo1 proclaimed in #ahhb4 ,in this way1 ,cytology supplemented ,redi's formula that every living being is from a prexistent living being1 by adding two more articles1 namely1 that every living cell is from a prexistent cell1 and every new cellular nucleus is derived by division from a prexistent cellular nucleus4 ,now neither the nucleus nor the cell-body 7the cytoplasm or extranuclear area of the cell7 is capable of an independent existence4 ,the cytoplasm of the severed nerve fibre1 when it fails to restablish its connection with the neuron nucleus1 degenerates4 ,the enucleated amba1 though capable of such vital functions as depend upon destructive metabolism1 can do nothing which involves constructive metabolism1 and is1 therefore1 doomed to perish4 ,the sperm cell1 which is a nucleus that has sloughed off most of its cytoplasm1 disintegrates1 unless it regains a haven in the cytoplasm of the egg4 ,life1 accordingly1 cannot subsist in a unit more simply organized than the cell4 ,no organism lives which is simpler than the cell1 and the origin of all higher forms of life is reducible1 as we shall see1 to the origin of the cell4 ,consequently1 new life can originate in no other way than by a process of cell-division4 ,all generation or reproduction of new life is dependent upon the division of the cell-body and nucleus of a prexistent living cell4 ,haeckel1 it is true1 has attempted to question the status of the cell as the simplest of organisms1 by alleging the existence of cytodes 7non-nucleated cells7 among the bacteria and the blue-green alg4 ,further study1 however1 has shown that bacteria and blue-green alg have a distributed nucleus1 like that of certain ciliates1 such as ,dileptus gigas and ,trachelocerca4 ,in such forms the entire cell body is filled with scattered granules of chromatin called chromioles1 and this diffuse type of nucleus seems to be the counterpart of the concentrated nuclei found in the generality of cells4 ,at any rate1 there is a temporary aggregation of the chromioles at critical stages in the life-cycle 7such as cell-division71 and these scattered chromatin granules undergo division1 although their distribution to the daughter-cells is not as regular as that obtaining in mitosis4 ,all this is strongly suggestive of their nuclear nature1 and cells with distributed nuclei cannot1 therefore1 be classified as cytodes4 ,in fact1 the polynuclear condition is by no means uncommon4 ,paramcium aurelia1 for example1 has a macronucleus and a micronucleus1 and the ,uroleptus mobilis has eight macronuclei and from two to four micronuclei4 ,the difference between the polynuclear and diffuse condition seems to be relatively unimportant4 ,in fact1 the distributed nucleus differs from the morphological nucleus mainly in the absence of a confining membrane4 ,from the functional standpoint1 the two structures are identical4 ,hence the possession of a nucleus or its equivalent is1 to all appearances1 a universal characteristic of cells4 ,haeckel's 8cytodes0 have proved to be purely imaginary entities4 ,the verdict of modern cytologists is that ,shultze's definition of the cell must stand1 and that the status of the cell as the simplest of organic units capable of independent existence is established beyond the possibility of prudent doubt4 ,with the progressive refinement of microscopic technique1 it has become apparent that the law of genetic continuity applies not merely to the cell as a whole and to its major parts1 the nucleus and the cell-body1 but also to the minor components or organelles1 which are seen to be individually self-perpetuating by means of growth and division4 ,the typical cell nucleus1 as is well known1 is a spherical vesicle containing a semisolid1 diphasic network of basichromatin 7formerly 8chromatin07 and oxychromatin 7linin7 suspended in more fluid medium or ground called nuclear sap4 ,when the cell is about to divide1 the basichromatin resolves itself into a definite number of short threads called chromosomes4 ,now1 ,boveri found that1 in the normal process of cell-division known as mitosis1 these nuclear threads or chromosomes are each split lengthwise and divided into two exactly equivalent halves1 the resulting halves being distributed in equal number to the two daughter-cells produced by the division of the original cell4 ,hence1 in the year #aijc1 ,boveri added a fourth article to the law of genetic vital continuity1 namely3 ,omne chromosoma ex chromosomate4 ,but the law in question applies to cytoplasmic as well as nuclear components4 ,in physical appearance1 the cell-body or cytoplasm resembles an emulsion with a clear semiliquid external phase called hyaloplasm and an internal phase consisting mainly of large spheres called macrosomes and minute particles called microsomes1 all of which1 together with numerous other formed bodies1 are suspended in the clear hyaloplasm 7hyaline ground-substance74 ,now certain of these cytoplasmic components have long been known to be self-perpetuating by means of growth and division1 maintaining their continuity from cell to cell4 ,the plastids of plant cells1 for example1 divide at the time of cell-division1 although their distribution to the daughter-cells does not appear to be as definite and regular as that which obtains in the case of the chromosomes4 ,similarly1 the centrioles or division-foci of animal cells are self-propagating by division1 but here the distribution to the daughter-cells is exactly equivalent and not at random as in the case of plastids4 ,in the light of recent research it looks as though two other types of cytoplasmic organelles must be added to the list of cellular components1 which are individually self-perpetuating by growth and division1 namely1 the chondriosomes and the ,golgi bodies--8both mitochondria and ,golgi bodies are able to assimilate1 grow1 and divide in the cytoplasm40 7,gatenby47 ,wilson is of opinion that the law of genetic continuity may have to be extended even to those minute granules and particles of the cytosome1 which were formerly thought to arise de novo in the apparently structureless hyaloplasm4 ,speaking of the emulsified appearance of the starfish and sea urchin eggs1 he tells us that their protoplasm shows 8a structure somewhat like that of an emulsion1 consisting of innumerable spheroidal bodies suspended in a clear continuous basis or hyaloplasm4 ,these bodies are of two general orders of magnitude1 namely3 larger spheres or macrosomes rather closely crowded and fairly uniform in size1 and much smaller microsomes irregularly scattered between the macrosomes1 and among these are still smaller granules that graduate in size down to the limit of vision with any power 7i4e4 of microscope7 we may employ40 7,science1 ,march #i1 #aibc1 p4 #bhb47 ,now1 the limit of microscopic vision by the use of the highest-power oil-immersion objectives is one-half the length of the shortest waves of visible light1 that is1 about #bjj submicrons 7the submicron being one millionth of a millimeter74 ,particles whose diameter is less than this cannot reflect a wave of light1 and are1 therefore1 invisible so far as the microscope is concerned4 ,by the aid of the ultramicroscope1 however1 we are enabled to see the halos formed by particles not more than four submicrons in diameter1 which1 however1 represents the limit of the ultramicroscope1 and is the diameter hypothetically assigned to the protein multimolecule4 ,since1 therefore1 we find the particles in the protoplasm of the cell body graduating all the way down to the limit of this latter instrument1 and since on the very limit of microscopic vision we find such minute particles as the centrioles 8capable of self-perpetuation by growth and division1 and of enlargement to form much larger bodies10 we cannot ignore the possibility that the ultramicroscopic particles may have the same powers and may be the sources or 8formative foci0 of the larger formed bodies1 which were hitherto thought to arise de novo4 ,certainly1 pathology1 as we shall see1 tells us of ultramicroscopic disease-germs1 which are capable of reproduction and maintenance of a specific type1 and experimental genetics makes us aware of a linear alignment of submicroscopic genes in the nuclear chromosomes1 each gene undergoing periodic division and perpetual transmission from generation to generation4 ,the cytologist1 therefore1 to quote the words of ,wilson1 8cannot resist the evidence that the appearance of a simple homogeneous colloidal substance is deceptive2 that it is in reality a complex1 heterogeneous1 or polyphasic system4 ,he finds it difficult to escape the conclusion1 therefore1 that the visible and the invisible components of the protoplasmic system differ only in their size and degree of dispersion2 that they belong to a single continuous series1 and that the visible structure of protoplasm may give us a rough magnified picture of the invisible40 7,ibidem1 p4 #bhc47 ,it would seem1 therefore1 that we must restore to honor1 as the fifth article of the law of cellular continuity1 the formula1 which ,richard ,altmann enunciated on purely speculative grounds in #ahib1 but which the latest research is beginning to place on a solid factual basis1 namely3 ,omne granulum ex granulo4 8,for my part10 says the great cytologist1 ,wilson1 8,i am disposed to accept the probability that many of these particles1 as if they were submicroscopical plastids1 may have a persistent identity1 perpetuating themselves by growth and multiplication without loss of their specific individual type40 ,and he adds that the facts revealed by experimental embryology 7e4g41 the existence of differentiated zones of specific composition in the cytoplasm of certain eggs7 8drive us to the conclusion that the submicroscopical components of the hyaloplasm are segregated and distributed according to an ordered system40 7,ibidem1 p4 #bhc47 ,the structure of the cell has often been likened to a heterogeneous solution1 that is1 to a complex polyphasic colloidal system1 but this power of perpetual division and orderly assortment possessed by the cell as a whole and by its single components is the unique property of the living protoplasmic system1 and is never found in any of the colloidal systems known to physical chemistry1 be they organic or inorganic4 ,cells1 then1 originate solely by division of prexistent cells and even the minor components of the cellular system originate in like fashion1 namely3 by division of their respective counterparts in the prexistent living cell4 ,here we have the sum and substance of the fivefold law of genetic continuity1 whose promulgation has relegated the hypothesis of spontaneous generation to the realms of empty speculation4 ,waiving the possibility of an a priori argument1 by which abiogenesis might be positively excluded1 there remains this one consideration1 which alone is scientifically significant1 that1 so far as observation goes and induction can carry us1 the living cell has absolute need of a vital origin and can never originate by the exclusive agency of the physicochemical forces native to inorganic matter4 ,if organic life exists in simpler terms than the cell1 science knows nothing of it1 and no observed process1 simple or complicated1 of inorganic nature1 nor any artificial synthesis of the laboratory1 however ingenious1 has ever succeeded in duplicating the wonders of the simplest living cell4 #c4 ,chemical ,theories of the ,origin of ,life ,in fact1 the very notion of a chemical synthesis of living matter is founded on a misconception4 ,it would1 indeed1 be rash to set limits to the chemist's power of synthesizing organic compounds1 but living protoplasm is not a single chemical compound4 ,rather it is a complex system of compounds1 enzymes and organelles1 cordinated and integrated into an organized whole by a persistent principle of unity and finality4 ,organic life1 to say nothing at all of its unique dynamics1 is a morphological as well as a chemical problem2 and1 while it is conceivable that the chemist might synthesize all the compounds found in dead protoplasm1 to reproduce a single detail of the ultramicroscopic structure of a living cell lies wholly beyond his power and province4 8,long ago10 says ,wilson 7in the already quoted address on the 8,physical ,basis of ,life071 8it became perfectly plain that what we call protoplasm is not chemically a single substance4 ,it is a mixture of many substances1 a mixture in high degree complex1 the seat of varied and incessant transformations1 yet one which somehow holds fast for countless generations to its own specific type4 ,the evidence from every source demonstrates that the cell is a complex organism1 a microcosm1 a living system40 7,science1 ,march #i1 #aibc1 p4 #bgh47 ,with the chemist1 analysis must precede synthesis1 and it is only after a structural formula has been determined by means of quantitative analysis supplemented by analogy and comparison1 that a given compound can be successfully synthesized4 ,but living protoplasm and its structures elude such analysis4 ,intravitous staining is inadequate even as a means of qualitative analysis1 and tests of a more drastic nature destroy the life and organization1 which they seek to analyze4 8,with one span10 says ,am ,pictet1 ,professor of ,chemistry at the ,university of ,geneva1 8we will now bridge the entire distance separating the first products of plant assimilation from its final product1 namely1 living matter4 ,and it should be understood at the outset that ,i employ this term #8living matter' only as an abbreviation1 and to avoid long circumlocution4 ,you should not1 in reality1 attribute life to matter itself2 it has not1 it cannot have both living molecules and dead molecules4 ,life requires an organization1 which is that of cellular structure1 but it remains1 in contradistinction to it1 outside the domain of strict chemistry4 ,it is none the less true that the content of a living cell must differ in its chemical nature from the content of a dead cell4 ,it is entirely from this point of view that the phenomenon of life pertains to my subject4444 ,a living cell1 both in its chemical composition and in its morphological structure1 is an organism of extraordinary complexity4 ,the protoplasm that it incloses is a mixture of very diverse substances4 ,but if there be set aside on the one hand those substances which are in the process of assimilation and on the other those which are the by-products of nutrition1 and which are in the process of elimination1 there remain the protein or albuminous substances1 and these must be considered1 if not the essential factor of life1 at least the theater of its manifestations4444 ,chemistry1 however1 is totally ignorant1 or nearly so1 of the constitution of living albumen1 for chemical methods of investigation at the very outset kill the living cell4 ,the slightest rise in temperature1 contact with the solvent1 the very powerful effect of even the mildest reactions cause the transformation that needs to be prevented1 and the chemist has nothing left but dead albumen40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiaf1 pp4 #bjh1 #bji47 ,chemical analysis associated with physical analysis by means of the polariscope1 spectroscope1 x-rays1 ultramicroscope1 etc4 is extremely useful in determining the structure of inorganic units like the atom and the molecule4 ,both1 too1 throw valuable light on the problem of the structure of non-living multimolecules such as the crystal units of crystalloids and the ultramicrons of colloids1 but they furnish no clue to the submicroscopical morphology of the living cell4 ,such methods do not enable us to examine anything more than the 8physical substrate0 of life1 and that1 only after it has been radically altered2 for it is not the same after life has flown4 ,at all events1 the integrating principle1 the formative determinant1 which binds the components of living protoplasm into a unitary system1 which makes of them a single totality instead of a mere sum or fortuitous aggregate of disparate and uncordinated factors1 and which gives to them a determinate and persistent specificity that can hold its own amid a perpetual fluxion of matter and continual flow of energy1 this is forever inaccessible to the chemist1 and constitutes a phenomenon of which the inorganic world affords no parallel4 ,with these facts in mind1 we can hardly fail to be amused whenever certain simple chemical reactions obtained in vitro are hailed as 8clue to the origin of life40 ,when it was found1 for instance1 that1 under certain conditions1 an aldehyde 7probably formaldehyde7 is formed in a colloidal solution of chlorophyll in water1 if exposed to sunlight1 the discovery gave rise to ,bach's formaldehyde-hypothesis2 for ,alexis ,bach saw in this reaction 8a first step in the origin of life40 ,as formaldehyde readily undergoes aldol condensation into a syrupy fluid called formose1 when a dilute aqueous solution of formaldehyde is saturated with calcium hydroxide and allowed to stand for several days1 there was no difficulty in conceiving the transition from formaldehyde to the carbohydrates2 for formose is a mixture containing several hexose sugars1 and ,fischer has succeeded in isolating therefrom acrose1 a simple sugar having the same formula as glucose1 namely3 ,c,h,o4 ,glyceraldehyde undergoes a similar condensation4 ,in view of these facts1 carbohydrate-production in green plants was interpreted as a photosynthesis of these substances from water and carbon dioxide1 with chlorophyll acting a sensitizer to absorb the radiant energy necessary for the reaction4 ,the first step in the process was thought to be a reduction of carbonic acid to formic acid and then to formaldehyde1 the latter being at once condensed into glucose1 which in turn was supposed to be dehydrated and polymerized into starch4 ,from the carbohydrates thus formed and the nitrates of the soil the plant could then synthesize proteins1 while oxidation of the carbohydrates into fatty acids would lead to the formation of fats4 ,hence ,bach regarded the formation of formaldehyde in the presence of water1 carbon dioxide1 chlorophyll1 and sunlight as the 8first step in the production of life40 ,bateson1 however1 does not find the suggestion a very helpful one1 and evaluates it at its true worth in the following contemptuous aside3 8,we should be greatly helped10 he says1 8by some indication as to whether the origin of life has been single or multiple40 ,modern opinion is1 perhaps1 inclined to the multiple theory1 but we have no real evidence4 ,indeed1 the problem still stands outside the range of scientific investigation1 and when we hear the spontaneous formation of formaldehyde mentioned as a possible first step in the origin of life1 we think of ,harry ,lauder in the character of a ,glasgow schoolboy pulling out his treasures from his pocket--8,that's a wassher--for makkin' motor cars40 78,presidential ,address10 cf4 ,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiae1 p4 #cge47 ,bach1 moreover1 takes it for granted that the formation of formaldehyde is really the first step in the synthesis performed by the green plant1 and he claims that formaldehyde is formed when carbon dioxide is passed through a solution of a salt of uranium in the presence of sunlight4 ,fenton makes a similar claim in the case of magnesium1 asserting that traces of formaldehyde are discernible when metallic magnesium is immersed in water saturated with carbon dioxide4 ,but at present it begins to look as though the spontaneous formation and condensation of formaldehyde had nothing to do with the process that actually occurs in green plants4 ,certain chemists1 while admitting that an aldehyde is formed when chlorophyll1 water1 and air are brought together in the presence of sunlight1 deny that the aldehyde in question is formaldehyde1 and they also draw attention to the fact that this aldehyde may be formed in an atmosphere entirely destitute of carbon dioxide4 ,in fact1 the researches conducted by ,willsttter and ,stoll1 and later 7in #aiaf7 by ,jrgensen and ,kidd tend to discredit the common notion that carbohydrate-production in plants is the result of a direct union of water and carbon dioxide4 ,botany textbooks still continue to parrot the traditional view4 ,we cannot any longer1 however1 be sure but that the term photosynthesis may be a misnomer4 ,carbohydrate-formation in plants seems to be more analogous to carbohydrate-formation in animals than was formerly thought to be the case4 ,in animals1 as is well known1 glycogen or animal starch is formed not by direct synthesis1 but by demination and reduction of proteins4 ,in a similar way1 it is thought that the production of carbohydrates in plants may be due to a breaking down of the phytyl ester in chlorophyll1 the chromogen group functioning 7under the action of light7 alternately as a dissociating enzyme in the formation of sugars and a synthesizing enzyme in the reconstruction of chlorophyll4 ,phytol is an unsaturated alcohol obtained when chlorophyll is saponified by means of caustic alkalis4 ,its formula is ,c,h,,oh1 and chlorophyll consists of a chromogen group containing magnesium 7,mg,n,c,h,o7 united to a diester of phytyl and methyl alcohols4 ,experimental results are at variance with the theory that chlorophyll acts as a sensitizer in bringing about a reduction of carbonic acid1 after the analogy of eosin1 which in the presence of light accelerates the decomposition of silver salts on photographic plates4 ,willsttter found that1 when a colloidal solution of the pure extract of chlorophyll in water is exposed to sunlight and an atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide exclusively1 no formaldehyde is formed1 but the chlorophyll is changed into yellow phophytin owing to the removal of the magnesium from the chromogen group by the action of the carbonic acid4 ,jrgensen1 on the other hand1 discovered that in an atmosphere of pure oxygen1 formaldehyde is formed1 apparently by the splitting off and reduction of the phytyl ester of chlorophyll4 ,soon1 however1 the formaldehyde is oxidized to formic acid1 which replaces the chlorophyllic magnesium with hydrogen1 thus causing the green chlorophyll to degenerate into yellow phophytin and finally to lose its color altogether4 ,the dissociation of the chromogen group may be due to the fact that the reaction takes place in vitro1 and may not occur in the living plant4 ,at all events1 it would seem that plants1 like animals1 manufacture carbohydrates by a destructive rather than a constructive process1 and that water and carbon dioxide serve rather as materials for the regeneration of chlorophyll than as materials out of which sugars are directly synthesized4 ,a new theory has been proposed by ,dr4 ,oskar ,baudisch1 who seems to have sensed the irrelevance of the formaldehyde hypothesis1 and to have sought another solution in connection with the chromogen group of chlorophyll4 ,he finds a more promising starting-point in formaldoxime1 which1 he claims1 readily unites with such metals as magnesium and iron and with formaldehyde1 in the presence of light containing ultra-violet rays1 to form organic compounds analogous to the chromogen complexes in chlorophyll and hmoglobin4 ,oximes are compounds formed by the condensation of one molecule of an aldehyde with one molecule of hydroxylamine 7,,nh,,oh7 and the elimination of a molecule of water4 ,hence ,dr4 ,baudisch imagines that1 given formaldoxime 7,h,c3,n,,oh71 magnesium1 and ultra-violet rays1 we might expect a spontaneous formation of chlorophyll leading eventually to the production of organic life4 8,it is his theory that life may have been caused through the direct action of sunlight upon water1 air1 and carbon dioxide in the ancient geologic past when1 he believes1 sunlight was more intense and contained more ultra-violet light and the air contained more water vapor and carbon dioxide than at the present time40 7,science1 ,april #f1 #aibc1 ,supplement ,,xii47 ,this is the old ,spencerian evasion1 the fatuous appeal to 8conditions unlike those we know10 the unverified and unverifiable assumption that an unknown past must have been more favorable to spontaneous generation than the known present4 ,in archozoic times1 the temperature was higher1 the partial pressure of atmospheric carbon dioxide greater1 the percentage of ultra-violet rays in sunlight larger4 ,such contentions are interesting1 if true1 but1 for all that1 they may1 8like the flowers that bloom in the spring10 have nothing to do with the case4 ,nature does not1 and the laboratory cannot1 reproduce the conditions which are said to have brought about the spontaneous generation of formaldoxime and its progressive transmutation into phycocyanin1 chlorophyll and the blue-green alg4 ,what value1 then1 have these conjectures8 ,if it be the function of natural science to discount actualities in favor of possibilities1 to draw arguments from ignorance1 and to accept the absence of disproof as a substitute for demonstration1 then the expedient of invoking the unknown in support of a speculation is scientifically legitimate4 ,but1 if the methods of science are observation and induction1 if it proceeds according to the principle of the uniformity of nature1 and does not utterly belie its claim of resting upon factual realities rather than the figments of fancy1 then all this hypothecation1 which is so flagrantly at variance with the actual data of experience and the unmistakable trend of inductive reasoning1 is not science at all1 but sheer credulity and superstition4 ,when we ask by what right men of science presume to lift the veil of mystery from a remote past1 which no one has observed1 we are told that the justification of this procedure is the principle of the uniformity of nature or the invariability of natural laws4 ,nature's laws are the same yesterday1 today1 and forever4 ,hence the scientist1 who wishes to penetrate into the unknown past1 has only to 8prolong the methods of nature from the present into the past40 7,tyndall47 ,if we reject the soundness of this principle1 we automatically cut ourselves off from all certainty regarding that part of the world's history which antecedes human observation4 ,either nature's laws change1 or they do not4 ,if they never change1 then ,spontaneous ,generation is quite as much excluded from the past as it is from the present4 ,if1 however1 as ,hamann and ,fechner explicitly maintain1 nature's laws do change1 then1 obviously1 no knowledge whatever is possible respecting the past1 since it is solely upon the assumption of the immutable constancy of such laws that we can venture to reconstruct prehistory4 ,the puerile notion that the synthesis of organic substances in the laboratory furnishes a clue to the origin of organic life on earth is due to a confusion of organic1 with living and organized1 substances4 ,it is only in the production of organic substances that the chemist can vie with the plant or animal4 ,these are lifeless and unorganized carbon compounds1 which are termed organic because they are elaborated by living organisms as a metaplastic by-product of their metabolism4 ,such substances1 however1 are not to be confounded with animate matter1 e4g4 a living cell and its organelles1 or even with organized matter1 e4g4 dead protoplasm4 ,these the chemist cannot duplicate2 for vitality and organization1 as we have seen1 are things that elude both his analysis and his synthesis4 ,even with respect to the production of organic substances1 the parallelism between the living cell and the chemical laboratory is far from being a perfect one4 ,speaking of the metaplastic or organic products of cells1 ,benjamin ,moore says3 8,most of these are so complex that they have not yet been synthesized by the organic chemist2 nay1 even of those that have been synthesized1 it may be remarked that all proof is wanting that the syntheses have been carried out in identically the same fashion and by the employment of the same forms of energy in the case of the cell as in the chemist's laboratory4 ,the conditions in the cell are widely different1 and at the temperature of the cell and with such chemical materials as are at hand in the cell no such organic syntheses have been artificially carried out by the forms of energy extraneous to living tissue40 78,recent ,advances in ,physiology and ,bio-,chemistry10 p4 #aj47 ,be that as it may1 however1 the prospect of a laboratory synthesis of an organic substance like chlorophyll affords no ground whatever for expecting a chemical synthesis of living matter4 ,the chlorophyllic tail is inadequate to the task of wagging the dog of organic life4 ,in this connection1 ,yves ,delage's sarcastic comment on ,schaaffhausen's theory is worthy of recall4 ,the latter had suggested 7in #ahib7 that life was initiated by a chemical reaction1 in which water1 air1 and mineral salts united under the influence of light and heat to produce a colorless ,protococcus1 which subsequently acquired chlorophyll and became a ,protococcus viridis4 8,if the affair is so simple10 writes ,delage1 8why does not the author produce a few specimens of this protococcus in his laboratory8 ,we will gladly supply him with the necessary chlorophyll40 78,la structure du protoplasma et les thories sur l'hrdit10 p4 #djb47 ,another consideration1 which never appears to trouble the visionaries who propound theories of this sort1 is the fact that the inert elements and blind forces of inorganic nature are1 if left to themselves1 utterly impotent to duplicate even so much as the feats of the chemical laboratory1 to say nothing at all of the more wonderful achievements possible only to living organisms4 ,in the laboratory1 the physicochemical forces of the mineral world are cordinated1 regulated1 and directed by the guiding intelligence of the chemist4 ,in that heterogeneous conglomerate1 which we call brute matter1 no such guiding principle exists1 and the only possible automatic results are those which the fortuitous concurrence of blind factors avails to produce4 ,chance of this kind may vie with art in the production of relatively simple combinations or systems1 but where the conditions are as complex as those1 which the synthesis of chlorophyll presupposes1 chance is impotent and regulation absolutely imperative4 ,how much more is this true1 when there is question of the production of an effect so complicatedly telic as the living organism6 8,i venture to think10 says ,sir ,william ,tilden1 in a letter to the ,london ,times 7,sept4 #aj1 #aiab71 8that no chemist will be prepared to suggest a process by which1 from the interaction of such materials 7viz41 inorganic substances71 anything approaching a substance of the nature of a proteid could be formed or1 if by a complex series of changes a compound of this kind were conceivably produced1 that it would present the characters of living protoplasm40 ,in the concluding sentence of his letter1 the great chemist seems to deprecate even the discussion of a chemical synthesis of living matter1 whether spontaneous or artificial4 8,far be it from any man of science10 he says1 8to affirm that any given set of phenomena is not a fit subject of inquiry and that there is any limit to what may be revealed in answer to systematic and well-directed investigation4 ,in the present instance1 however1 it appears to me that this is not a field for the chemist nor one in which chemistry is likely to afford any assistance whatever40 ,in any case1 the idea that a chaos of unassorted elements and undirected forces could succeed where the skill of the chemist fails is preposterous4 ,no known or conceivable process1 or group of processes1 at work in inorganic nature1 is equal to the task4 ,chance is an explanation only for minds insensible to the beauty and order of organic life4 ,darwin inoculated biological science with this ,epicurean metaphysics1 when1 in his 8,origin of ,species10 he ascribed discriminating and selective powers of great delicacy and precision to the blind factors of a heterogeneous and variable environment4 ,he compared natural selection to artificial selection1 and in so doing1 he was led astray by a false implication of his own analogy--8,i have called this principle10 he says1 8by which each slight variation1 if useful1 is preserved1 by the term natural selection1 in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection40 78,origin of ,species10 #fth ed41 c4 ,,iii1 p4 #eh47 ,having likened the unintelligent and fortuitous selection and elimination exercised by the environment to the intelligent and purposive selection and elimination practiced by animal breeders and horticulturists1 he pressed the analogy to the unwarranted extent of attributing to a blind1 lifeless1 and impersonal aggregate of minerals1 liquids1 and gases superhuman powers of discretion4 ,to preserve even the semblance of parity1 he ought first to have expurgated the process of artificial selection by getting rid of the element of human intelligence1 which lurks therein1 and vitiates its parallelism with the unconscious and purposeless havoc wrought at random by the blind and uncordinated agencies of the environment4 ,if inorganic nature were a vast and multifarious mold1 a preformed sieve with holes of different sizes1 a separator for sorting coins of various denominations1 ,darwin's idea would be1 in some degree1 defensible1 but this would only transfer the problem of cosmic order and intelligence from the organism to the environment4 ,as a matter of fact1 the mechanism of the environment is far too simple in its structure and too general in its influence to account for the complexities and specificities of organisms1 that is1 for the morphology and specific differences of plants and animals4 ,hence the selective work of the environment is negligible in the positive sense1 and consists1 for the most part1 in a tendency to eliminate the abnormal and the subnormal4 ,on the other hand1 the environment as well as the organism is fundamentally teleological1 and the environmental mechanism1 though simple and general1 is nevertheless expressly preadapted for the maintenance of organic life4 ,henderson1 the bio-chemist of ,harvard1 has shown conclusively1 in his 8,fitness of the ,environment0 7#aiac71 that the environment itself has been expressly selected with this finality in view1 and that the inorganic world1 while not the active cause1 is1 nevertheless1 the prerdained complement of organic life4 ,simple constructions may1 indeed1 be due to pure accident as well as deliberate art1 inasmuch as they presuppose but few and easy conditions4 ,complex constructions1 on the contrary1 provided they be systematic and not chaotic1 are not producible by accident1 but only by art1 because they require numerous and complicated conditions4 ,operating individually1 the unconscious factors of inorganic nature can produce simple and homogeneous constructions such as crystals4 ,operating in uncordinated concurrence with one another1 these blind and unrelated agencies produce complex chaotic formations such as mountains and islands1 mere heterogeneous conglomerates1 destitute of any determinate size1 shape1 or symmetry1 constructions in which every single item and detail is the result of factors each of which is independent of the other4 ,in short1 the efficacy of the unconscious and uncoordinated physicochemical factors of inorganic nature is limited to fortuitous results1 which serve no purpose1 embody no intelligible law1 convey no meaning nor idea1 and afford no sthetic satisfaction1 being mere aggregates or sums rather than natural units and real totalities4 ,but it does not extend to the production of complex systematic formations such as living organisms or human artefacts4 ,left to itself1 therefore1 inorganic nature might conceivably duplicate the simplest artefacts such as the chipped flints of the savage1 and it might also construct a complex heterogeneous chaos of driftwood1 mud1 and sand like the ,great ,raft of the ,red ,river1 but it would be utterly impotent to construct a complicated telic system comparable to an animal1 a clock1 or even an organic compound1 like chlorophyll4 ,in this connection1 it is curious to note how extremely myopic the scientific materialist can be1 when there is question of recognizing a manifestation of ,divine intelligence in the stupendous teleology of the living organism1 and how incredibly lynx-eyed he becomes1 when there is question of detecting evidences of human intelligence in the eoliths alleged to have been the implements of a 8,tertiary ,man40 ,in the latter case1 he is never at a loss to determine the precise degree of chipping1 at which an eolith ceases to be interpretable as the fortuitous product of unconscious processes1 and points infallibly to the intelligent authorship of man1 but he grows strangely obtuse to the psychic implications of teleology1 when it comes to explaining the symmetry of a starfish or the beauty of a ,bird of ,paradise4 ,in conclusion1 it is clear that the hypothesis of a spontaneous origin of organic life from inorganic matter has in its favor neither factual evidence nor aprioristic probability1 but is1 on the contrary1 ruled out of court by the whole force of the scientific principle of induction4 ,to recapitulate1 there are no subcellular organisms1 and all cellular organisms 7which is the same as saying1 all organisms71 be they unicellular or multicellular1 originate exclusively by reproduction1 that is1 by generation from living parents of the same organic type or species4 ,this is the law of genetic vital continuity1 which1 by the way1 ,aristotle had formulated long before ,harvey1 when he said3 8,it appears that all living beings come from a germ1 and the germ from parents40 78,de ,generatione ,animalium10 lib4 ,i1 cap4 #ag47 ,all reproduction1 however1 is reducible to a process of cell-division4 ,that such is the case with unicellular organisms is evident from the very definition of a cell4 ,that it is also true of multicellular organisms can be shown by a review of the various forms of reproduction occurring among plants and animals4 #d4 ,reproduction and ,rejuvenation ,reproduction1 the sole means by which the torch of life is relayed from generation to generation1 the exclusive process by which living individuals arise and races are perpetuated1 consists in the separation of a germ from the parent organism as a physical basis for the development of a new organism4 ,the germ thus separated may be many-celled or one-celled1 as we shall see presently1 but the separated cells1 be they one or many1 have their common and exclusive source in the process of mitotic cell-division4 ,in a few cases1 this divisional power or energy of the cell seems to be perennial by virtue of an inherent inexhaustibility4 ,in most cases1 however1 it is perennial by virtue of a restorative process involving nuclear reorganization4 ,in the former cases1 which are exceptional1 the cellular stream of life appears to flow onward forever with steady current1 but as a general rule it ebbs and flows in cycles1 which involve a periodic rise and fall of divisional energy4 ,the phenomena of the life-cycle are characteristic of most1 perhaps all1 organisms4 ,the complete life-cycle consists of three phases or periods1 namely3 an adolescent period of high vitality1 a mature period of balanced metabolism1 and a senescent period of decline4 ,each life-cycle begins with the germination of the new organism and terminates with its death1 and it is reproduction which constitutes the connecting link between one life-cycle and another4 ,reproduction1 as previously intimated1 is mainly of two kinds1 namely3 somatogenic reproduction1 which is less general and confined to the metists1 and cytogenic reproduction1 which is common to metists and protists1 and which is the ordinary method by which new organisms originate4 ,reproduction is termed somatogenic1 when the germ separated from the body of the parent consists of a whole mass of somatic or tissue cells not expressly set aside and specialized for reproductive purposes4 ,reproduction is termed cytogenic1 when the germ separated from the parent or parents consists of a single cell 7e4g4 a spore1 gamete1 or zygote7 dedicated especially to reproductive purposes4 ,cytogenic reproduction may be either nonsexual 7agamic7 or sexual1 according as the cell which constitutes the germ is an agamete or a gamete4 ,an agamete is a germ cell not specialized for union with another complementary cell1 or1 in other words1 it is a reproductive cell incapable of syngamy1 e4g4 a spore4 ,a gamete1 on the other hand1 is a reproductive cell 7germ cell7 specialized for the production of a zygote 7a synthetic or diploid germ cell7 by union with a complementary cell1 e4g4 an egg1 or a sperm4 ,nonsexual cytogenic reproduction is of three kinds1 according to the nature of the agamete4 ,when a unicellular organism gives rise to two new individuals by simple cell-division1 we have fissiparation or binary fission4 ,when a small cell or bud is formed and separated by division from a larger parent cell1 we have budding 7gemmation7 or unequal fission4 ,when the nucleus of the parent cell divides many times to form a number of daughter-nuclei1 which then partition the cytoplasm of the parent cell among themselves so as to form a large number of reproductive cells called spores1 we have what is known as sporulation or multiple fission4 ,the first and second kind of nonsexual reproduction are confined to the protists1 but the third kind 7sporulation7 also occurs among the metists4 ,sexual cytogenic reproduction is based upon gametes or mating germ cells4 ,since complementary gametes are specialized for union with each other to form a single synthetic cell1 the zygote1 the number of their nuclear threads or chromosomes is reduced to one half 7the haploid number7 at the time of maturation1 so that the somatic or tissue cells of the parent organism have double the number 7the diploid number7 of chromosomes present in the reduced or mature gametes4 ,hence1 when the gametes unite to form a zygote1 summation is prevented and the diploid number of chromosomes characteristic of the given species of plant or animal is simply restored by the process of syngamy or union4 ,the process by which the number of chromosomes is reduced in gametes is called meiosis1 and1 among the metists1 it is distinct from syngamy1 which1 in their case1 is a separate process called fertilization4 ,among the protists1 we have1 besides fertilization1 another type of syngamy called conjugation1 which combines meiosis with fertilization4 ,in sexual reproduction1 we have three kinds of gametes1 namely3 isogametes1 anisogametes1 and heterogametes4 ,in the type of sexual reproduction known as isogamy1 the complementary gametes are exactly alike both in size and shape4 ,there is no division of labor between them4 ,each of the fusing gametes is equally fitted for the double function which they must perform1 namely1 the kinetic function1 which enables them to reach each other and unite by means of movement1 and the trophic function which consists in laying up a store of food for the sustenance of the developing embryo4 ,in anisogamy1 the complementary gametes are alike in shape1 but unlike in size1 and here we have the beginning of that division of labor1 upon which the difference of gender or sex is based4 ,the larger or female gamete is called a macrogamete4 ,it is specialized for the trophic rather than the kinetic function1 being rendered more inert by having a large amount of yolk or nutrient material stored up within it4 ,the smaller or male gamete is called a microgamete4 ,it is specialized for the kinetic function1 since it contains less yolk and is the more agile of the two4 ,in anisogamy1 however1 the division of labor is not complete1 because both functions are still retained by either gamete1 albeit in differing measure4 ,in the heterogamy1 the differentiation between the male and female gametes is complete1 and they differ from each other in structure as well as size4 ,the larger or female gamete has no motor apparatus and retains only the trophic function4 ,the kinetic function is sacrificed to the task of storing up a food supply for the embryo4 ,such a gamete is called a hypergamete or egg4 ,the smaller or male gamete is known1 in this case1 as a hypogamete or sperm4 ,it has a motor apparatus1 but no stored-up nutrients1 and has even sloughed off most of its cytoplasm1 in its exclusive specialization for the motor function4 ,in heterogamy1 accordingly1 the division of labor is complete4 ,we may distinguish two principal kinds of sexual reproduction1 namely3 unisexual reproduction and bisexual reproduction4 ,when a single gamete such as an unfertilized egg gives rise 7with1 or without1 chromosomal reduction7 to a new organism1 we have unisexual reproduction or parthenogenesis4 ,parthenogenesis from a reduced egg gives rise to an organism having only the haploid number of chromosomes1 as is the case with the drone or male bee1 but unreduced eggs give rise to organisms having the diploid number of chromosomes4 ,parthenogenesis1 as we shall see presently1 can1 in some cases1 be induced by artificial means4 ,when reproduction takes place from a zygote or diploid germ cell formed by the union of two gametes1 we have what is known as bisexual reproduction or syngamy4 ,it is1 perhaps1 permissible to distinguish a third or intermediate kind of sexual reproduction1 for which we might coin the term autosexual4 ,what we refer to as autosexual reproduction is usually known as autogamy1 and occurs when a diploid nucleus is formed in a germ cell by the union 7or1 we might say1 reunion7 of two daughter-nuclei derived from the same mother-nucleus4 ,autogamy occurs not only among the protists 7e4 g4 ,amba albida71 but also among the metists1 as is the case with the brine shrimp1 ,artemia salina1 in which the diploid number of chromosomes is restored after reduction by a reunion of the nucleus of the second polar body with the reduced nucleus of the egg4 ,autogamy is somewhat akin to kleistogamy1 which occurs among hermaphroditic metists of both the plant and animal kingdoms4 ,the violet is a well-known example4 ,in kleistogamy or self-fertilization1 the zygote is formed by the union of two gametes derived from the same parent organism4 ,strictly speaking1 however1 kleistogamy is not autogamy1 but syngamy1 and must1 therefore1 be classed as bisexual reproduction4 ,it is1 of course1 necessarily confined to hermaphrodites4 ,loeb's experiments in artificial parthenogenesis have been sensationally misinterpreted by some as an artificial production of life4 ,what ,jacques ,loeb really did was to initiate development in an unfertilized egg by the use of chemical and physical excitants4 ,the writer has repeated these experiments with the unfertilized eggs of the common sea urchin1 ,arbacia punctulata1 using very dilute butyric acid and hypertonic sea water as stimulants4 ,cleavage had started within an hour and a half after the completion of the aforesaid treatment1 and the eggs were in the gastrula stage by the following morning 7#i hours later74 ,in three days1 good specimens of the larval stage known as the pluteus could be found swimming in the normal sea water to which the eggs had been transferred from the hypertonic solution4 ,since mature sea urchin eggs undergo reduction before insemination takes place1 the larval sea urchins arising from these artificially activated eggs had the reduced or haploid number of chromosomes instead of the diploid number possessed by normal larv arising from eggs activated by the sperm4 ,for1 in fertilization1 the sperm not only activates the egg1 but is also the means of securing biparental inheritance1 by contributing its quota of chromosomes to the zygotic complex4 ,hence1 it is only in the former function1 i4 e4 of initiating cleavage in the egg1 that a chemical excitant can replace the sperm4 ,in any case1 it is evident that these experiments do not constitute an exception to the law of genetic cellular continuity4 ,the artificially activated egg comes from the ovaries of a living female sea urchin1 and in this there is small consolation for the exponent of abiogenesis4 ,the terse comment of an old ,irish ,jesuit sizes up the situation very aptly3 8,the ,blue ,flame ,factory10 he said1 8has announced another discovery of the secret of life4 ,a scientist made an egg and hatched an egg4 ,the only unfortunate thing was that the egg he hatched was not the egg he made40 ,how an experiment of this sort could be interpreted as an artificial production of life is a mystery4 ,the only plausible explanation is that given by ,professor ,wilson1 who traces it to the popular superstition that the egg is a lifeless substrate1 which is animated by the sperm4 ,the idea owes its origin to the spermists of the #agth century1 who defended this doctrine against the older school of preformationists known as ovists4 ,it is now1 however1 an embryological commonplace that egg and sperm are both equally cellular1 equally protoplasmic1 and equally vital4 ,the phenomena of the life-cycle in organisms find their explanation in what1 perhaps1 is inherent in all living matter1 namely1 a tendency to involution and senescence4 ,this tendency1 in the absence of a remedial process of rejuvenation1 leads inevitably to death4 ,living matter seems to 8run down0 like a clock1 and to stand in similar need of a periodic 8rewinding40 ,this reinvigoration of protoplasm is accomplished by means of several different types of nuclear reorganization4 ,since no nuclear reorganization occurs in somatogenic reproduction1 there seem to be limits to this type of propagation4 ,plants1 like the potato and the apple1 cannot be propagated indefinitely by means of tubers1 shoots1 stems1 etc4 ,the stock plays out in time1 and1 ever and anon1 recourse must be had to seedlings4 ,hence a process of nuclear reorganization seems1 in most cases1 at least1 to be essential for the restoration of vitality and the continuance of life4 ,whether this need of periodic renewal is absolutely universal1 we cannot say4 ,the banana has been propagated for over a century by the somatogenic method1 and there are a few other instances in which there appears to be no limit to this type of reproduction4 ,nevertheless1 the tendency to decline is so common among living beings that the rare exceptions serve only to confirm 7if they do not follow7 the general rule4 ,in cytogenic reproduction three kinds of rejuvenation by means of nuclear reorganization are known3 7#a7 amphimixis or syngamy2 7#b7 automixis or autogamy2 7#c7 endomixis4 ,in amphimixis or syngamy1 two gametic 7haploid7 nuclei of different parental lineage are commingled to form the diploid nucleus of the zygote1 which is consequently of biparental origin4 ,in automixis or autogamy1 two reduced or haploid nuclei of the same parental lineage unite to form a diploid nucleus1 the uniting nuclei being daughter-nuclei derived from a common parent nucleus4 ,in endomixis1 the nucleus of the exhausted cell disintegrates and fuses with the cytoplasm1 out of which it is reformed or reconstructed as the germinal nucleus of a rejuvenated cellular series4 ,endomixis occurs as a periodic phenomenon among the protists1 and it appears to be homologous with parthenogenesis among metists4 ,in certain ciliates1 like the ,paramcium1 endomixis and syngamy are facultative methods of rejuvenation4 ,this has been proved most conclusively by ,professor ,calkins' work on ,uroleptus mobilis1 an organism in which both endomixis and conjugation are amenable to experimental control4 ,nonsexual reproduction in this protozoan 7by binary fission7 is attended with a gradual weakening of metabolic activity1 which increases with each successive generation4 ,the initial rate of division and metabolic energy can1 however1 be restored either by conjugation 7of two individuals71 or by endomixis1 which takes place 7in a single individual7 during encystment4 ,the race1 however1 inevitably dies out1 if both encystment and conjugation are prevented4 ,even in such protists as do not exhibit the phenomenon of nuclear reorganization through sexual reproduction1 ,kofoid points to the phenomenon of alternating periods of rest and rapid cell-division as evidence that some process of periodically-recurrent nuclear organization must exist in the organisms1 which do not conjugate4 ,this process of nuclear reorganization manifested by periodic spurts of renewed divisional energy is1 according to ,kofoid1 a more primitive mode of rejuvenation than endomixis4 8,the phenomenon of endomixis10 he says1 8appears to be somewhat more like that of parthenogenesis than a more primitive form of nuclear reorganization40 7,science1 ,april #f1 #aibc1 p4 #djc47 ,at all events1 it seems safe to conclude that the tendency to senescence is pretty general among living organisms1 and that this tendency1 unless counteracted by a periodic reorganization of the nuclear genes1 results inevitably in the deterioration and final extinction of the race4 ,in this inexhaustible power of self-renewal inherent in all forms of organic life1 the mechanist and the upholder of abiogenesis encounter an insuperable difficulty4 ,in inorganic nature1 where the perpetual-motion device is a chimera1 and the law of entropy reigns in unchallenged supremacy1 nothing analogous to it can be found4 ,the activity of all non-living units of nature1 from the hydrogen atom to the protein multimolecule1 is rigidly determined by the principle of the degradation of energy4 ,the inorganic unit cannot operate otherwise than by externalizing and dissipating irreparably its own energy-content4 ,nor is its reconstruction and replenishment with energy ever again possible except through the wasteful expenditure of energy borrowed from some more richly endowed inorganic unit4 ,in order to pay ,paul a little1 ,peter must be robbed of much4 ,wheresoever atoms are built up into complex endothermic molecules1 the constructive process is rigidly dependent upon the administration thereto of external energy1 which in the process of absorption must of necessity fall from a higher level of intensity4 ,and when the energy thus absorbed by the complex molecule is again set free by combustion1 it is degraded to a still lower potential1 from which1 without external intervention1 it can never rise again to its former plane of intensity4 ,the phenomena of radioactivity tell the same tale4 ,all the heavier atoms1 at least1 are constantly disintegrating with a concomitant discharge of energy4 ,there is no compensating process1 however1 enabling such an atom to re-integrate and recharge itself at stated intervals2 and1 once it has broken down into its component protons and electrons1 8not all the king's horses nor all the king's men can ever put ,humpty-,dumpty together again40 ,in a word1 none of the inorganic units of the mineral world exhibits that wonderful power of autonomous recuperation which a unicellular ciliate manifests when it rejuvenates itself by means of endomixis4 ,the inorganic world knows of no constructive process comparable to this4 ,it is only in living beings that we find what ,james ,ward describes as the 8tendency to disturb existing equilibria1 to reverse the dissipative processes which prevail throughout the inanimate world1 to store and build up where they are ever scattering and pulling down1 the tendency to conserve individual existence against antagonistic forces1 to grow and to progress1 not inertly taking the easier way but seemingly striving for the best1 retaining every vantage secured1 and working for new ones40 78,on the ,conservation of ,energy10 ,i1 p4 #bhe47 ,summing up1 then1 we have seen that the reproductive process1 whereby the metists or multicellular organism originate1 resolves itself ultimately into a process of cell-division4 ,the same is true of the protists or unicellular organisms4 ,for all cells1 whether they be protists1 germ cells1 or somatic cells1 originate in but one way1 and that is1 from a prexistent living cell by means of cell-division4 ,neither experimentation nor observation has succeeded in revealing so much as a single exception to the universal law of genetic cellular continuity1 and the hypothesis of spontogenesis is outlawed1 in consequence1 by the logic of scientific induction4 ,even the hope that future research may bring about an amelioration of its present status is entirely unwarranted in view of the manifest dynamic superiority of the living organism as compared with any of the inert units of the inorganic world4 8,whatever position we take on this question10 says ,edmund ,b4 ,wilson1 in the conclusion of his work on the ,cell1 8the same difficulty is encountered2 namely1 the origin of that cordinated fitness1 that power of active adjustment between internal and external relations1 which1 as so many eminent biological thinkers have insisted1 overshadows every manifestation of life4 ,the nature and origin of this power is the fundamental problem of biology4 ,when1 after removing the lens of the eye in the larval salamander1 we see it restored in perfect and typical form by regeneration from the posterior layer of the iris1 we behold an adaptive response to changed conditions of which the organism can have no antecedent experience either ontogenetic or phylogenetic1 and one of so marvelous a character that we are made to realize1 as by a flash how far we still are from a solution of this problem40 ,then1 after discussing the attempt of evolutionists to bridge the enormous gap that separates living1 from lifeless nature1 he continues3 8,but when all these admissions are made1 and when the conserving action 7sic7 of natural selection is in the fullest degree recognized1 we cannot close our eyes to two facts3 first1 that we are utterly ignorant of the manner in which the idioplasm of the germ cell can so respond to the influence of the environment as to call forth an adaptive variation2 and second1 that the study of the cell has on the whole seemed to widen rather than to narrow the enormous gap that separates even the lowest forms of life from the inorganic world40 78,the ,cell10 #bnd edit41 pp4 #dcc1 #dcd47 #e4 ,a 8,new0 ,theory of ,abiogenesis ,since true science is out of sympathy with baseless conjectures and gratuitous assumptions1 one would scarcely expect to find scientists opposing the inductive trend of the known facts by preferring mere possibilities 7if they are even such7 to solid actualities4 ,as a matter of fact1 however1 there are not a few who obstinately refuse to abandon preconceptions for which they can find no factual justification4 ,the bio-chemist1 ,benjamin ,moore1 while conceding the bankruptcy of the old theory of spontaneous generation1 which looked for a de novo origin of living cells in sterilized cultures1 has1 nevertheless1 the hardihood to propose what he is pleased to term a new one4 ,impressed by the credulity of ,charlton ,bastian and the autocratic tone of ,schfer1 he sets out to defend as plausible the hypothesis that the origination of life from inert matter may be a contemporaneous1 perhaps1 daily1 phenomenon1 going on continually1 but invisible to us1 because its initial stages take place in the submicroscopic world4 ,by the time life has emerged into the visible world1 it has already reached the stage at which the law of genetic continuity prevails1 but at stages of organization1 which lie below the limit of the microscope1 it is not impossible1 he thinks1 that abiogenesis may occur4 ,to plausibleize this conjecture1 he notes that the cell is a natural unit composed of molecules as a molecule is a natural unit composed of atoms4 ,he further notes1 that1 in addition to the cell1 there is in nature another unit higher than the monomolecule1 namely1 the multimolecule occurring in both crystalloids and colloids4 ,the monomolecule consists of atoms held together by atomic valence1 whereas the multimolecule consists of molecules whose atomic valence is completely saturated1 and which are1 consequently1 held together by what is now known as molecular or residual valence4 ,moore cites the crystal units of sodium bromide and sodium iodide as instances of multimolecules4 ,the crystal unit of ordinary salt1 sodium chloride1 is an ordinary monomolecule1 with the formula ,na,cl4 ,in the case of the former salts the crystal units consist of multimolecules of the formula ,na,b7,h,o7 and ,na,i7,h,o71 the water of crystallization not being mechanically confined in the crystals1 but combined with the respective salt in the exact ratio of two molecules of water to one of the salt4 ,judged by all chemical tests1 such as heat of formation1 the law of combination in fixed ratios1 the manifestation of selective affinity1 etc41 the multimolecule is quite as much entitled to be considered a natural unit as is the monomolecule4 ,but it is not in the crystalloidal multimolecule1 but in the larger and more complex multimolecule of colloids 7viscid substances like gum arabic1 gelatine1 agar-agar1 white of egg1 etc471 that ,moore professes to see a sort of intermediate between the cell and inorganic units4 ,such colloids form with a dispersing medium 7like water7 an emulsion1 in which the dispersed particles1 known as ultramicrons or 8solution aggregates10 are larger than monomolecules4 ,it is among these multimolecules of colloids that ,moore would have us search for a transitional link connecting the cell with the inorganic world4 ,borrowing ,herbert ,spencer's dogma of the complication of homogeneity into heterogeneity1 he asserts that such colloidal multimolecules would tend to become more and more complex1 and consequently more and more instable1 so that their instability would gradually approach the chronic instability or constant state of metabolic fluxion manifest in living organisms4 ,the end-result would be a living unit more simply organized than the cell1 and evolution seizing upon this submicroscopic unit would1 in due time1 transform it into cellular life of every variety and kind4 ,ce n'est que le premier pas qui cote6 ,it should be noted that this so-called law is a mere vague formula like the 8law0 of natural selection and the 8law0 of evolution4 ,the facts which it is alleged to express are not cited1 and its terms are far from being quantitative4 ,it is certainly not a law in the sense of ,arrhnius1 who says3 8,quantitative formulation1 that is1 the establishing of a connection1 expressed by a formula1 between different quantitatively measurable magnitudes1 is the peculiar feature of a law40 78,theories of ,chemistry10 ,price's translation1 p4 #c47 ,now1 chemistry1 as an exact science1 has no lack of laws of this kind1 but no branch of chemistry1 whether physical1 organic1 or inorganic1 knows of any law of complexity1 that can be stated in either quantitative1 or descriptive1 terms4 ,we will1 however1 let ,moore speak for himself3 8,it may then be summed up as a general law universal in its application to all matter1 444 a law which might be called the ,law of ,complexity1 that matter so far as its energy environment will permit tends to assume more and more complex forms in labile equilibrium4 ,atoms1 molecules1 colloids1 and living organisms1 arise as a result of the operations of this law1 and in the higher regions of complexity it induces organic evolution and all the many thousands of living forms4444 8,in this manner we can conceive that the hiatus between non-living and living things can be bridged over1 and there awakens in our minds the conception of a kind of spontaneous production of life of a different order from the old4 ,the territory of this spontaneous generation of life lies not at the level of bacteria1 or animalcul1 springing forth into life from dead organic matter1 but at a level of life lying deeper than anything the microscope can reveal1 and possessing a lower unit than the living cell1 as we form our concept of it from the tissues of higher animals and plants4 8,in the future1 the stage at which colloids begin to be able to deal with external energy forms1 such as light1 and build up in chemical complexity1 will yield a new unit of life opening a vista of possibilities as magnificent as that which the establishment of the cell as a unit gave1 with the development of the microscope1 about a century ago40 78,origin and ,nature of ,life10 pp4 #ahh-aij47 ,having heard out a rhapsody of this sort1 one may be pardoned a little impatience at such a travesty on science4 ,again we have the appeal from realities to fancies1 from the seen to unseen4 ,moore sees no reason to doubt and is therefore quite sure that an unverified occurrence is taking place 8at a level of life lying deeper than anything the microscope can reveal40 ,the unknown is a veritable paradise for irresponsible speculation and phantasy4 ,it is well1 however1 to keep one's feet on the terra firma of ascertained facts and to make one's ignorance a motive for caution rather than an incentive to reckless dogmatizing4 ,to begin with1 it is not to a single dispersed particle or ultramicron that protoplasm has been likened1 but to an emulsion1 comprising both the dispersed particles and the dispersing medium1 or1 in other words1 to the colloidal system as a whole4 ,moreover1 even there the analogy is far from being perfect1 and is confined exclusively1 as ,wilson has pointed out1 to a rough similarity of structure and appearance4 ,the colloidal system is obviously a mere aggregate and not a natural unit like the cell1 and its dispersed particles 7ultramicrons7 do not multiply and perpetuate themselves by growth and division as do the living components or formed bodies of the cell4 ,as for the single ultramicron or multimolecule of a colloidal solution1 it may1 indeed1 be a natural unit1 but it only resembles the cell in the sense that1 like the latter1 it is a complex of constituent molecules4 ,here1 however1 all resemblance ceases2 for the ultramicron does not display the typically vital power of self-perpetuation by growth and division1 which1 as we have seen1 is characteristic not only of the cell as a whole1 but of its single components or organelles4 ,certainly1 the distinctive phenomena of colloidal systems cannot be interpreted as processes of multiplication4 ,there is nothing suggestive of this vital phenomenon in the reversal of phase1 which is caused by the addition of electrolytes to oil emulsions1 or in gelation1 which is caused by a change of temperature in certain hydrophilic colloids4 ,thus the addition of the salt of a bivalent cation 7e4g4 ,ca,cl or ,ba,cl7 to an oil-in-water emulsion 7if soap is used as the emulsifier7 will cause the external or continuous phase 7water7 to become the internal or discontinuous phase4 ,vice versa1 a water-in-oil emulsion can be reversed into an oil-in-water emulsion1 under the same conditions1 by the addition of the salt of a monovalent cation 7e4 g4 ,na,o,h74 ,solutions of hydrophilic colloids1 like gelatine or agar-agar1 can be made to 8set0 from the semifluid state of a hydrosol into the semisolid state of a hydrogel1 by lowering the temperature1 after which the opposite effect can be brought about by again raising the temperature4 ,in white of egg1 however1 once gelation has taken place1 through the agency of heat1 it is impossible to reconvert the 8gel0 into a 8sol0 7solution74 ,in such phenomena1 it is1 perhaps1 possible to see a certain parallelism with some processes taking place in the cell1 e4 g4 the osmotic processes of absorption and excretion1 but to construe them as evidence of propagation by growth and division would be preposterous4 ,nor is the subterfuge of relegating the question to the obscurity of the submicroscopic world of any avail2 for1 as a matter of fact1 submicroscopic organisms actually do exist1 and manage1 precisely by virtue of this uniquely vital power of multiplication or reproductivity1 to give indirect testimony of their invisible existence4 ,the microrganisms1 for example1 which cause the disease known as ,measles are so minute that they pass through the pores of a porcelain filter1 and are invisible to the highest powers of the microscope4 ,nevertheless1 they can be bred in the test tube cultures of the bacteriologist1 where they propagate themselves for generations without losing the definite specificity1 which make them capable of producing distinctive pathological effects in the organisms of higher animals1 including man4 ,each of these invisible disease germs communicates but one disease1 with symptoms that are perfectly characteristic and definite4 ,moreover1 they are specific in their choice of a host1 and will not infect any and every organism promiscuously4 ,finally1 they never arise de novo in a healthy host1 but must always be transmitted from a diseased to a healthy individual4 ,the microscopist is tantalized1 to quote the words of ,wilson1 8with visions of disease germs which no eye has yet seen1 so minute as to pass through a fine filter1 yet beyond a doubt self-perpetuating and of specific type40 7,science1 ,march #i1 #aibc1 p4 #bhc47 ,submicroscopic dimensions1 therefore1 are no obstacle to the manifestation of such vital properties as reproduction1 genetic continuity1 and typical specificity2 and we must conclude that1 if any of the ultramicrons of colloids possessed them1 their minute size would not debar them from manifesting the fact4 ,as it is1 they fail to show any vital quality1 whereas the submicroscopic disease germs give evidence of possessing all the characteristics of visible cells4 ,in fine1 the radical difference between inorganic units1 like atoms1 molecules1 and multimolecules1 and living units1 like protozoans and metazoans1 is so obvious that it is universally admitted4 ,not all1 however1 are in accord when it comes to assigning the fundamental reason for the difference in question4 ,benjamin ,moore postulates a unique physical energy1 peculiar to living organisms and responsible for all distinctively vital manifestations4 ,this unique form of energy1 unlike all other forms1 he calls 8biotic energy10 denying at the same time that it is a vital force4 7,cf4 op4 cit41 pp4 #bbd-bbf47 ,moore seems to be desirous of dressing up vitalism in the verbal vesture of mechanism4 ,he wants the game1 without the name4 ,but1 if his 8biotic energy0 is unlike all other forms of energy1 it ought not to parade under the same name1 but should frankly call itself a 8vital force40 ,somewhat similar in nature is ,osborn's suggestion that the peculiar properties of living protoplasm may be due to the presence of a unique chemical element called ,bion4 7,cf4 8,the ,origin and ,evolution of ,life10 #aiag1 p4 #f47 ,now1 a chemical element unlike other chemical elements is not a chemical element at all4 ,osborn's ,bion1 like ,moore's biotic energy1 ought1 by all means1 to make up its mind definitely on ,hamlet's question of 8to be1 or not to be40 ,the policy of 8,it is1 and it is not10 is not likely to win the approval of either mechanists or vitalists4 #f4 ,hylomorphism versus ,mechanism and ,neo-vitalism ,mechanism and ,neo-vitalism represent two extreme solutions of this problem of accounting for the difference between living and lifeless matter4 ,strictly speaking1 it is an abuse of language to refer to mechanism as a solution at all4 ,its first pretense at solving the problem is to deny that there is any problem4 ,but facts are facts and cannot be disposed of in this summary fashion4 ,forced1 therefore1 to face the actual fact of the uniqueness of living matter1 mechanists concede the inadequacy of their physicochemical analogies1 but obstinately refuse to admit the legitimacy of any other kind of explanation4 ,confronted with realities1 which simply must have some explanation1 they prefer to leave them unexplained by their own theory than have them explained by any other4 ,they recognize the difference between a living animal and a dead animal 7small credit to them for their perspicacity671 but deny that there is anything present in the former which is not present in the latter4 ,neo-vitalism1 on the other hand1 is1 at least1 an attempt at solving the problem in the positive sense4 ,it ascribes the unique activities of living organisms to the operation of a superphysical and superchemical energy or force resident in living matter4 ,this unique dynamic principle is termed vital force4 ,it is not an entitive nor a static principle1 but belongs to the category of efficient or active causes1 being variously described as an agent1 energy1 or force4 ,to speak precisely1 the term agent denotes an active being or substance2 the term energy denotes the proximate ground in the agent of a specific activity2 while the term force denotes the activity or free1 kinetic1 or activated phase of a given energy4 ,in practice1 however1 these terms are often used interchangeably4 ,thus ,driesch1 who1 like all other ,neo-vitalists1 makes the vital principle a dynamic factor rather than an entitive principle1 refers to the vital principle as a 8non-material10 8non-spatial0 agent1 though the term energy would be more precise4 ,to this active or dynamic vital principle ,driesch gives a name1 which he borrowed from ,aristotle1 that is1 entelechy4 ,in so doing1 however1 he perverted1 as he himself confesses1 the true ,aristotelian sense of the term in question3 8,the term10 he says1 8444 is not here used in the proper ,aristotelian sense40 78,history and ,theory of ,vitalism10 p4 #bjc47 ,his admission is quite correct4 ,at the critical point1 ,driesch1 for all his praise of ,aristotle1 deserts the ,stagirite and goes over to the camp of ,plato1 ,descartes1 and the ,neo-vitalists6 ,driesch's definition is as follows3 8,entelechy is an agent sui generis1 non-material and non-spatial1 but acting #8into' space40 7,op4 cit41 p4 #bjd47 ,aristotle's use of the term in this connection is quite different4 ,he uses it1 for example1 in a static1 rather than a dynamic1 sense3 8,the term #8entelechy1'0 he says1 8is used in two senses2 in one it answers to knowledge1 in the other to the exercise of knowledge4 ,clearly in this case it is analogous to knowledge40 78,peri ,psyches10 ,bk4 ,,ii1 c4 #a47 ,knowledge1 however1 is only a second or static entelechy4 ,hence1 in order to narrow the sense still further ,aristotle refers to the soul as a first entelechy1 by which he designates a purely entitive principle1 that is1 a constituent of being or substance 7cf4 op4 cit4 ibidem74 ,the first1 or entitive1 entelechy1 therefore1 is to be distinguished from all secondary entelechies1 whether of the dynamic order corresponding to kinetic energy or force1 or of the static order corresponding to potential energy4 ,neither is it an agent1 because it is only a partial constituent of the total agent1 that is1 of the total active being or substance4 ,hence1 generally speaking1 that which acts 7the agent7 is not entelechy1 but the total composite of entelechy and matter1 first entelechy being consubstantial with matter and not a separate existent or being4 ,in fine1 according to ,aristotelian philosophy1 entelechy 7that is1 8first0 or 8prime0 entelechy7 is not an agent nor an energy nor a force4 ,in other words1 it is totally removed from the category of efficient or active causes4 ,the second difference between ,driesch and ,aristotle with respect to the use of the term entelechy lies in the fact that ,driesch uses it as a synonym for the soul or vital principle1 whereas1 according to ,aristotle1 entelechy is common to the non-living units of inorganic nature as well as the living units 7organisms7 of the organic world4 ,all vital principles or souls are entelechies1 but not all entelechies are vital principles4 ,all material beings or substances1 whether living or lifeless1 are reducible1 in the last analysis1 to two consubstantial principles or complementary constituents1 namely1 entelechy and matter4 ,entelechy is the binding1 type-determining principle1 the source of unification and specification1 which makes of a given natural unit 7such as a molecule or a protozoan7 a single and determinate whole4 ,matter is the determinable and potentially-multiple element1 the principle of divisibility and quantification1 which can enter indifferently into the composition of this or that natural unit1 and which owes its actual unity and specificity to the entelechy which here and now informs it4 ,it is entelechy which makes a chemical element distinct from its isobare1 a chemical compound distinct from its isomer1 a paramcium distinct from an amba1 a maple distinct from an oak1 and a bear distinct from a tiger4 ,the molecular entelechy finds expression in what the organic chemist and the stereochemist understand by valence1 that is1 the static aspect of valence considered as the structural principle of a molecule4 ,hence it is entelechy which makes a molecule of urea ,o3,c37,,nh7 an entirely different substance from its isomer ammonium cyanate ,,nh,o,c3,n1 although the material substrate of each of these molecular units consists of precisely the same number and kinds of atoms4 ,similarly1 it is the atomic entelechy which gives to the isotopes of ,strontium chemical properties different from those of the isotopes of ,rubidium1 although the mass and corpuscular 7electronic and protonic7 composition of their respective atoms are identical4 ,it is the vital entelechy or soul1 which causes a fragment cut from a ,stentor to regenerate its specific protoplasmic architecture instead of the type which would be regenerated from a similar fragment cut from another ciliate such as ,dileptus4 ,in all the tridimensional units of nature1 both living and non-living1 the hylomorphic analysis of ,aristotle recognizes an essential dualism of matter and entelechy4 ,hence it is not in the presence and absence of an entelechy 7as ,driesch contends7 that living organisms differ from inorganic units4 ,the sole difference between these two classes of units is one of autonomy and inertia4 ,the inorganic unit is inert1 not in the sense that it is destitute of energy1 but in the sense that it is incapable of self-regulation and rigidly dependent upon external factors for the utilization of its own energy-content4 ,the living unit1 on the other hand1 is endowed with dynamic autonomy4 ,though dependent1 in a general way1 upon environmental factors for the energy which it utilizes1 nevertheless the determinate form and direction of its activity is not imposed in all its specificity by the aforesaid environmental factors4 ,the living being possesses a certain degree of independence with respect to these external forces4 ,it is autonomous with a special law of immanent finality or reflexive orientation1 by which all the elements and energies of the living unit are made to converge upon one and the same central result1 namely1 the maintenance and development of the organism both in its capacity as an individual and in its capacity as the generative source of its racial type4 ,the entelechies of the inert units of inorganic nature turn the forces of these units in an outward direction1 so that they are incapable of operating upon themselves1 of modifying themselves1 or of regulating themselves4 ,they are only capable of operating upon other units outside themselves1 and in so doing they irreparably externalize their energy-contents4 ,all physicochemical action is transitive or communicable in character1 whereas vital action is of the reflexive or immanent type4 ,mechanical action1 for example1 is intermolar 7i4e4 an exchange between large masses of inorganic matter72 physical action is intermolecular2 chemical action is interatomic2 while in radioactive and electrical phenomena we have intercorpuscular action4 ,hence all the forms of activity native to the inorganic world are reducible to interaction between discontinuous and unequally energized masses or particles4 ,always it is a case of one mass or particle operating upon another mass or particle distinct from1 and spatially external to1 itself4 ,the effect or positive change produced by the action is received into another unit distinct from the agent or active unit1 which can never become the receptive subject of the effect generated by its own activity4 ,the living being1 on the contrary1 is capable of operating upon itself1 so that what is modified by the action is not outside the agent but within it4 ,the reader does not modify the book1 but modifies himself by his reading4 ,the blade of grass can nourish not only a horse1 but its very self1 whereas a molecule of sodium nitrate is impotent to nourish itself1 and can only nourish a subject other than itself1 such as the blade of grass4 ,here the active source and receptive subject of the action is one and the same unit1 namely1 the living organism1 which can operate upon itself in the interest of its own perfection4 ,in chemical synthesis two substances interact to produce a third1 but in vital assimilation one substance is incorporated into another without the production of a third4 ,thus hydrogen unites with oxygen to produce water4 ,but in the case of assimilation the reaction may be expressed thus3 ,living protoplasm plus external nutriment equals living protoplasm increased in quantity but unchanged in specificity4 ,addition or subtraction alters the nature of the inorganic unit1 but does not change the nature of the living unit4 ,in chemical change1 entelechy is the variant and matter is the constant1 but in metabolic change1 matter is the variant and entelechy the constant4 8,living beings10 says ,henderson1 8preserve1 or tend to preserve1 an ideal form1 while through them flows a steady stream of energy and matter which is ever changing1 yet momentarily molded by life2 organized1 in short40 78,fitness of the ,environment10 #aiac1 pp4 #bc1 #bd47 ,the living unit maintains its own specific type amid a constant flux of matter and flow of energy4 ,it subjugates the alien substances of the inorganic world1 eliminates their mineral entelechies and utilizes their components and energies for its own purposes4 ,the soul or vital entelechy1 therefore1 is more powerful than the entelechies of inorganic units which it supplants4 ,it turns the forces of living matter inward1 so that the living organism becomes capable of self-regulation and of striving for the attainment of self-perfection4 ,it is this reflexive orientation of all energies towards self-perfection that is the unique characteristic of the living being1 and not the nature of the energies themselves4 ,the energies by which vital functions are executed are the ordinary physicochemical energies1 but it is the vital entelechy or soul which elevates them to a higher plane of efficiency and renders them capable of reflexive or vital action4 ,there is1 in short1 no such thing as a special vital force4 ,the radical difference between living and non-living units does not consist in the possession or non-possession of an entelechy1 nor yet in the peculiar nature of the forces displayed in the execution of vital functions1 but solely in the orientation of these forces towards an inner finality4 #g4 ,the ,definition of ,life ,life1 then1 may be defined as the capacity of reflexive or self-perfective action4 ,in any action1 we may distinguish four things3 7#a7 the agent1 or source of the action2 7#b7 the activity or internal determination differentiating the agent in the active state from the selfsame agent in the inactive state2 7#c7 the patient or receptive subject2 7#d7 the effect or change produced in the patient by the agent4 ,let us suppose that a boy named ,tom kicks a door4 ,here ,tom is the agent1 the muscular contraction in his leg is the activity1 the door is the patient or recipient1 while the dent produced in the door is the effect or change of which the action is a production4 ,in this action1 the effect is produced not in the cause or agent1 but in a patient outside of1 and distinct from1 the agent1 and the otherness of cause and effect is consequently complete4 ,such an action is termed transitive1 which is the characteristic type of physicochemical action4 ,in another class of actions1 however1 7those1 namely1 that are peculiar to living beings7 the otherness of cause and effect is only partial and relative4 ,when the agent becomes ultimately the recipient of the effect or modification wrought by its own activity1 that is1 when the positive change produced by the action remains within the agent itself1 the action is called immanent or reflexive action4 ,since1 however1 action and passion are opposites1 they can coxist in the same subject only upon condition that said subject is differentiated into partial otherness1 that is1 organized into a plurality of distinct and dissimilar parts or components1 one of which may act upon another4 ,hence only the organized unit or organism1 which combines unity or continuity of substance with multiplicity and dissimilarity of parts is capable of immanent action4 ,the inorganic unit is capable only of transitive action1 whose effect is produced in an exterior subject really distinct from the agent4 ,the living unit or organism1 however1 is capable of both transitive action and immanent 7reflexive7 action4 ,in such functions as thought and sensation1 the living agent modifies itself and not an exterior patient4 ,in the nutritive or metabolic function the living being perfects itself by assimilating external substances to itself4 ,it develops1 organizes1 repairs1 and multiplies itself1 holding its own and perpetuating its type from generation to generation4 ,life1 accordingly1 is the capacity of tending through any form of reflexive action to an ulterior perfection of the agent itself4 ,this capacity of an agent to operate of1 and upon1 itself for the acquisition of some perfection exceeding its natural equilibrial state is the distinctive attribute of the living being4 ,left to itself1 the inorganic unit tends exclusively to conservation or to loss1 never to positive acquisition in excess of equilibrial exigencies2 what it acquires it owes exclusively to the action of external factors4 ,the living unit1 on the contrary1 strives in its vital operations to acquire something for itself1 so that what it gets it owes to itself and not 7except in a very general sense7 to the action of external factors4 ,all the actions of the living unit1 both upon itself and upon external matter1 result sooner or later in the acquisition on the part of the agent of a positive perfection exceeding and transcending the mere exigencies of equilibration4 ,the inorganic agent1 on the contrary1 when in the state of tension1 tends only to return to the equilibrial state by alienation or expenditure of its energy2 otherwise1 it tends merely to conserve1 by virtue of inertia1 the state of rest or motion impressed upon it from without4 ,in the chemical changes of inorganic units1 the tendency to loss is even more in evidence4 ,such changes disrupt the integrity of the inorganic unit and dissipate its energy-content1 and the unit cannot be reconstructed and recharged1 except at the expense of a more richly endowed inorganic unit4 ,the living organism1 however1 as we see in the case of the paramcium undergoing endomixis1 is capable of counteracting exhaustion by recharging itself4 ,the difference between transitive and reflexive action is not an accidental difference of degree1 but an essential difference of kind4 ,in reflexive actions1 the source of the action and the recipient of the effect or modification produced by it are one and the same substantial unit or being4 ,in transitive actions1 the receptive subject of the positive change is an alien unit distinct from the unit1 which puts forth the action4 ,hence a reflexive action is not an action which is less transitive2 it is an action which is not at all transitive1 but intransitive4 ,the difference1 therefore1 between the living organism1 which is capable of both reflexive and transitive action1 and the inorganic unit1 which is only capable of transitive action1 is radical and essential4 ,this being the case1 an evolutionary transition from an inert multimolecule to a reflexively-operating cell or cytode1 becomes inconceivable4 ,evolution might1 at the very most1 bring about intensifications and combinations of the transitive agencies of the physicochemical world1 but never the volte face1 which would be necessary to reverse the centrifugal orientation of forces characteristic of the inorganic unit into the centripetal orientation of forces which makes the living unit capable of self-perfective action1 self-regulation1 and self-renewal4 ,the idea1 therefore1 of a spontaneous derivation of living units from lifeless colloidal multimolecules must be rejected1 not merely because it finds no support in the facts of experience1 but also because it is excluded by aprioristic considerations4 #h4 ,an ,inevitable ,corollary ,but1 if inorganic matter is impotent to vitalize itself by means of its native physicochemical forces1 the inevitable alternative is that the initial production of organisms from inorganic matter was due to the action of some supermaterial agency4 ,certain scientists1 like ,henderson of ,harvard1 while admitting the incredibility of abiogenesis1 prefer to avoid open conflict with mechanism and materialism by declaring their neutrality4 8,but while biophysicists like ,professor ,schfer10 says ,henderson1 8follow ,spencer in assuming a gradual evolution of the organic from the inorganic1 biochemists are more than ever unable to perceive how such a process is possible1 and without taking any final stand prefer to let the riddle rest40 78,fitness of the ,environment10 p4 #caj1 footnote47 ,not to take a decisive stand on this question1 however1 is tantamount to making a compromise with what is illogical and unscientific2 for both logic and the inductive trend of biological facts are arrayed against the hypothesis of spontaneous generation4 ,in the first place1 it is manifest that organic life is neither self-explanatory nor eternal4 ,hence it must have had its origin in the action of some external agency4 ,life as it exists today depends upon the precedence of numerous unbroken chains of consecutive cells that extend backward into a remote past4 ,it is1 however1 a logical necessity to put an end to this retrogradation of the antecedents upon which the actual existence of our present organisms depends4 ,the infinite cannot be spanned by finite steps2 the periodic life-process could not be relayed through an unlimited temporal distance2 and a cellular series which never started would never arrive4 ,moreover1 we do not account for the existence of life by extending the cellular series interminably backward4 ,each cell in such a series is derived from a predecessor1 and1 consequently1 no cell in the series is self-explanatory4 ,when it comes to accounting for its own existence1 each cell is a zero in the way of explanation1 and adding zeros together indefinitely will never give us a positive total4 ,each cell refers us to its predecessor for the explanation of why it exists1 and none contains within itself the sufficient explanation of its own existence4 ,hence increasing even to infinity the number of these cells 7which fail to explain themselves7 will give us nothing else but a zero in the way of explanation4 ,if1 therefore1 the primordial cause from which these cellular chains are suspended is not the agency of the physicochemical forces of inorganic nature1 it follows that the first active cause of life must have been a supermaterial and extramundane agency1 namely1 the ,living ,god and ,author of ,life4 ,as a matter of fact1 no one denies that life has had a beginning on our globe4 ,the physicist teaches that a beginning of our entire solar system is implied in the law of the degradation of energy1 and various attempts have been made to determine the time of this beginning4 ,the older calculations were based on the rate of solar radiation2 the more recent ones1 however1 are based on quantitative estimates of the disintegration products of radioactive elements4 ,similarly1 the geologist and the astronomer propound theories of a gradual constitution of the cosmic environment1 which organic life requires for its support1 and all such theories imply a de novo origin or beginning of life in the universe4 ,thus the old nebular hypothesis of ,laplace postulated a hot origin of our solar system incompatible with the coxistence of organic life1 which1 as the experiments of ,pasteur and others have shown1 is destroyed1 in all cases1 at a temperature just above #de ,centigrade 7#aac ,fahrenheit74 ,even the enzymes or organic catalysts1 which are essential for bio-chemical processes1 are destroyed at a temperature between #fj and #gj ,centigrade4 ,this excludes the possibility of the contemporaneousness of protoplasm and inorganic matter1 and points to a beginning of life in our solar system4 ,moreover1 independently of this theory1 the geologist sees in the primitive crystalline rocks 7granites1 diorites1 basalts1 etc47 and in the extant magmas of volcanoes evidences of an azoic age1 during which temperatures incompatible with the survival of even the blue-green alg or the most resistent bacterial spores must have prevailed over the surface of the globe4 ,in fact1 it is generally recognized by geologists that the igneous or pyrogenic rocks1 which contain no fossils1 preceded the sedimentary or fossiliferous rocks4 ,the new planetesimal hypothesis1 it is true1 is said to be compatible with a cold origin of the universe4 ,nevertheless1 this theory assumes a very gradual condensation of our cosmos out of dispersed gases and star dust1 whereas life demands as the sine qua non condition of its existence a differentiated environment consisting of a lithosphere1 a hydrosphere1 and an atmosphere4 ,hence1 it is clear that life did not originate until such an appropriate environment was an accomplished fact4 ,all theories of cosmogony1 therefore1 point to a beginning of life subsequent to the constitution of the inorganic world4 ,now1 it is impossible for organic life to antecede itself4 ,if1 therefore1 it has had a beginning in the world1 it must have had a first active cause distinct from itself2 and the active cause1 in question1 must1 consequently1 have been either something intrinsic1 or something extrinsic1 to inorganic matter4 ,the hypothesis1 however1 of a spontaneous origin of life through the agency of forces intrinsic to inorganic matter is scientifically untenable4 ,hence it follows that life originated through the action of an immaterial or spiritual agent1 namely1 ,god1 seeing that there is no other assignable agency capable of bringing about the initial production of life from lifeless matter4 #i4 ,futile ,evasions ,many and various are the efforts made to escape this issue4 ,one group of scientists1 for example1 attempt to rid themselves of the difficulty by diverting our attention from the problem of a beginning of organic life in the universe to the problem of its translation to a new habitat4 ,this legerdemain has resulted in the theories of cosmozoa or panspermia1 according to which life originates in a favorable environment1 not by reason of spontaneous generation1 but by reason of importation from other worlds4 ,this view has been presented in two forms3 7#a7 the 8meteorite0 theory1 which represents the older view held by ,thomson and ,helmholtz2 7#b7 the more recent theory of 8cosmic panspermia0 advocated by ,svante ,arrhnius1 with ,h4 ,e4 ,richter and ,f4 ,j4 ,cohn as precursors4 ,sir ,wm4 ,thompson suggested that life might have been salvaged from the ruins of other worlds and carried to our own by means of meteorites or fragments thrown off from life-bearing planets that had been destroyed by a catastrophic collision4 ,these meteorites discharged from bursting planets might carry germs to distant planets like the earth1 causing them to become covered with vegetation4 ,against this theory stands the fatal objection that the transit of a meteorite from the nearest stellar system to our own would require an interval of #fj1jjj1jjj years4 ,it is incredible that life could be maintained through such an enormous lapse of time4 ,even from the nearest planet to our earth the duration of the journey would be #aej years4 ,besides1 meteorites are heated to incandescence while passing through the atmosphere1 and any seeds they might contain would perish by reason of the heat thus generated1 not to speak of the terrific impact1 which terminates the voyage of a meteorite4 ,arrhnius suggests a method by which microrganisms might be conveyed through intersidereal space with far greater dispatch and without any mineral vehicle such as a meteorite4 ,he notes that particles of cosmic dust leave the sun as a coronal atmosphere and are propelled through intervening space by the pressure of radiation until they reach the higher atmosphere of the earth 7viz4 at a height of #ajj kilometers from the surface of the latter71 where they become the electrically charged dust particles of polar auroras 7v4g4 the aurora borealis74 ,the motor force1 in this case1 is the same as that which moves the vanes of a ,crookes' radiometer4 ,lebedeff has verified ,clerk-,maxwell's conceptions of this force and has demonstrated its reality by experiments4 ,it is calculated that in the immediate vicinity of a luminous surface like that of the sun the pressure exerted by radiation upon an exposed surface would be nearly two milligrams per square centimeter4 ,on a nontransparent particle having a diameter of #a4e microns1 the pressure of radiation would just counterbalance the force of universal gravitation1 while on particles whose diameter was #j4af of a micron1 the pressure of radiation would be ten times as great as the pull of gravitation4 ,now bacterial spores having a diameter of ,o4#c to ,o4#b of a micron are known to bacteriologists1 and the ultramicroscope reveals the presence of germs not more than ,o4#a of a micron in size4#aa ,hence it is conceivable that germs of such dimensions might be wafted to limits of our atmosphere1 and might then be transported by the pressure of radiation to distant planets or stellar systems1 provided1 of course1 they could escape the germicidal action of oxidation1 desiccation1 ultra-violet rays1 etc4 ,arrhnius calculates that their journey from the earth to ,mars would1 under such circumstances1 occupy a period of only #bj days4 ,within #hj days they could reach ,jupiter1 and they might arrive at ,neptune on the confines of our solar system after an interval of #c weeks4 ,the transit to the constellation of the ,centaur1 which contains the solar system nearest to our own 7the one1 namely1 whose central sun is the star ,alpha71 would require #i1jjj years4 #aa ,recently1 by means of photography with short-length light waves1 the bacteria of 8,foot-and-mouth disease10 invisible to the highest power microscope1 have been revealed as rods about #ajj submicrons 7i4e4 ,o4#a micron1 or ,o4#jjja millimeter7 in length4 7cf4 ,science1 ,may #cj1 #aibd1 ,supplement ,x47 ,germs of this dimension could be as easily transported by radiation as the alleged electrically charged stardust in the aurora borealis4 ,it may be of interest1 however1 to note1 in this connection1 that the most recent theory of the aurora borealis discards stardust in favor of nitrogen snow4 ,lars ,vegard1 a ,norwegian professor1 ascribes the peculiar greenish tint in the ,northern ,lights to the action of solar radiations on nitrogen snow1 which he assumes to exist at an altitude of more than #fj miles above the earth4 ,when he condensed crystals of solid nitrogen on a copper plate by freezing with liquid hydrogen1 he found that these crystals1 after bombardment with cathode rays1 emit a light of green color1 which gives the same strong green spectrum line as the spectrum of the aurora4 ,as the solid nitrogen evaporates1 it begins to emit the reddish light characteristic of nitrogen gas4 ,this phenomenon would explain the changes of color that occur in the aurora borealis4 7cf4 ,science1 ,april #ah1 #aibd1 ,suppl4 ,x47 ,arrhnius' theory1 however1 that 8life is an eternal rebeginning0 explains nothing and leaves us precisely where we were4 ,in the metaphysical as well as the scientific sense1 it is an evasion and not a solution4 ,to the logical necessity of putting an end to the retrogradation of the subalternate conditions1 upon which the realities of the present depend for their actual existence1 we have already adverted4 ,moreover1 the reasons which induce the scientist to postulate a beginning of life in our world are not based on any distinctive peculiarity of that world1 but are universally applicable1 it being established by the testimony of the spectroscope that other worlds are not differently constituted than our own4 ,hence ,schfer voices the general attitude of scientific men when he says3 8,but the acceptance of such theories of the arrival of life on earth does not bring us any nearer to a conception of its actual mode of origin2 on the contrary1 it merely serves to banish the investigation of the question to some conveniently inaccessible corner of the universe and leaves us in the unsatisfactory condition of affirming not only that we have no knowledge as to the mode of origin of life--which is unfortunately true--but that we never can acquire such knowledge--which it is to be hoped is not true4 ,knowing what we know1 and believing what we believe1 444 we are1 ,i think 7without denying the possibility of the existence of life in other parts of the universe71 justified in regarding these cosmic theories as inherently improbable40 7,dundee ,address of #aiab1 cf4 ,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiab1 p4 #ejc47 ,dismissing1 therefore1 all evasions of this sort1 we may regard as scientifically established the conclusion that1 so far as our knowledge goes1 inorganic nature lacks the means of self-vivification1 and that no inanimate matter can become living matter without first coming under the influence of matter previously alive4 ,given1 therefore1 that the conditions favorable to life did not always prevail in our cosmos1 it follows that life had a beginning1 for which we are obliged to account by some postulate other than abiogenesis4 ,this conclusion seems inescapable for those who concede the scientific absurdity of spontaneous generation1 but1 by some weird freak of logic1 not only is it escaped1 but the very opposite conclusion is reached through reasoning1 which the exponents are pleased to term philosophical1 as distinguished from scientific1 argumentation4 ,the plight of these 8hard-headed worshippers of fact10 who plume themselves on their contempt for 8metaphysics10 is sad indeed4 ,worsted in the experimental field1 they appeal the case from the court of facts to that aprioristic philosophy4 8,physic of metaphysic begs defence1 and metaphysic calls for aid on sense60 ,life1 they contend1 either had no beginning or it must have begun in our world as the product of spontaneous generation4 ,but all the scientific theories of cosmogony exclude the former alternative4 ,consequently1 not only is it not absurd to admit spontaneous generation1 but1 on the contrary1 it is absurd not to admit it4 ,it is in this frame of mind that ,august ,weismann is induced to confide to us 8that spontaneous generation1 in spite of all the vain attempts to demonstrate it1 remains for me a logical necessity40 78,essays10 p4 #cd1 ,poulton's ,transl47 ,the presupposition latent in all such logic is1 of course1 the assumption that nothing but matter exists2 for1 if the possibility of the existence of a supermaterial agency is conceded1 then obviously we are not compelled by logical necessity to ascribe the initial production of organic life to the exclusive agency of the physicochemical energies inherent in inorganic matter4 ,weismann should demonstrate his suppressed premise that matter coincides with reality and that spiritual is a synonym for nonexistent4 ,until such time as this unverified and unverifiable affirmation is substantiated1 the philosophical proof for abiogenesis is not an argument at all1 it is dogmatism pure and simple4 ,but1 they protest1 8,to deny spontaneous generation is to proclaim a miracle0 7,ngeli71 and natural science cannot have recourse to 8miracles0 in explaining natural phenomena4 ,for the 8scientist10 miracles are always absurd as contradicting the uniformity of nature1 and to recur to them for the solution of a scientific problem is1 to put it mildly1 distinctly out of the question4 ,hence ,haeckel regards spontaneous generation as more than demonstrated by the bare consideration that no alternative remains except the unspeakable scientific blasphemy implied in superstitious terms like 8miracle10 8creation10 and 8supernatural40 ,for a 8thinking man10 the mere mention of these abhorrent words is1 or ought to be1 argument enough4 8,if we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation10 ,haeckel expostulates1 8we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation40 7,italics his--8,history of ,creation10 ,i1 p4 #cdh1 ,lankester's ,transl47 ,it would be a difficult matter1 indeed1 to cram more blunders into one short sentence6 ,we will not1 and need not1 undertake to defend the supernatural here4 ,suffice it to say1 that the initiation of life in inorganic matter by the ,author of ,life would not be a creation1 nor a miracle1 nor a phenomenon pertaining to the supernatural order4 ,the principle of the minimum forbids us to postulate the superfluous1 and a creative act would be superfluous in the production of the first organisms4 ,inorganic nature contains all the material elements found in living organisms1 and all organisms1 in fact1 derive their matter from the inorganic world4 ,if1 therefore1 they are thus dependent in their continuance upon a supply of matter administered by the inorganic world1 it is to be presumed that they were likewise dependent on that source of matter in their first origin4 ,in other words1 the material substrata of the first organisms were not produced anew1 but derived from the elements of the inorganic world4 ,hence they were not created1 but formed out of prexistent matter4 ,a creative act would involve total production1 and exclude the prexistence of the constituent material under a different form4 ,a formative act1 on the contrary1 is a partial production1 which presupposes the material out of which a given thing is to be made4 ,hence the ,divine act1 whereby organic life was first educed from the passive potentiality of inorganic matter1 was formative and not creative4 ,elements prexistent in the inorganic world were combined and intrinsically modified by impressing upon them a new specification1 which raised them in the entitive and dynamic scale1 and integrated them into units capable of self-regulation and reflexive action4 ,this modification1 however1 was intrinsic to the matter involved and nothing was injected into matter from without4 ,obviously1 therefore1 the production of the first organisms was not a creation1 but a formation4 ,still less was it a miracle2 for a miracle is a visible interposition in the course of nature by a power superior to the powers of nature4 ,a given effect1 therefore1 is termed miraculous with express reference to some existing natural agency1 whose efficacy it1 in some way1 exceeds4 ,if there existed in inorganic nature some natural process of self-vivification1 then any ,divine interposition to produce life independently of this natural agency1 would be a miraculous intervention4 ,as a matter of fact1 however1 inorganic nature is destitute of this power of self-vitalization1 and consequently no natural agency was superseded or overridden by the initial imparting of life to lifeless matter4 ,life was not ordained to originate in any other way4 ,given1 therefore1 this impotence of inorganic nature1 it follows that an initial vivification of matter by ,divine power was demanded by the very nature of things4 ,the ,divine action did not come into competition1 as it were1 with existing natural agencies1 but was put forth in response to the exigencies of nature itself4 ,it cannot1 therefore1 be regarded as miraculous4 ,nor1 finally1 is there any warrant for regarding such an initial vivification of matter as supernatural4 ,only that is supernatural which transcends the nature1 powers1 and exigencies of all things created or creatable4 ,but1 as we have seen1 if life was to exist at all1 a primal animation of inanimate matter by ,divine power was demanded by the very nature of things4 ,here the ,divine action put forth in response to an exigency of nature and terminated in the constitution of living nature itself4 ,now1 the effect of a ,divine action1 by which the natures of things are initially constituted1 plainly pertains to the order of nature1 and has nothing to do with the supernatural4 ,hence the primordial constitution by ,divine power of living nature was not a supernatural1 but a purely natural1 event4 ,,chapter ,,ii ,,the ,,origin ,,of ,,the ,,human ,,soul #a4 ,matter and ,spirit ,we live in an age in which scientific specialization is stressed as the most important means of advancing the interests of human knowledge2 and specialism1 by reason of its many triumphs1 seems to have deserved1 in large measure1 the prestige which it now enjoys4 ,it has1 however1 the distinct disadvantage of fostering provincialism and separatism4 ,this lopsided learning of the single track mind is a condition that verges on paranoia1 leads to nave contempt for all knowledge not reducible to its own set of formul1 and portends1 in the near future1 a ,babel-like confusion of tongues4 ,in fact1 the need of a corrective is beginning to be felt in many quarters4 ,this corrective can be none other than the general and synthetic science of philosophy2 it is philosophy alone that can furnish a common ground and break down the barriers of exclusiveness which immure the special sciences within the minds of experts4 ,scientists readily admit the advantage of philosophy in theory1 but in practice their approval is far from being unqualified4 ,a subservient philosophy1 which accepts without hesitation all the current dogmas of contemporary science1 is one thing1 and a critical philosophy venturing to apply the canons of logic to so-called scientific proof is quite another4 ,philosophy of the latter type is promptly informed that it has no right to any opinion whatever1 and that only the scientific specialist is qualified to speak on such subjects4 ,but the disqualification1 which is supposed to arise from lack of special knowledge1 is just as promptly forgotten1 when there is question of philosophy in the rle of a pliant sycophant1 and the works of a ,wells or a van ,loon are lauded to the skies1 despite the glaring examples of scientific inaccuracy and ignorance1 in which they abound4 ,this partiality is sometimes carried to a degree that makes it perfectly preposterous4 ,thus it is by no means an infrequent thing to find scientists dismissing1 as unworthy of a hearing1 a philosopher like ,hans ,driesch1 who spent the major portion of his life in biological research1 and combined the technical discipline of a scientist with the mental discipline of a logician4 ,the chemist1 ,h4 ,e4 ,armstrong1 for instance1 sees in the mere label 8philosopher0 a sufficient reason for barring his testimony4 8,philosophers10 jeers the chemist1 with flippant irrelevance1 8must go to school and study in the purlieus of experimental science1 if they desire to speak with authority on these matters40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiab1 p4 #ebh47 ,such is his comment on ,driesch1 yet ,driesch did nothing at all1 if he did not do far more than ,armstrong prescribes as a prerequisite for authoritative speaking4 ,in ,james ,harvey ,robinson1 on the contrary1 we have an example of the tendency of scientists to coddle philosophers who assume a docile1 deferential1 and submissive attitude towards every generalization propounded in the name of natural science4 ,in sheer gratitude for his uncritical acquiescence1 his incapacitation as a nonspecialist is considerately overlooked1 and he can confess1 without the slightest danger of discrediting his own utterances3 8,i am not 444 a biologist or palontologist4 ,but ,i have had the privilege of consorting familiarly with some of the very best representatives of those who have devoted their lives to the patient study of the matters involved in this controversy4 ,i think ,i quite understand their attitude40 7,harper's ,magazine1 ,june1 #aibb1 p4 #fh47 ,by his own testimony he is a scientific amateur1 but this does not1 in the least1 prevent him from 8speaking with authority0 or from being lionized in scientific circles as an evolutionary 8defender of the faith40 ,clearly1 it is the nature of their respective views1 and not the possession or absence of technical knowledge1 which makes ,robinson a favorite1 and ,driesch a persona non grata1 with 8the very best representatives0 of contemporary science4 8,science10 says a writer in the ,atlantic ,monthly 7,oct41 #aiae71 8has turned all philosophy out of doors except that which clings to its skirts2 it has thrown contempt on all learning that does not depend upon it2 and it has bribed the sketches by giving us immense material comforts40 ,here1 however1 we are concerned with the fact1 rather than the justice1 of this discrimination which the scientific world makes between philosopher and philosopher4 ,certain it is that ,robinson has received no end of encomiums from scientists1 who apparently lack the literary gifts to expound their own philosophy1 and that his claim to represent the views of a large and influential section of the scientific world is1 in all probability1 entirely correct4 ,it is this manifest approval of scientific men which lends especial interest to the remarks of this scientific dilettante1 and we shall quote them as expressing the prevalent scientific view on the origin of man1 a view which1 with but slight variations1 has persisted from the time of ,darwin down to the present day4 8,the recognition10 says ,robinson1 8that mankind is a species of animal1 is1 like other important discoveries1 illuminating40 7,science1 ,july #bh1 #aibb1 p4 #gd47 ,to refer to the recognition of man's animality as a discovery is a conceit too stupid for mere words to castigate4 ,surely1 there was no need of the profound research or delicate precision of modern science to detect the all too obvious similarity existing between man and beast4 ,mankind did not have to await the advent of an 8enlightened0 nineteenth1 or twentieth century to be assured of the truth of a commonplace so trite and palpable4 ,even the 8benighted0 scholastics of medieval infamy had wit enough to define man as a rational animal4 ,indeed1 it would be a libel on human intelligence to suppose that anyone1 in the whole history of human thought1 was ever sufficiently fatuous to dispute the patent fact that man is a sentient organism compounded of flesh1 blood1 bone1 and sinew like the brute4 ,the 8discovery0 that man is a species of animal dates from the year one of human existence1 and it is now high time for the novelty of this discovery to be worn off4 ,even as a difficulty against human superiority and immortality1 the 8recognition0 is by no means recent4 ,we find it squarely faced in a book of the ,old ,testament1 the entire book being devoted to the solution of the difficulty in question4 8,i said in my heart concerning the estate of the sons of men 444 that they might see they are themselves beasts4 ,for that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts2 even one thing befalleth them2 as the one dieth so dieth the other2 yea1 they have all one breath2 so that man hath no preeminence above a beast2 for all is vanity4 ,all go unto one place2 all are of the dust1 and all return to dust4 ,who knoweth the spirit of man whether it goeth upward1 and the spirit of the beast whether it goeth downward to the earth80 7,ecclesiastes1 ,,iii3 #ah-ba47 ,the sacred writer insists that1 so far as the body is concerned1 man and the brute stand on the same level2 but what of the human soul8 ,is it1 he asks1 resolvable into matter like the soul of a beast1 or is it a supermaterial principle destined1 not for time1 but for eternity8 ,at the close of the book1 the conclusion is reached that the latter alternative is the true solution of the riddle of human nature--8the dust returneth to the earth whence it was1 and the spirit returneth to ,god who gave it40 7,ch4 ,,xii1 v4 #g47 ,centuries1 therefore1 before the ,christian era1 this problem was formulated by ,ecclesiastes1 the ,jew1 and also1 as we shall presently see1 by ,aristotle1 the coryphus of ,greek philosophy4 ,nay1 from time immemorial man1 contrasting his aspirations after immortality with the spectacle of corporal death1 has appreciated to the full the significance of his own animality4 ,never was there question of whether man is1 or is not1 just as thoroughly an animal as any beast1 but rather of whether1 his animal nature being unhesitatingly conceded1 we are not1 none the less1 forced to recognize in him1 over and above this1 the existence of a spiritual mind or soul1 differentiating him from the brute and constituting him a being unique1 despite the unmistakable homologies discernible between bestial organisms and the human body4 ,everywhere and always mankind as a whole have manifested1 by the universal and uniquely human practice of burying the dead1 their unswerving and indomitable conviction that man is spirit as well as flesh1 an animal1 indeed1 yet animated by something not present in the animal1 namely1 a spiritual soul1 deathless and indestructible1 capable of surviving the decay of the organism and of persisting throughout eternity4 ,but1 if the human mind or soul is spiritual1 it is clear that it cannot be a product of organic evolution1 any more than it can be a product of parental generation4 ,on the contrary1 each and every human soul must be an immediate creation of the ,author of ,nature1 not evolved from the internal potentiality of matter1 but infused into matter from without4 ,the human soul is created in organized matter1 but not from it4 ,nor can the ,divine action1 in this case1 be regarded as a supernatural interposition2 for it supplements1 rather than supersedes1 the natural process of reproduction2 and1 since it is not in matter to produce spirit1 a creative act is demanded by the very nature of things4 ,evolution is nothing more nor less than a transmutation of matter1 and a transmutation of matter cannot terminate in the annihilation of matter and the constitution of non-matter or spirit4 ,if nothing of the terminus a quo persists in the final product1 we have substitution1 and not transmutation4 ,the evolution of matter1 therefore1 cannot progress to a point where all materiality is eliminated4 ,hence1 whatever proceeds from matter1 either as an emanation or an action1 will1 of necessity1 be material4 ,it should be noted1 however1 that by material we do not mean corporeal2 for material denotes not merely matter itself1 but everything that intrinsically depends on matter4 ,the term1 therefore1 is wider in its sense than corporeal1 because it comprises1 besides matter1 all the properties1 energies1 and activities of matter4 ,hence whatever is incapable of existence and activity apart from matter 7whether ponderable or imponderable7 belongs to the material1 as distinguished from the spiritual1 order of things4 ,the soul of a brute1 for example1 is not matter1 but it is material1 nevertheless1 because it is totally dependent on the matter of the organism1 apart from which it has neither existence nor activity of its own4 ,in the constitution of the sentient or animal soul1 matter reaches the culmination of its passive evolution4 ,true1 its inherent physicochemical forces do not suffice to bring about this consummation1 wherewith its internal potentiality is exhausted4 ,nevertheless1 the emergence of an animal soul from matter is conceivable1 given an agency competent to educe it from the intrinsic potentiality of matter2 for1 in the last analysis1 the animal soul is simply an internal modification of matter itself4 ,but1 if spirit is that which exists1 or is1 at least1 capable of existence1 apart from matter1 it goes without saying that spirit is neither derivable from1 nor resolvable into1 matter of any kind4 ,consequently1 it cannot be evolved from matter1 but must be produced in matter by creation 7i4e4 total production74 ,to make the human mind or soul a product of evolution is equivalent to a denial of its spirituality1 because it implies that the human soul like that of the brute1 is inherent in the potentiality of matter1 and is therefore a purely material principle1 totally dependent on the matter1 of which it is a perfection4 ,between such a soul and the sentient principle present in the beast1 there would be no essential difference of kind1 but only an accidental difference of degree2 and this is precisely what ,darwin and his successors have spared no effort to demonstrate4 ,james ,harvey ,robinson is refreshingly frank on this subject1 and we will therefore let him be spokesman for those who are more reticent3 8,it is the extraordinarily illuminating discovery 7sic7 of man's animalhood rather than evolution in general that troubles the routine mind4 ,many are willing to admit that it looks as if life had developed on the earth slowly1 in successive stages2 this they can regard as a merely curious fact and of no great moment if only man can be defended as an honorable exception4 ,the fact that we have an animal body may also be conceded1 but surely man must have a soul and a mind altogether distinct and unique from the very beginning bestowed on him by the ,creator and setting him off an immeasurable distance from any mere animal4 ,but whatever may be the religious and poetic significance of this compromise it is becoming less and less tenable as a scientific and historic truth4 ,the facts indicate that man's mind is quite as clearly of animal extraction as his body40 7,science1 ,july #bh1 #aibb1 p4 #ie--;italics his47 ,this language has1 at least1 the merit of being unambiguous1 and leaves us in no uncertainty as to where the writer stands4 ,it discloses1 likewise1 the animus which motivates his peculiar interest in transformistic theories4 ,if evolution were incapable of being exploited in behalf of materialistic philosophy1 ,mr4 ,robinson1 we may be sure1 would soon lose interest in the theory1 and would once more align himself with the company1 which he has so inappropriately deserted1 namely1 8the routine minds0 that regard evolution 8as a merely curious fact of no great moment40 ,be that as it may1 his final appeal is to the 8facts10 and it is to the facts1 accordingly1 that we shall go2 but they will not be the irrelevant 8facts0 of anatomy1 physiology1 and palontology4 ,sciences such as these confine their attention to the external manifestations of human life1 and can tell us nothing of man's inner consciousness4 ,it does not1 therefore1 devolve upon them to pronounce final judgment upon the origin of man4 ,for that which is the distinguishing characteristic of man is not his animal nature1 that he shares in common with the brute1 but his rational nature1 which alone differentiates him from 8a beast that wants discourse of reason40 ,we cannot settle the question as to whether or not man's mind is 8of animal extraction0 by comparing his body with the bodies of irrational vertebrates4 ,to institute the requisite comparison between the rational mentality of man and the purely sentient consciousness of irrational animals falls within the exclusive competence of psychology1 which studies the internal manifestations of life as they are presented to the intuition of consciousness1 rather than biology1 which studies life according to such of its manifestations as are perceptible to the external senses4 ,hence it is within the domain of psychology alone1 that man can be studied on his distinctively human1 or rational1 side1 and it is to this science1 accordingly1 that we must turn in our search for facts that are germane to the problem of the origin of man and the genesis of the human mind4 ,how little1 indeed1 does he know of human nature1 whose knowledge of it is confined to man's insignificant anatomy and biology1 and who knows nothing of the triumphs of human genius in literature1 art1 science1 architecture1 music1 and a thousand other fields6 ,psychology alone can evaluate these marvels1 and no other science can be of like assistance in solving the problem of whether man is1 or is not1 unique among all his fellows of the animal kingdom4 #b4 ,the ,science of the ,soul ,as a distinct science1 psychology owes its origin to ,aristotle1 whose 8,peri ,psyches0 is1 in all probability1 the first formal treatise on the subject4 ,through his father1 ,nichomachus1 who was court physician to ,philip of ,macedon1 he became acquainted1 at an early age1 with biological lore in the form of such medical botany1 anatomy1 and physiology as were commonly known in prescientific days4 ,subsequently1 his celebrated pupil1 ,alexander the ,great1 placed at his disposal a vast library1 together with extensive opportunities for biological research4 ,this enabled the philosopher to criticize and summarize the observations and speculations of his predecessors in the field1 and to improve upon them by means of personal reflection and research4 ,in writing his psychology1 he was naturally forced to proceed on the basis of the facts discoverable by internal experience 7introspection7 and unaided external observation4 ,of such facts as are only accessible by means of instrumentation and systematic experimentation1 he could1 of course1 know nothing1 since their exploration awaited the advent of modern mechanical and optical inventions4 ,but the factual foundation of his treatise1 though not extensive1 was solid1 so far as it went1 and his selection1 analysis1 and evaluation of the materials at hand was so accurate and judicious1 that the broad outlines of his system have been vindicated by the test of time1 and all the results of modern experimental research fit1 with surprising facility1 into the framework of his generalizations1 revision being nowhere necessary save in nonessentials and minor details4 ,wilhelm ,wundt1 the ,father of ,experimental ,psychology1 pays him the following tribute3 8,the results of my labors do not square with the materialistic hypothesis1 nor do they with the dualism of ,plato or ,descartes4 ,it is only the animism of ,aristotle which1 by combining psychology with biology1 results as a plausible metaphysical conclusion from ,experimental ,psychology40 78,grundzge der physiologischen ,psychologie10 #dte ,auflage1 ,,ii1 ,c4 #bc1 ,s4 #fcc47 ,literally translated1 the title of ,aristotle's work signifies a treatise concerning the soul4 ,it set a precedent for the scholastic doctors of the thirteenth century1 and de anima became with them a technical designation for all works dealing with this theme4 ,in the sixteenth century the selfsame usage was embalmed in the ,greek term psychology1 which was coined with a view to rendering the elliptic ,latin title by means of a single word4 ,melanchthon is credited with having originated the term1 which1 in its original use as well as its etymology1 denoted a science of the psyche or soul4 ,towards the close of the seventeenth century1 however1 the meaning of the term in question began to undergo a marvelous evolution1 of which the end is not yet4 ,the process was initiated by ,descartes1 under whose auspices psychology was changed from a science of the soul into a science of the mind4 ,then1 under the influence of ,hume and ,kant1 the noumenal mind disappeared1 leaving only phenomenal consciousness4 ,recently1 with the advent of ,watson1 even consciousness itself has been discarded and psychology has become a science of behavior4 ,and here1 for the time being1 at any rate1 the process has come to a stop1 just one step short of complete nihilism4 ,woodworth quotes the following waggish comment3 8,first psychology lost its soul1 then it lost its mind1 then it lost consciousness2 it still has behavior of a kind40 78,psychology1 the ,science of ,mental ,life10 p4 #b1 footnote47 ,this gradual degeneration of psychology from animism into behaviorism is one of the greatest ironies in the history of human thought4 ,all of this1 however1 was latent in the corrosive ,cartesian principle of 8scientific doubt40 ,facilis descensus ,averni6 ,it is easy to question the validity of this or that kind of human knowledge1 but difficult to arrest1 or even foresee1 the consequences which the remorseless logic of scepticism portends4 ,disintegration set in1 as has been said1 when ,descartes substituted his psychophysical dualism of mind and matter for ,aristotle's hylomorphic dualism of soul and body4 ,the ,french philosopher1 in an appendix to his 8,meditations10 which dates from #afgj1 expressly rejects the ,aristotelian term of soul or psyche1 and announces his preference for mind or spirit1 in the following words3 8,the substance in which thought immediately resides is here called mind 7mens1 esprit74 ,i here speak1 however1 of mens 7mind7 rather than anima 7soul71 for the latter is equivocal1 being frequently applied to denote what is material0 78,reply to the ,second ,objections10 p4 #hf74 ,henceforth psychology ceased to be a science of the soul1 and became1 instead1 a science of the mind4 ,descartes1 one must bear in mind1 divided the universe into two great realms of being1 namely3 the conscious and the unconscious1 the psychic world of mind and the physical world of matter1 unextended substance which thinks and extended substance which moves4 ,in man these two substantial principles were conceived as being united by the tenuous link of mere contact1 the spirit or mind remaining separate from1 and unmingled with1 its material partner1 the body4 ,the main trouble with this dualism is that it draws the line of demarcation at the wrong place4 ,reason and sense-consciousness are bracketed together above the line as being equally spiritual2 physiological processes and processes purely physicochemical are coupled below the line as being equally mechanical4 ,now1 when a brain-function such as sense-perception is introduced1 like another ,trojan ,horse1 into the citadel of spiritualism1 it is a comparatively easy task for materialism to storm and sack that citadel by demonstrating with a thousand neuro-physiological facts that all sensory functions are rigidly correlated with neurological processes1 that they are1 in short1 functions of the nervous system1 and therefore purely material in nature4 ,on the other hand1 once we retreat from the trench of distinction between the processes of unconscious or vegetative life and the physicochemical processes of the inorganic world1 that moment we have lost the strategic position in the conflict with mechanism1 and nothing avails to stay its triumphant onrush4 ,hence1 from first to last1 it is perfectly clear that the treacherous psychophysical dualism of ,descartes has done far more harm to the cause of spiritualism than all the assaults of materialism4 ,there is a ,latin maxim which says3 ,extrema sese tangunt--8,extremes come in contact with each other40 ,the ultraspiritualism of ,descartes by confounding spiritual1 with organic consciousness1 leads by the most direct route to the opposite extreme of crass materialism4 ,aristotle's dualism of matter and form1 which is but a physical application of his transcendental dualism of potency 7dynamis7 and act 7entelechy71 is very different from the ,cartesian dualism of the physical and the psychic4 ,according to the ,aristotelian view1 as we have seen in the last chapter1 all the physical entities or substantial units of nature 7both living and inorganic7 are fundamentally dual in their essence1 each consisting of a definitive principle called entelechy and a plastic principle called matter4 ,entelechy is the integrating determinant1 the source of the unit's coherence and of its differentiation from units of another type4 ,matter is the determinable and quantifying factor1 in virtue of which the unit is potentially-multiple and endowed with mass4 ,in the electro-chemical reactions of non-living substances 7synthesis1 analysis1 and transmutation71 entelechy is the variant and matter is the constant2 in the metabolic activities of living substances 7assimilation and dissimilation71 matter is the variant and entelechy is the constant4 ,this persistent entelechy of the living unit or organism is what ,aristotle terms the psyche or soul4 ,the latter1 therefore1 may be defined as the vital principle or primary source of life in the organism4 ,but in using such terms as 8soul0 and 8vital principle0 we are employing expressions against which not merely rabid mechanists1 but many conservative biologists as well1 see fit to protest4 ,the opposition of the latter1 however1 is found on closer scrutiny to be nominal rather than real4 ,it is the name which offends2 they have no objection to the thing signified4 ,wilson1 to cite a pertinent example1 rejects as meaningless all such terms as 8vital principle10 8soul10 etc4 8,they are words10 he avers1 8that have been written into certain spaces that are otherwise blank in our record of knowledge1 and as far as ,i can see no more than this40 78,biology10 p4 #bc1 #aijh47 ,yet he himself affirms again and again the existence of the reality which these terms 7understood in their ,aristotelian sense7 denote4 ,in discussing the relation of the tissue cell to the multicellular body1 for instance1 he speaks of 8a formative power pervading the growing mass as a whole40 78,the ,cell10 #bnd ed41 p4 #ei71 and1 in his recent lecture on the 8,physical ,basis of ,life10 he makes allusion to 8the integrating and unifying principle in the vital processes40 7,science1 ,march #i1 #aibc1 p4 #bhd47 ,it would seem1 therefore1 that ,wilson's aversion to such terms as soul and vital principle is based on the dynamic sense assigned to them by the neo-vitalists1 who1 as we have seen1 regard the vital principle as a force sui generis or a unique agent1 which operates intrusively among physicochemical factors in the rle of an active or efficient cause of vital functions4 ,that such is really the case1 appears from his rhetorical question3 8,shall we then join hands with the neo-vitalists in referring the unifying and regulatory principle to the operation of an unknown power1 a directive force1 an archus1 an entelechy or a soul80 7,loc4 cit41 p4 #bhe--;italics mine47 ,the objection1 however1 does not apply to these terms used in their ,aristotelian sense4 ,in the philosophy of the ,stagirite1 the soul1 like all other entelechies1 is a cause in the entitive1 but not in the dynamic1 order of things4 ,its efficacy is formal1 not efficient4 ,it is not an agent1 but a specifying type4 ,the organism must be integrated1 specified1 and existent before it can operate1 and hence its integration and specification by the soul is prior to all vital activity4 ,the soul is a constituent of being and not an immediate principle of action4 ,the soul is not even an entity 7in the sense of a complete and separate being71 but rather an incomplete entity or constituent of an entity4 ,it takes a complete entity to be an agent1 and the soul or vital entelechy is not an independent existent1 which is somehow inserted into the organism1 but an incomplete being which has no existence of its own1 but only coexistence1 in the composite that it forms with the organism4 ,nor is there any such thing as a special vital force resident in the organism4 ,the executive factors in all vital operations of the organic order are the physicochemical energies1 which are native to matter in general4 ,these forces1 as we have seen1 receive a reflexive orientation and are elevated to a higher plane of efficiency by reason of their association with an entelechy superior to the binding and type-determining principles present in inorganic units1 but they are not supplanted or superseded by a new executive force4 ,wilson's fear1 therefore1 that the experimental analysis of life is discouraged by vitalism1 inasmuch as this conception subtracts something from the efficiency of the physicochemical forces1 is groundless in the case of hylomorphic vitalism1 but is well-founded in the case of such systems as the neo-vitalism of ,driesch and the spiritualism of ,descartes4 ,summing up1 therefore1 we may say that the soul1 like other entelechies1 is consubstantial with its material substrate1 the body4 ,true it is more autonomous than are the inflexible entelechies of inorganic nature1 inasmuch as it is independent of any given atom1 molecule1 or cell in the organic aggregate4 ,such a degree of freedom1 for example1 is not possessed by the most complex molecules1 which show no other flexibility than tautomerism1 even this small readjustment involving a change in their specificity4 ,but this autonomy does not preclude the essential dependence of the soul upon the body4 ,generally speaking1 the soul is incapable of existence apart from its total substrate1 the organism4 ,we say1 generally speaking1 because1 as previously intimated1 an exception must be made in the case of the human soul1 which1 being1 as we shall see1 a self-subsistent and spiritual entelechy1 is by itself1 apart from its material substrate1 a sufficient subject of existence1 and is therefore capable of surviving the dissolution of its complementary principle1 the organism4 ,nevertheless1 even in man1 the soul forms one substance with the organism1 and the organism participates as a cofficient factor in all his vital functions1 both physiological and psychic1 excluding only the superorganic or spiritual functions of rational thought and volition1 whose agent and recipient is the soul alone4 ,in man1 then1 soul and body unite to form a single substance1 a single nature1 and a single person4 ,apart from the body1 the human soul is1 indeed1 a complete entity1 in the sense that it is capable of subsistence 7independent existence71 but1 in another sense1 it is not a complete entity1 because apart from the body it cannot constitute a complete nature or complete personality4 ,it is this essential incompleteness of the discarnate human soul that forms the natural basis of the ,christian doctrine of the ,resurrection of the ,dead4 ,here1 however1 it is important to note the difference between the hylomorphic spiritualism of ,aristotle and the psychophysical spiritualism of ,descartes4 ,by the latter all conscious or physic functions are regarded as spiritual4 ,the former1 however1 recognizes the fundamental difference which exists between the lower or animal1 and the higher or rational functions of our conscious life4 ,sense-perception and sensual emotion belong to the former class1 and must be regarded as organic functions1 whose agent and subject is neither the soul alone nor the organism alone1 but the soul-informed organism or substantial composite of body and soul4 ,rational thinking and willing1 on the contrary1 are classified as superorganic or spiritual functions1 inasmuch as they exclude the cogency of the organism and have the soul alone for their active cause and receptive subject4 ,the soul1 in fine1 is the formal principle or primary source of the threefold life in man1 namely1 the metabolic life1 which man shares with plants1 the sentient life1 which he shares with animals1 and the rational life1 which is uniquely human4 ,the human soul is often spoken of as the mind4 ,in their dictionary sense1 both terms denote one and the same reality1 namely1 the human entelechy or vital principle in man1 but the connotation of these terms is different4 ,the term soul signifies the vital principle in so far as it is the primary source of every kind of life in man1 that is1 vegetative1 sentient1 and rational4 ,the term mind1 however1 connoting conscious rather than unconscious life1 signifies the vital principle in so far as it is the root and ground of our conscious life 7both sentient and rational74 ,here1 however1 the distinction is of no great moment1 and the terms may be regarded as synonymous4 ,the definitions which we have given are1 of course1 blasphemous in the ears of our modern neo-,kantian phenomenalists1 whose preference is for a functional1 rather than a substantial1 mind or soul2 but we will pay our respects to them later4 ,it is clear1 however1 from what has been said1 that1 for evidences of the superiority and spirituality of the human soul1 we must recur1 not to the external manifestations of our nutritive life1 but to the internal manifestations of our conscious life4 ,the latter are wholly inaccessible to the external senses and perceptible only to the intuition of consciousness1 introspection1 or internal experience1 as it is variously called4 ,all our self-knowledge rests on the basis of introspection1 and without it the science of psychology would be impossible4 ,in fact1 not only psychology1 but the physical sciences as well1 depend for their validity on the testimony of consciousness2 for the external world is only knowable to the extent that it enters the domain of our consciousness4 ,recently1 as we have seen1 a tendency to discredit internal experience has arisen among materialistic extremists4 ,this 8tendency10 to quote the words of ,keyser1 8most notably represented by the behaviorist school of psychologists 7like ,professor ,watson1 for example71 is manifest in the distrust of introspections as a means of knowledge of mental phenomena and in the growing dependence of psychology upon external observation of animal and human behavior and upon physiological experiment1 as if matter were regarded #8as something much more solid and indubitable than mind' 7,bertrand ,russell740--,c4 ,j4 ,keyser1 ,science1 ,nov4 #be1 #aiba1 p4 #ebj4 ,since1 however1 all our knowledge depends on the validity of consciousness1 such a tendency is suicidal and destructive of all science1 whether physical or psychological4 ,the attempts1 therefore1 of mechanists1 like ,loeb1 and behaviorists1 like ,watson1 to dispense with consciousness overreach themselves4 ,for how can the mechanists know that there are such things as tropisms1 tactisms1 or reaction-systems1 how can the behaviorist study such things as 8situations10 8adjustments10 and ,s-,r-bonds1 how can the materialist become aware of the existence of molecules and atoms1 except through the medium of their own conscious or psychic states8 ,states of matter can be known only by means of states of mind1 and the former1 therefore1 cannot be any more real than the latter4 8,what1 after all10 asks ,cardinal ,mercier1 8is a fact of nature if the mind has not seized1 examined1 and assimilated it8 ,true1 the information of consciousness is often precarious4 ,for this reason we do well to aid and control it by scientific apparatus4 ,these apparatus1 however1 can only aid1 never supplant1 introspection4 ,the telescope does not replace the eye1 but extends its vision40 78,relation of ,exp4 ,psych4 to ,philosophy10 pp4 #dj1 #da--,trans4 of ,wirth47 #c4 ,the ,nature of the ,human ,soul ,now our inner consciousness bears unmistakable witness to the existence within us of an abiding subject of our thoughts1 feelings1 and desires4 ,in biology1 the soul is revealed to us as a binding-principle1 that obstructs dissolution of the organism1 and a persistent type that maintains its identity amid an incessant flux of matter and flow of energy4 ,clearer still is testimony of introspective psychology1 which reveals all our psychic activities and states as successive modifications of this permanent 8,i10 8self10 8personality10 or 8mind10 according as we choose to express it4 ,human language proves this most forcibly2 for the intramental facts and data of our conscious life simply cannot be so much as intelligibly expressed1 much less1 defined1 or differentiated from the extramental facts of the physical world1 without using terms that include a reference to this selfsame persistent subject of thought1 feeling1 and volition4 ,even inveterate phenomenalists1 like ,wundt1 ,james1 and ,titchener1 are obliged to submit to this inexorable linguistic law1 in common with their unscientific brethren1 the generality of mankind1 although they do so only after futile attempts at a 8scientific revision0 of grammar1 and with much grumbling over the 8barbarous conceptions0 of the gross-headed aborigines who invented human language4 ,be that as it may1 no formulation of mental facts is possible except in terms that either denote or connote this permanent source and ground of human thought and feeling1 as is apparent1 for example1 from such phrases as3 8,i think10 8,i wish10 8,i hear02 8mental states0 7i4 e4 of the mind72 psychic functions 7i4 e4 of the psyche72 subjective idealism 7i4 e4 of the subject72 a conscious act 7from con-scire3 8to know along with10 because in conscious acts the subject is known along with the object74 ,the phenomenalists occasionally succeed1 in their 8most precise0 passages1 in omitting to mention the person1 knower1 or thinker behind thought1 but they do so only at the cost of substituting personal pronouns1 and of thus bringing back through the window what they have just ejected by way of the door4 ,our consciousness1 therefore1 makes us invincibly aware of the existence of a superficially variable1 but radically unchangeable1 subject of our mental life4 ,it does not1 however1 tell us anything concerning the nature of this primary ground of thought1 whether1 for example1 it is identical with the cerebral cortex1 or something distinct therefrom1 whether it is phenomenal or substantial1 dynamic or entitive1 spiritual or material4 ,to decide these questions the unanalyzed factual data of internal experience do not suffice1 but they do suffice to establish the reality of the ego or subject of thought4 ,later we shall see that the analysis of these data1 when taken in conjunction with other facts1 forces us to predicate of the soul such attributes as substantiality1 simplicity1 and spirituality1 but here they are cited solely for their factual force and not for their logical implications4 ,the phenomenalistic schools of ,interactionism and ,psychophysical ,parallelism deny the substantiality of the soul1 and seek to resolve it into sourceless and subjectless processes4 ,a phenomenal mind or soul1 however1 could not be the primary ground of mental life1 for the simple reason that phenomena presuppose a supporting medium 7otherwise they would be self-maintaining1 and therefore1 substantial74 ,now that which presupposes cannot be a primary principle1 but only a secondary1 or tertiary principle4 ,consequently1 a functional mind could not be the primary and irreducible ground of mental life1 but only that of which it is a function1 whether that something is a material1 or a spiritual substance4 ,for the present1 we are not interested in the nature of this ultimate substrate1 we are content with the fact that it really exists4 ,phenomenalists 7like ,wundt1 ,paulsen1 and ,james7 are very inconsistent when they admit material molecules as the extended substrate of extramental or physical phenomena1 while denying the existence of the mind or ego as the inextended substrate of intramental or psychic phenomena4 ,all substance1 whether material or spiritual1 is inaccessible to the senses4 ,even material substrates are manifested only by their phenomena1 being in themselves supersensible and 8metaphysical40 ,if1 then1 the human understanding is inerrant in ascribing a material substrate to extramental phenomena1 then it is equally inerrant in attributing to intramental phenomena the intimate substrate called mind1 whether this substrate be a spiritual substance1 or a material substance like the substrate of physical phenomena and that of organic life4 ,as a matter of fact1 the ,psychophysical ,parallelists actually do reduce mental phenomena to a material substrate 7viz4 the cerebral cortex74 ,their phenomenalism1 which we will refute presently1 is but a disingenuous attempt to gloss over their fundamental materialism4 ,at all events1 they are willing to admit an ultimate substantial ground of thought and volition1 provided it is not claimed that this substrate is of a spiritual nature4 ,the bare existence of some substrate1 however1 is all that we assert1 for the present4 ,before leaving this topic1 we wish to call attention to the fact that the subject of thought and desire is active as well as passive4 ,mind1 in other words1 is not merely a persistent medium wherein passive mental states are maintained1 but an active and synthetic principle as well4 ,mental processes1 like those of judgment1 reasoning1 and recognition1 require a unitary and unifying principle1 which actively examines and compares our impressions and thoughts1 in order to discern their relations to one another and to itself4 ,materialistic psychology1 in spite of the plain testimony of consciousness1 is all for ignoring the mind in its active rle as the percipient of the identities and discrepancies of thought1 and for regarding mind as a mere complex of mental states or transient flux of fleeting imagery4 ,it is well1 then1 to bear in mind the indubitable facts of internal experience1 to which ,cardinal ,mercier calls attention4 8,english psychology10 he observes1 8had attempted a kind of anatomy of consciousness4 ,it made all consist in passive sensations or impressions4 ,these impressions came together1 fused1 dissociated under the guidance of certain laws1 principally those of similarity and dissimilarity4 ,the whole process was entirely passive without the intervention of any active subject4 ,it was psychology without a soul4 ,now that things are being examined a little more closely1 psychologists find that there are a lot of conscious states that are without the slightest doubt active on the part of the subject4 ,there are a number of mental states upon which the subject brings his attention to bear1 and attention 7from ad-tendere7 means activity4 ,ordinarily we do not know the intensity of a sensation without comparing it with another preceding one4 ,this work of comparison1 or1 as the ,english call it1 discrimination1 is necessarily activity4 ,the ,associationists had confounded the fact of coxistence with the perception of similarity or dissimilarity4 ,supposing even that the coxistence of two mental states were entirely passive1 it still remains true that the notion of their similarity or dissimilarity requires an act of perception4 ,it is absolutely impossible to conceive psychical life without an active subject which perceives itself as living1 notes the impressions it receives1 compares its acts1 associates and dissociates them2 in a word1 there can be no psychology without a perceiving subject which psychologists call esprit1 or with the ,english1 #8mind4'0 7,op4 cit41 pp4 #eb-ed--;italics his47 ,the conflict between phenomenalism and the clear testimony of consciousness is summed up in the following words of ,t4 ,fontaine3 8,if all things are phenomena1 then we ourselves can be nothing more than events unknown to one another2 in order1 then1 that such events may appear to us united1 so that we may be able to declare their succession within us1 it is necessary that something else besides them should exist2 and this something else1 this link that binds them together1 this principle that is conscious of their succession1 can be nothing else than a non-event or non-phenomenon1 namely1 a substance1 an ego substantially distinct from sensations40 78,la sensation et la pense10 p4 #bc47 ,for the phenomenalists1 mind is but a collective term for the phenomenal series of our transitory thoughts and feelings4 ,with ,wundt1 they discard the substantial or entitive soul for a dynamic or functional one1 8die aktuelle ,seele40 7,cf4 ,grundz4 der ,phys4 ,psych41 ed4 #eth1 ,,iii1 p4 #geh et seq47 ,thought antecedes itself by becoming its own thinker2 for ,titchener tells us3 8,the passing thought would seem to be the thinker40 78,pr4 of ,psych410 ,i1 p4 #cdb47 ,we do not think1 but thought thinks2 ,john does not walk1 but walking walks2 aeroplanes do not fly1 but flight flies2 air does not vibrate1 but vibration vibrates4 ,the phenomenalist objectivates his subjective abstractions1 divorces processes from their agents1 and substantializes phenomena4 ,the source of his error is a confusion of the ideal1 with the real1 order of things4 ,because it is possible for us to consider a thought apart from any determinate thinker1 by means of a mental abstraction1 he very falsely concludes that it is possible for a thought to exist without a concrete thinker4 ,it would be obviously absurd to suppose that the so-called ,grignard reaction could occur without definite reactants1 merely because we can think of it without specifying any particular kind of alkyl halide2 it would be preposterous to infer1 from the fact that vibration can be considered independently of any concrete medium such as air1 water1 or ether1 that therefore a pure vibration can exist without any vibrating medium2 and it is equally absurd to project an abstraction like subjectless thought into the realm of existent reality4 ,abstractions are ideal entities of the mind2 they can have no real existence outside the domain of thought4 ,hence to assign a real or extralogical existence to actions1 modalities1 and properties1 in isolation from the concrete subjects1 to which they belong1 is a procedure that is not legitimate in any other world than ,alice's ,wonderland1 where1 we are told1 the ,cheshire ,cat left behind his notorious grin long after his benign countenance had faded from view4 ,his faceless grin is a fitting comment on the neo-,kantian folly of those who1 as ,l4 ,chiesa says1 8speak of phenomena without substance1 of sensations without subject1 of thoughts without the ,ego1 to which they belong1 imitating in this way the poets1 who personify honor1 virtue1 beauty1 etc4 ,now all this proceeds exclusively from a confusion of the subjective abstraction with the reality1 and from the assumption that the phenomenon1 for example1 exists without substance1 because we are able 7by means of abstraction7 to consider the former independently of the latter40 78,la ,base del ,realismo10 p4 #ci47 ,in other words1 the mind is capable of separating 7representatively1 of course1 and not physically7 its own phenomena from itself1 but this is no warrant for transferring the abstractions thus formed from the ideal1 to the real1 order of things4 ,so much for the soul's substantiality1 but it is a simple1 as well as a substantial1 principle1 that is to say1 it is inextended1 uncompounded1 incorporeal1 and not dispersed into quantitative parts or particles4 ,in other words1 it is not a composite of constituent elements or complex of integral parts1 but something really distinct from the body and pertaining to a different order of reality than matter4 ,this1 as we have seen1 does not necessarily mean that it is immaterial1 in the sense of being intrinsically independent of matter4 ,in a word1 simplicity does not involve spirituality 7absolute immateriality74 ,not only plant and animal souls1 but even mineral entelechies1 are simple1 in the negative sense of excluding extension1 corporeality and dispersal into quantitative parts1 but they are1 none the less1 intrinsically dependent on matter and are therefore material principles4 ,that the soul or vital entelechy is really distinct from its material substrate is apparent from the perennial process of metabolism enacted in the living organism4 ,in this process1 matter is the variant and entelechy or specific type is the constant4 ,hence the two principles are not only distinct1 but separable4 ,moreover1 the soul's rle as a binding-principle that obstructs dissolution is incompatible with its dispersal into quantitative parts2 for such a principle1 far from being able to bind1 would require binding itself1 and could not1 therefore1 be the primary source of unification in the organism4 ,finally1 the soul must be incorporeal2 since1 if it were a corporeal mass1 it could not be 8a formative power pervading the growing mass as a whole0 7,wilson72 for this would involve the penetration of one body by another4 ,consequently1 the soul is a simple1 inextended1 incorporeal reality undispersed into quantitative parts4 ,introspective psychology bears witness to the same truth2 for consciousness reinforced by memory attests the substantial permanence of our personal identity4 ,we both think and regulate our practical conduct in accordance with this sense of unchanging personal identity4 ,all recognition of the past means simply this1 that we perceive the substantial identity of our present1 with our past1 selves throughout all the experiences and vicissitudes of life4 ,there is an inmost core of our being which is unchanging and which remains always identical with itself1 in spite of the flow of thought and the metabolic changes of the life-cycle4 ,it is this that gives us the sense of being always identically the same person1 from infancy to maturity1 and from maturity to old age4 ,it is this that constitutes the thread of continuity which links our yesterdays with today1 and makes us morally responsible for all the deliberate deeds of a lifetime4 ,courts of law do not acquit a criminal because he is in a different frame of mind from that which induced him to commit murder1 nor do they excuse him on the score that metabolism has made him a different mass of flesh from that which perpetrated the crime4 ,such philosophies as phenomenalism and materialism are purely academic4 ,even their advocates dare not reduce them to consistent practice in everyday life4 ,nor can the cases of alternating personalities be adduced as counterevidence4 ,in the first place1 these cases are psychopathic and not normal4 ,in the second1 they are due1 not to a modification of personality itself1 but to a modification in the perception of personality4 ,since this perception is1 as we shall see1 extrinsically dependent on cerebral imagery1 any neuropathic affection is liable to modify the perception of personality by seriously disturbing the imagery1 on which it depends4 ,but 7pace ,wundt and ,james7 the perception of personality is one thing1 and personality itself quite another4 ,perception does not produce its objects1 but presupposes them1 and self-perception is no exception to this rule4 ,introspection1 therefore1 does not create our personality1 but reveals and represents it4 ,if then to the intuition of consciousness our personality appears as an unchanging principle that remains always substantially identical with itself1 it follows that this perception must be terminated by something more durable than a flux of transient molecules or a stream of fleeting thought4 ,unless this perceptive act has for its object some unitary and uniformly persistent reality distinct from our composite1 corruptible bodies1 and not identified with our transitory thoughts1 this sense of permanent personal identity would be utterly impossible4 ,materialism1 which recognizes nothing more in man than a decaying organism1 a mere vortex of fluent molecules1 is at a loss to account for our consciousness of being always the same person4 ,phenomenalism1 which identifies mind or self with the 8thought-stream10 is equally impotent to account for this sense of our abiding sameness4 ,james' attempt at a phenomenalistic explanation of the persistent continuity of self1 on the assumption that each passing thought knows its receding predecessor and becomes known1 in turn1 by its successor1 is puerile4 ,to pass over other flaws1 this absurd theory encounters an insuperable difficulty in sleep1 which interrupts1 for a considerable interval1 the flow of conscious thought4 ,thought is a transient reality1 which passes1 so far as its actuality is concerned1 and can only remain in the form of a permanent effect4 ,unless1 therefore1 there were some persistent medium in which the last waking thought could leave a permanent vestige of itself1 the process of relaying the past could never be resumed1 and we would lose our personal identity every twenty-four hours4 ,the mind1 or subject of thought1 then1 must be an abiding and unitary principle distinct from our composite bodies1 and from our manifold and fleeting thoughts4 ,finally1 to the two foregoing attributes of the human soul 7substantiality and simplicity71 we must add a third and crowning attribute1 namely1 spirituality4 ,it is this1 and this alone1 that differentiates the human from the bestial soul1 which latter is but an incomplete complement of matter1 incapable of existence apart from matter1 and doomed to perish with the dissolution of the organism1 as the cylindrical form of a candle perishes with the consumption of the wax by the flame4 ,all the psychic activities of the brute1 such as sensation1 object-perception1 imagination1 associative memory1 sensual emotion1 etc41 are organic functions of the sensitivo-nervous type4 ,in all of them the agent and recipient is not the soul alone1 but the psycho-organic composite of soul and organism1 that is1 the soul-informed sensory and central neurons of the cerebrospinal system4 ,the sensory neurons are nerve cells that transmit centerward the excitations of physical stimuli received by the external sense organs or receptors1 in which their axon-fibers terminate4 ,these receptors and sensory neurons are extended material organs proportioned and specialized for receiving physical impressions from external bodies1 either directly through surface-contact with the bodies themselves or their derivative particles 7e4g4 in touch1 taste and smell71 or indirectly through surface-contact with an extended vibrant medium such as air1 water1 or ether 7e4g4 in hearing and sight74 ,the central neurons of the cerebral cortex are1 as it were1 the tablets1 upon which the excitations transmitted thither by the sensory neurons1 record the extended neurograms that constitute the physical basis of the concrete imagery of memory and imagination4 ,interior senses1 then1 like memory and imagination1 merely continue and combine what was prexistent in the exterior senses4 ,their composite imagery is rigidly proportioned to the extended neurograms imprinted on the cerebral neurons1 and these neurograms1 in turn1 are determined both qualitatively and quantitatively by the physical impressions received by the receptors1 and these impressions1 finally1 are exactly proportioned to the action of the material stimuli in contact with the receptors4 ,thus the composite images of imagination as well as those of direct perception are proportioned to the underlying neurograms of the cortex and correspond exactly1 as regards quality1 intensity1 and extensity1 to the original stimulus affecting the external receptors4 ,hence men born blind can never imagine color1 nor can men born deaf ever imagine sound4 ,an inextended principle1 such as the discarnate soul1 cannot receive or record impressions from extended vibrant media1 or from extended corporeal masses4 ,for this the soul requires the intrinsic coperation of material receptors4 ,now1 the highest cognitive and appetitive functions of the brute 7e4g4 sense-perception and emotion7 are1 as has been stated1 of the sensitivo-nervous or psycho-organic type1 that is1 they are functions in which the material organism intimately coperates2 brute animals give no indication of having so much as a single function1 which proceeds from the soul alone and which is not communicated to the organism4 ,hence the bestial soul is 8totally immersed0 in matter2 as regards both operation and existence1 it is 8intrinsically dependent0 upon its material complement1 the organism4 ,it never operates save in conjunction with the latter1 and its sole reason for existence is adequately summed up in saying that it exists1 not for its own sake1 but merely to vivify and sensitize the organism4 ,consequently1 the brute soul1 though inextended and incorporeal1 belongs1 not to the spiritual1 but to the material1 order of things4 ,is the human soul equally material in nature1 or does it belong to the spiritual category of being8 ,the state of the question has long since been formulated for us by ,aristotle3 8,a further difficulty10 he says1 8arises as to whether all attributes of the soul are also shared by that which has the soul or whether any of them are peculiar to the soul itself3 a problem which it is imperative1 and yet by no means easy1 to solve4 ,it would appear that in most cases it neither acts nor is acted upon apart from the body3 as1 e4g41 in anger1 courage1 desire1 and sensation in general4 ,thought1 if anything1 would seem to be peculiar to the soul4 ,yet if thought is a sort of imagination1 or something not independent of imagination1 it will follow that not even thought is independent of the body4 ,if1 then1 there be any functions or affections of the soul that are peculiar to it1 it will be possible for the soul to be separated from the body3 if1 on the other hand1 there is nothing peculiar to it1 the soul will not be capable of separate existence40 78,peri ,psyches10 ,bk4 ,i1 chap4 ,i1 #i47 ,we shall see that the human soul has certain operations which it discharges independently of the intrinsic cogency of the organism1 e4g41 abstract thought 7not to be confounded with the concrete imagery of the imagination7 and deliberate volition 7to be distinguished from the urge of the sensual appetite74 ,hence1 over and above the organic functions1 which it discharges in conjunction with the material organism1 the human soul has superorganic functions1 of which it is itself1 in its own right1 the exclusive agent and recipient4 ,in other words1 it exists for its own sake and not merely to perfect the body4 ,the ,aristotelian argument for the spirituality of the human soul consists in the application of a self-evident principle or axiom to certain facts of internal experience4 ,the axiom in question is the following3 8,the nature of an agent is revealed by its action02 or1 to phrase it somewhat differently3 8,every being operates after the same manner that it exists40 ,the factual data1 to which reference is made1 are man's higher psychic functions1 in which the soul alone is the active cause and receptive subject1 namely3 the rational or superorganic functions of thinking and willing4 ,the argument may be formulated thus3 ,every agent exists after the same manner that it operates4 ,but in rational cognition and volition the soul acts without the co-agency of the material organism4 ,therefore the human soul can exist without the coexistence of the material organism4 ,but this is tantamount to saying that it is a spiritual reality irreducible to matter and incapable of derivation from matter4 ,for we define that as spiritual1 which exists1 or is1 at least1 capable of existing1 without matter4 ,consequently1 the human soul is a supermaterial and immortal principle1 which does not need the body to maintain itself in existence1 and can1 on that account1 survive the death and dissolution of its material complement1 the organism4 ,such a reality1 as we have seen1 cannot be a product of evolution1 but can only come into existence by way of creation4 ,the axiom1 that activity is the expression or manifestation of the entity which underlies it1 needs but little elucidation4 ,in the genesis of human knowledge1 the dynamic is prior to both the static and the entitive4 ,we deduce the nature of the cause from the changes or effects that it produces4 ,action1 in short1 is the primary datum upon which our knowledge of being rests4 ,it is the spectrum of solar light emitted by them1 which enables us to determine the nature of the chemical elements present in the distant ,sun4 ,it is the reaction of an unknown compound with a test reagent that furnishes the chemist with a clue to its composition and structure4 ,it is the special type of tissue degeneration caused by the specific toxin engendered by an invisible disease germ that enables the pathologists to identify the latter1 etc41 etc4 ,so much for the axiom4 ,regarding the psychological facts1 a more lengthy exposition is required4 ,to begin with1 there is prima facie evidence against the contention that the higher psychic functions in man are independent of the organism4 ,injury and degeneration of the cerebral cortex result 7very often1 at least7 in insanity and idiocy4 ,reason1 therefore1 is in some way dependent upon the organism4 ,babies1 too1 are incapable of rational thought until such a time as the nervous system is fully developed4 ,obviously1 then1 rational functions cannot be spiritual1 inasmuch as they are not independent of the organism4 ,this time-honored objection of materialists is based on a misapprehension4 ,it falsely assumes that spirituality excludes every kind of dependence upon a material organism1 and that our assertion of the soul's independence of matter is an unqualified assertion4 ,this1 however1 is far from being the case4 ,it is only intrinsic 7subjective71 and not extrinsic 7objective71 independence of the organism which is here affirmed4 ,an analogy from the sense of sight will serve to make clear the meaning of this distinction4 ,in the act of seeing a tree1 for example1 our sight is dependent upon a twofold corporeal element1 namely1 the eye and the tree4 ,it is dependent upon the eye as upon a corporeal element intrinsic to the visual sense1 the eye being a constituent part of the agent and subject of vision2 for it is not the soul alone which sees1 but rather the soul-informed retina and neurons of the psycho-organic composite4 ,the eye enters as an essential ingredient into the intimate constitution of the visual sense4 ,it is a constituent part of the specific cause of vision1 and it can therefore be said with perfect propriety that the eye sees4 ,such dependence upon a material element is called intrinsic or subjective dependence1 and is utterly incompatible with spirituality on the part of that which is thus dependent4 ,but the dependence of sight upon an external corporeal factor1 like a tree or any other visible object1 is of quite a different nature4 ,here the corporeal element is outside of the seeing subject and does not enter as an ingredient into the composition of the principal and specific agent of vision4 ,true the tree1 which is seen1 is construmental as a provoking stimulus and an objective exemplar1 but its concurrence is of an extrinsic nature1 not to be confounded with the intrinsic co-agency of the eye in the act of vision4 ,hence1 in no sense whatever can the tree be said to see2 for the tree is merely an object1 not the principal and specific cause1 of vision4 ,when the dependence of an agent upon a corporeal element is of this sort1 it is termed extrinsic or objective dependence4 ,such dependence upon a material element is perfectly compatible with spirituality1 which does1 indeed1 exclude all materiality from the specific agent and subject of a psychic act1 but does not necessarily exclude materiality from the object contemplated in such an act4 ,hence the fact that the thinking soul must abstract its rational concepts from the concrete imagery of a cerebral sense1 like the imagination1 in no wise detracts from its spirituality1 because the dependence of abstract thought upon such imagery is objective or extrinsic1 and not subjective or intrinsic4 ,psychologists of the sensationalist school have striven to obscure the fundamental distinction which exists between rational thought and the concomitant cerebral imagery4 ,it is1 however1 far too manifest to escape attention1 as the healthy reaction of the modern school of ,wrzburg indicates4 8,it cost me great resolution10 says ,dr4 ,f4 ,e4 ,schultze1 a member of this school1 8to say1 that1 on the basis of immediate experiment1 appearances and sensible apprehensions are not the only things that can be experienced4 ,but finally ,i had to resign myself to my fate40 78,beitrag zur ,psychologie des ,zeitbewusstseins10 p4 #bgg47 ,but thought is not only distinct from imagery1 often there is marked contrast between the two1 both as regards subjective1 and objective1 characters4 ,thus our thought may be perfectly clear1 precise1 and pertinent1 while the accompanying imagery is obscure1 fragmentary1 and irrelevant4 8,what enters into consciousness so fragmentarily1 so sporadically1 so very accidentally as our mental images10 exclaims ,karl ,bhler 7also of ,wrzburg71 8can not be looked upon as the well-knitted1 continuous content of our thinking40 7,archiv4 fr die ges4 ,psychol41 #i1 #aijg1 p4 #cag47 ,the same contrast exists with respect to their objective characters4 ,imagination represents by means of one and the same image what reason represents by means of two distinct concepts1 e4g4 an oasis and a mirage2 and1 vice versa1 reason represents under the single general concept of a rose objects that imagination is forced to represent by means of two distinct images1 e4g41 a yellow1 and a white rose4 ,imagery depicts only the superficial or exterior properties of an object1 whereas thought penetrates beneath the phenomenal surface to interior properties and supersensible relationships4 ,the sensory percept apprehends the existence of a fact1 while the rational concept analyzes its nature4 ,hence sense-perception is concerned with the reality of existence1 while thought is concerned with the reality of essence4 ,certain ,american psychologists employ the term imageless thought to designate abstract concepts4 ,the expression is liable to be misunderstood4 ,it should not be construed as excluding all concomitance and concurrence of sensible imagery1 in relation to the process of thought4 ,what is really meant is that sensible appearances do not make up the sum-total of our internal experiences1 but that we are also aware of mental acts and states which are not reducible to imagery4 ,in other words1 we experience thought2 and thought and imagery1 though concomitant1 are not commensurable4 ,the clarity and coherence of thought does not depend on the clarity or germaneness of the accompanying imagery1 nor is it ever adequately translatable into terms of that imagery4 ,thus the universal triangle of geometry1 which is not right1 nor oblique1 nor isosceles1 neither scalene nor equilateral1 neither large nor small1 neither here nor there1 neither now nor then1 is not visualizable in terms of concrete imagery1 although we are clearly conscious of its significance in geometrical demonstrations4 ,imagery differs according to the person1 one man being a visualist1 another an audist1 another a tactualist1 another a motor-verbalist1 etc4 ,but thought is the same in all1 and consequently it is thought1 and not imagery1 which we convey by means of speech4 ,helen ,keller1 whose imagery is mainly motor and tactile1 can exchange views with an audist or visualist on the subject of geometry1 even though the amount of imagery which she has in common with such persons is negligible4 8,eine ,bedeutung10 says ,bhler1 8kann man berhaupt nicht vorstellen1 sondern nur wissen10 and ,binet1 in the last sentence of his 8,l'tude exprimentale de l'intelligence10 formulates the following conclusion3 8,finally--and this is the main fact1 fruitful in consequences for the philosophers--the entire logic of thought escapes our imagery40 ,nevertheless1 thought does not originate in the total absence of imagery1 but requires a minimal substrate of sensible images1 upon which it is objectively1 if not subjectively1 dependent4 ,the nature of this objective dependence is explained by the ,scholastic theory concerning the origin of concepts4 ,according to this theory1 the genesis of our general and abstract knowledge is as follows3 7#a7 ,we begin with sense-perception1 say of boats differing in shape1 size1 color1 material1 location1 etc4 7#b7 ,imagination and sense-memory retain the composite and concrete imagery synthesized or integrated from the impressions of the separate external senses and representing the boats in all their factual particularity1 individuality1 and materiality1 as existent here and now1 or there and then1 as constructed of such and such material 7e4g41 of wood1 or steel1 or iron1 or concrete71 as having determinate sizes1 shapes1 and tonnages1 as painted white1 or gray1 or green1 as propelled by oar1 or sail1 or turbine1 etc4 7#c7 ,then the active intellect exerts its abstractive influence upon this concrete imagery1 accentuating the essential features which are common to all1 and suppressing the individuating features which are peculiar to this or that boat1 so that the essence of a boat may appear to the cognitive intellect without its concomitant individuation--the essence of a boat being1 in this way1 isolated from the peculiarities thereof and its various qualities from their subject 7representatively1 of course1 and not physically74 7#d7 ,the imagery thus predisposed1 being no longer immersed in matter1 but dematerialized by the dispositive action of the active intellect1 becomes construmental with the latter in producing a determination in the cognitive intellect4 7#e7 ,upon receiving this determination1 the cognitive intellect1 which has hitherto been1 as it were1 a blank tablet with nothing written upon it1 reacts to express the essence or nature of a boat by means of a spiritual representation or concept--the abstractive act of the active intellect is dispositive1 inasmuch as it presents what is common to all the boats perceived without their differentiating peculiarities2 the abstractive act of the cognitive intellect1 however1 is cognitive1 inasmuch as it considers the essence of a boat without considering its individuation4 ,such is the abstractive process by which our general and abstract concepts are formed4 ,from a comparison of two concepts of this sort the process of judgment arises1 and from the comparison of two concepts with a third arises the process of mediate inference or reasoning4 ,volition1 too1 is consequent upon conception1 and hence an act of the will 7our rational appetite71 such as the desire of sailing in a boat1 entails the prexistence of some conceptual knowledge of the nature of a boat4 ,volition1 therefore1 presupposes thought1 and thought presupposes imagination1 which supplies the sensible imagery that undergoes the aforesaid process of analysis or abstraction4 ,such imagery1 however1 is a function of the cerebral cortex1 and1 for this reason1 the normal exercise of the imagination presupposes the cerebral cortex in a normal physiological condition2 and anything that disturbs this normal condition of the cortex will directly disturb the imagery of the imagination1 and therefore indirectly impede the normal exercise of conceptual thought1 which is abstracted from such imagery4 ,hence it is clear that the activity of both the intellect and the will is objectively dependent upon the organic activity of the imagination1 and1 in consequence1 indirectly dependent upon the physiological condition of the cerebral cortex1 which is the organ of the imagination4 ,since1 however1 this dependence is objective rather than subjective1 it does not1 as we have seen1 conflict with the spirituality of rational thought4 ,the nature of conceptual thought is such as to exclude the participation of matter as a constituent of its specific agent and receptive subject4 ,the objects of a cerebral sense like the imagination are endowed with extension1 color1 shape1 volume1 mass1 temperature1 and other physical properties1 in virtue of which they can set up vibrations in an extended medium or modify an extended organ by immediate physical contact4 ,but1 while imagination makes us conscious of objects capable of stimulating extended material organs1 the objects1 of which we are conscious in abstract thinking1 are divested of all the sensible properties1 extension1 and specific energies1 which would enable them to modify a material neuron1 or produce a physical impression upon a material receptor of any kind whatever4 ,between an extended material receptor1 like a sense-organ or a cerebral neuron1 and the nondimensional1 dematerialized object or content of an abstract thought1 like science1 heroism1 or morality1 there is no conceivable proportion4 ,how can a material organ be affected by what is supersensible1 unextended1 imponderable1 invisible1 intangible1 and uncircumscribed by the limitations of space and time8 ,extended receptors are necessary for picking up the vibrations of a tridimensional medium 7like air or ether71 and they are1 likewise1 essential for the reception of impressions produced by surface-contact with an exterior corporeal mass4 ,in short1 sensory neurons are needed to receive and transmit inward the quantitative and measurable excitations of the material stimuli of the external world1 and central neurons are required as tablets upon which these incoming excitations may imprint extended neurograms1 that are proportionate in intensity and extensity to the external stimulus apprehended1 and that underlie and determine the concrete imagery 7of which they are the physical basis74 ,but when it comes to perceiving and representing the meaning of duty1 truth1 error1 cause1 effect1 psychology1 means1 end1 entity1 logarithms1 etc41 our mind can derive no benefit from the coperation of a material organ4 ,in such thinking we are conscious of that which could not make an impression nor leave a record upon material receptors like neurons4 ,to employ a material organ for the purpose of perceiving abstract essences and qualities would be as futile and pointless as an attempt to stop a nondimensional1 unextended1 intangible baseball with a catcher's glove4 ,hence the services of material centers and receptors may be dispensed with1 so far as rational thought is concerned4 ,rational thought cannot utilize the intrinsic cogency of the organism1 and it is therefore a superorganic or spiritual function4 ,that conceptual thought is in no wise communicated to the organism1 but subjected in the spiritual soul alone1 is likewise apparent from the data furnished by introspection4 ,the conceiving mind apprehends even material objects according to an abstract or spiritualized mode of representation4 ,in other words1 in conceiving material objects we expurgate them of their materiality and material conditions1 endowing them with a dematerialized mode of mental existence which they could never have1 if subjected in their own physical matter1 or in the organized matter of the cerebral cortex4 ,thus1 in forming our concept of a material object like a boat1 we spiritualize the boat by separating 7representatively1 of course1 and not physically7 its nature or essence from the determinate matter 7e4g41 wood1 or steel7 of which it is made1 and by divesting it of the material and concrete conditions which define not only its physical existence outside of us1 but also its imaginal existence within us as a concrete image in our imagination4 ,in other words1 we isolate the type or form of a given object from its material substrate and liberate it from the limiting material and concrete individuation1 which confine it to a single material subject and localize it definitely in space and time4 ,now1 it is axiomatic that whatever is received is received according to the nature of the receiver4 ,water1 for example1 assumes the form of the receptacle into which it is poured1 and a picture painted upon canvas is necessarily extended according to the extension of the canvas4 ,if1 therefore1 our intellect endows even the material objects1 which it perceives1 with a dematerialized or spiritualized mode of representation1 it follows that the intellect itself is a spiritual power and not an organic sense immersed in concretifying and individualizing matter4 ,certainly1 this ideal or spiritualized mode of existence does not emanate from the material object without nor yet from its vicarious material image in our organic imagination 7which1 in point of fact1 is absolutely impotent to imagine anything except concrete1 singular things in all their determinate individuation and quantification74 ,thought1 then1 with its abstract mode of presentation1 cannot1 like imagery1 be subjected in the animated or soul-informed cortex1 but must have the spiritual mind alone as its receptive subject4 ,our abstract or dematerialized mode of conceiving material objects is a subjective character of thought1 proceeding from1 and manifesting1 the spirituality of the human mind1 which represents even material objects in a manner that accords with its own spiritual nature4 ,but it is not only in the process of abstraction1 but also in that of reflection1 that rational thought manifests its superorganic or spiritual character4 ,the human mind knows that it knows and understands that it understands1 thinks of its own thoughts and of itself as the agent and subject of its thinking4 ,it is conscious of its own conscious acts1 that is to say1 it reflects upon itself and its own acts1 becoming an object to itself4 ,the thinking ego becomes an object of observation on the part of the thinking ego1 which acquires self-knowledge by this process of reflective thought4 ,in introspection1 that which observes is identical with that which is observed4 ,now such a capacity of self-observation cannot reside in matter1 cannot be spatially commensurate with a material organ nor inseparably attached thereto4 ,it is possible only to an immaterial or spiritual principle1 devoid of mass and extension1 and not subject to the law of the impenetrability of matter4 ,in virtue of the law of impenetrability1 no two material particles1 no two bodies1 no two integral parts of the same body1 can occupy one and the same place4 ,one part of a body can1 indeed1 act on another part extrinsic to itself2 but one and the same part or particle cannot act upon itself4 ,to become at once observed and observer1 a material organ would have to split itself in two1 so that the part watched could be distinct from1 and spatially external to1 the part watching4 ,the power of perfect reflection1 therefore1 must reside in the spiritual soul1 and cannot be bound to1 and coxtensive with1 a material organ4 ,only in this supposition can there be a return of the subject upon and into itself1 only in this supposition can there be that identification of observed and observer implied by the process of reflection4 ,h4 ,grnder1 in his 8,psychology without a ,soul10 gives a graphic reductio ad absurdum of the contrary assumption3 8,a fairy tale10 he says1 8tells of a knight who was beheaded by his victorious foe4 ,but1 strange to relate1 the vanquished knight rose to his feet1 seized his severed head and bore it off1 as in triumph4 ,the most remarkable part1 however1 of the story is that with a last effort of gallantry he took his own head1 and--kissed its brow4 ,the climax of this fairy tale is no more absurd than the assumption that a material organ can know itself and philosophize on itself4 ,only if we admit with the scholastics a simple soul intrinsically independent of any bodily organism1 can we explain the possibility of perfect psychological reflexion40 7,cf4 pp4 #aic1 #aid47 ,for the rest the impossibility of introspection on the part of a material organ is so evident that the materialists themselves freely concede it1 and being unwilling to admit the spirituality of the human intellect1 they are forced to resort to the disingenuous expedient of denying the fact of reflection on the part of the human mind4 8,it is obvious10 says ,auguste ,comte1 8that by an invincible necessity the human mind can observe directly all phenomena except its own4 ,we understand that a man can observe himself as a moral agent1 because in that case he can watch himself under the action of the passions which animate him1 precisely because the organs that are the seat of those passions are distinct from those that are destined for the functions of observation4444 ,but it is manifestly impossible to observe intellectual phenomena whilst they are being produced4 ,the individual thinking cannot divide himself in two1 so that one half may think and the other watch the process4 ,since the organ observing and the one to be observed are identical1 there can be no self-observation40 78,cours de philosophie positive10 lire leon47 ,but an argument is of no avail against a fact1 and1 as a matter of fact1 we do reflect4 ,it is by introspection or reflective thought that we discriminate between our present and our past thoughts1 and become conscious of our own consciousness4 ,our intellect even reflects upon its own act of reflection1 and so on indefinitely1 so that1 unless we are prepared to accept the absurd alternative of an infinite series of thinkers1 we have no choice but to identify the subject knowing with the subject known4 ,that our intellect is conscious of its own operations and attentive to its own thoughts1 is an evident fact of internal experience1 and it is preposterous to tilt against facts by means of syllogisms4 ,when ,zeno concocted his aprioristic 8proof0 of the impossibility of translatory movement1 his sophism was refuted by the simple process of walking--solvitur ambulando4 ,in like manner1 the ,comtean sophism concerning the impossibility of reflection is refuted by the simple act of mental reflection--solvitur reflectendo4 ,for the rest1 we readily concede ,comte's contention that an organ is incapable of reflection or self-observation1 but we deny his tacit assumption that our cognitive powers are all of the organic type4 ,our intellect1 which attends to its own phenomena1 thinks of its own thought and reasons upon its own reasoning1 cannot be bound to1 or coextensive with1 a material organ1 but must be free from any corporeal organ and rooted in a spiritual principle4 ,in a word1 reflective thought is a superorganic function expressing the spiritual nature of the human mind4 ,another proof of the superorganic nature of the human intellect as compared with sentiency1 both exterior and interior1 is one adduced by ,aristotle himself3 8,but that the impassivity of the sense10 he says1 8is different from that of intellect is clear if we look at the sense organs and at sense4 ,the sense loses its power to perceive1 if the sensible object has been too intense2 thus it cannot hear sound after very loud noises1 and after too powerful colors or odors it can neither see nor smell4 ,but the intellect1 when it has been thinking on an object of intense thought1 is not less1 but even more1 able to think of inferior objects4 ,for sense-perception is not independent of the body1 whereas the intellect is40 78,peri ,psyches10 ,bk4 ,,iii1 ,ch4 iv1 #e47 ,this temporary incapacitation of the senses consequent upon powerful stimulation is a common experience embalmed in such popular expressions as 8a deafening noise10 8a blinding flash10 8a dazzling light10 8a numbing pain10 etc4 ,weber's law of the differential threshold tells us that the intensity of sensation does not increase in the same proportion as that of the stimulus4 ,on the contrary1 the more intense the previous stimulus has been1 the greater must be the increment added to the subsequent stimulus before it can produce a perceptible increase in the intensity of sensation4 ,in short1 stimulation of the senses temporarily decreases their sensitivity with reference to supervening stimuli4 ,the reason for this momentary loss of the power to react normally is evidently due to the organic nature of the senses4 ,their activity entails a definite and rigidly proportionate process of destructive metabolism in their bodily substrate1 the organism4 ,in other words1 the exercise of sense-perception involves a commensurate process of decomposition in the neural tissue1 which must afterwards be compensated by a corresponding assimilation of nutrient material1 before the sense can again react with its pristine vigor4 ,this process of recuperation requires time and temporarily inhibits the reactive power of the sense in question1 the duration of this repair work being determined by the amount of neural decomposition caused by the reaction of the sense to the previous stimulus4 ,when1 therefore1 a weaker stimulus supervenes in immediate succession to a stronger one1 the sense is incapable of perceiving it4 ,all organic activity1 in short1 such as sense-perception and imagination1 is rigidly regulated by the metabolic law of waste and repair4 ,with the intellect1 however1 the case is quite different4 ,the intellect is neither debilitated nor stupefied by the discovery of truths that are exceptionally profound1 or unusually abstruse1 or strikingly evident2 nor is it temporarily incapacitated thereby from understanding simpler1 easier1 or less evident truths4 ,on the contrary1 the more comprehensive1 the more penetrating1 the more perspicuous1 the more sublime our intellectual vision is1 so much the more is our intellect invigorated and enthused in its pursuit of truth1 and its knowledge of the highest truths renders it not less1 but more1 apt for the understanding of simple and ordinary truths4 ,obviously1 then1 the intellect is not bound to a corruptible organ like the senses1 but has for its subject a spiritual principle that is intrinsically independent of the organism4 ,in opposition to this contention1 it may be urged that a prolonged exercise of intellectual activity results in the condition commonly known as brain-fag4 ,but this fatigue of the brain is not1 as a matter of fact1 the direct effect of intellectual activity2 rather it is the direct effect of the activity of the imagination1 and only indirectly the effect of intellectual thought4 ,the intellect1 as we have seen1 requires a constant flow of associated and aptly cordinated imagery as the substrate of its contemplation4 ,now1 the imagination1 which supplies this imagery1 is a cerebral sense1 whose activity is directly proportionate to1 and commensurate with1 the metabolic processes at work in the cortical cells4 ,its exercise is directly dependent upon the energy released by the decomposition of the cerebral substance4 ,prolonged activity of the imagination1 therefore1 involves the destruction of a considerable amount of the cortical substance1 and results in temporary incapacitation or paralysis of the imagination1 which must then be compensated by a process of repair in the cortical neurons1 before the imagination can resume its normal mode of functioning4 ,brain-fag1 then1 is due to the activity of the imagination rather than that of the intellect4 ,that such is the case appears from the fact that after the initial exertion1 which results from the imagination being forced to assemble an appropriate and systematized display of illustrative imagery as subject-matter for the contemplation of the intellect1 the latter is henceforth enabled to proceed with ease along the path of a given science1 its further progress being smooth and unhampered4 ,once the preliminary work imposed upon the imagination is finished1 the sense of effort ceases and intellectual investigation and study may subsequently reach the highest degrees of concentration and intensity1 without involving corresponding degrees of fatigue or depression on the part of the cerebral imagination1 just as1 conversely speaking1 the activity of the cerebral imagination may reach degrees of intensity extreme enough to induce brain-fag in psychic operations wherein the concomitant intellectual activity is reduced to a minimum1 e4 g41 in the task of memorizing a poem1 or recitation4 ,here1 in the all but complete absence of intellectual activity1 the same fatigue results as that induced by a prolonged period of analytic study or investigation1 in which imaginative activity and rational thinking are concomitant4 ,the point to be noted1 in this latter case1 is that the intellect does not show the same dependence upon the physiological vicissitudes as the imagination4 ,the imagery of our imagination1 being rigidly correlated with the metabolic processes of waste and repair at work in the cerebral cortex1 manifests correspondingly variable degrees of intensity and integrity1 but the intensity of thought is not dependent upon this alternation of excitation and inhibition in the cortex4 ,hence1 while the concomitant imagery is fitful1 sporadic1 and fragmentary1 intellectual thought itself is steady1 lucid1 and continuous4 ,the intensity of thought does not vary with the fluctuations of neural metabolism1 and may reach a maximum without involving corresponding fatigue in the brain4 ,the brain-fag1 therefore1 which results from study does not correspond to the height of our intellectual vision1 but is due to the intensity of the concomitant imaginative process4 ,the intellect1 therefore1 is not subject to the metabolic laws which rigidly regulate organic functions like sense-perception and imagination4 ,man's capacity for logical thought is frequently unaffected by the decline of the organism which sets in after maturity4 ,all organic functions1 however1 such as sight1 hearing1 sense-memory1 are impaired in exact proportion to the deterioration of the organism1 which is the inevitable sequel of old age4 ,the intellectual powers1 on the contrary1 remain unimpaired1 so long as the cortex is sound enough to furnish the required minimum of imagery1 upon which intellectual activity is objectively dependent4 ,there are1 in fact1 many cases on record where men have remained perfectly sane and rational1 despite the fact that notable portions of the cerebral cortex had been destroyed by accident or disease 7e4 g41 tumors74 ,intellectual thought1 therefore1 is a superorganic function1 having its source in a spiritual principle and not in a corruptible organ4 ,such is the spiritualism of ,aristotle4 ,that this conception differs profoundly from the ultraspiritualism of ,descartes1 it is scarcely necessary to remark4 ,the position assumed by the latter was always untenable1 but it is now1 more than ever1 indefensible in the face of that overwhelming avalanche of facts whereby modern physiological psychology demonstrates the close interdependence and correlation existent between psychic and organic states4 ,such facts are exploited by materialists as arguments against spiritualism1 though it is evident that they have force only against ,cartesian spiritualism1 and are bereft of all relevance with respect to ,aristotelian spiritualism1 which they leave utterly intact and unscathed4 ,in the latter system1 sense-perception1 imagination1 and emotion are acknowledged to be directly dependent on the organism4 ,again1 spiritual functions like thinking and willing are regarded as objectively or extrinsically dependent upon the imagination1 which1 in turn1 is directly dependent on a material organ1 namely3 the brain4 ,hence even the rational operations of the mind are indirectly dependent upon the cerebral cortex4 ,the spiritualism of ,aristotle1 therefore1 by reason of its doctrine concerning the direct dependence of the lower1 and the indirect dependence of the higher1 psychic functions upon the material organism1 is able to absorb into its own system all the supposedly hostile facts amassed by ,materialism1 thereby rendering them futile and inconsequential as arguments against the spirituality of the human soul4 ,in confronting this philosophy1 the materialistic scientist finds himself disarmed and impotent1 and it is not to be wondered at1 that1 after indulging in certain abusive epithets and a few cant phrases1 such as 8metaphysics0 or 8medieval0 7invaluable words671 he prudently retires from the lists without venturing to so much as break a lance in defense of his favorite dogma1 that nothing is spiritual1 because all is matter4 ,in this predicament1 the ,cartesian caricature proves a boon to the materialist1 as furnishing him with the adversary he prefers1 a man of straw1 and enabling him to demonstrate his paltry tin-sword prowess4 ,of a truth1 ,descartes performed an inestimable service for these modern 8assassins of the soul10 when he relieved them of the necessity of crossing swords with the hylomorphic dualism of ,aristotle by the substitution of a far less formidable antagonist1 namely1 the psychophysical dualism of mind and matter4 ,the proofs advanced1 in the previous pages1 for the spirituality of the human soul are based upon the superorganic function of rational thought4 ,a parallel series of arguments can be drawn from the superorganic function of rational volition4 ,the cognitive intellect has for its necessary sequel the appetitive will1 which may be defined as spiritual tendency inclining us toward that which the intellect apprehends as good4 ,the objects of such volition are frequently abstract and immaterial ideals transcendent to the sphere of concrete and material goods1 e4 g41 virtue1 glory1 religion1 etc4 ,the will of man1 moreover1 is free1 in the sense that it can choose among various motives1 and is not compelled to follow the line of least resistance1 as is the electric current when passing through a shunt of steel and copper wire4 ,like the self-knowing intellect1 the self-determining will is capable of reflective action1 that is1 it can will to will4 ,having its own actions within its own control1 it is itself the principal cause of its own decisions1 and thus becomes responsible for its conduct1 wherever its choice has been conscious and deliberate4 ,external actions1 which escape the control of the will1 and even internal actions of the will itself1 which are indeliberate1 are not free and do not entail responsibility4 ,our courts of law and our whole legal system rests on the recognition of man's full responsibility for his deliberate voluntary acts4 ,the distinction between premeditated murder1 which is punished1 and unpremeditated homicide1 which is not1 is purely moral1 and not physical1 depending for its validity upon the fact of human freedom4 ,it is this exemption from physical determinism1 that makes man a moral agent1 subject to duties1 amenable to moral suasion1 and capable of merit or demerit4 ,finally1 the will of man is insatiable1 invincible1 and inexhaustible4 ,the aspirations of the will are boundless1 whereas our animal appetites are easily cloyed by gratification4 ,there is no freezing point for human courage4 ,the animal or sensual appetites wear out and decline with old age1 but virtue and will-power do not necessarily diminish with the gradual deterioration of the material organism4 ,willing1 therefore1 is a superorganic or spiritual function4 ,activity which is bound to a material organ cannot tend towards supersensible ideals1 cannot escape physical determinism1 cannot achieve the reflective feat of spurring itself to action1 cannot avoid exhaustion1 cannot elude rigid regulation by the laws of organic metabolism4 ,for this reason1 the brute1 whose psychic functions are of the organic type exclusively1 is destitute of freedom1 morality1 and responsibility4 ,deliberate volition1 therefore1 like conceptual thought1 has its source and subject in man's spiritual soul1 and is not a function of the material organism4#ab #ab ,to develop the argument drawn from rational volition for the spirituality of the human soul would carry us too far afield4 ,those who wish to pursue the subject further may consult ,chapter ,,viii of ,grnder's monograph entitled 8,psychology without a ,soul10 also his monograph on 8,free ,will40 ,g4 ,h4 ,parker of ,harvard1 though admitting the fact of human freedom1 tries to explain it away in terms of materialism4 ,the following is the description which he gives of his theory3 8,it is a materialist view which1 however1 recognizes in certain types of organized matter a degree of free action consistent with human behavior and the resultant responsibility40 7,science1 ,june #ac1 #aibd1 p4 #ebj47 ,freedom1 in other words1 8emerges0 from matter having a peculiar 8type of organization40 ,this view must be interpreted in the light of the philosophy of 8,emergent ,evolution10 which ,parker holds in common with ,c4 ,lloyd ,morgan and ,r4 ,w4 ,sellars4 ,the philosophy in question recognizes in nature an ascending scale of more and more complexly organized units1 starting with protons and electrons1 at the bottom1 and culminating in the human organism1 at the top4 ,at each higher level of this cosmic scale we find higher units formed by coalescence of the simpler units of a lower level4 ,these higher units1 however1 are something more than a mere summation of the lower units2 for1 in addition to additive properties that can be predicted from a knowledge of the components1 they exhibit genuinely new properties which1 not being mere sums of the properties of the component units1 are unpredictable on that basis4 ,given1 for example1 the weight of two volumes of hydrogen and one volume of oxygen1 we could predict an additive property such as the weight of the compound1 i4e4 the water1 formed by their combination4 ,other properties1 of the compound1 however1 such as liquidity1 are not foreshadowed by the properties of the component gases4 ,similarly1 the weight of carbon disulphid 7,,cs7 is an additive function of the combining weights of sulphur and carbon1 but the other properties of this mobile liquid are not predictable on the basis of the properties of sulphur and carbon4 ,hence two kinds of properties are distinguished3 7#a7 additive 7quantitative7 properties called resultants1 which are predictable2 7#b7 specificative 7qualitative7 properties called emergents1 which are unprecedented and unpredictable4 ,freedom and intelligence1 accordingly1 are pronounced to be emergents of matter organized to that degree of complexity which we find in man4 ,this dualism of resultance and emergence is merely a new verbal vesture for the hylomorphic dualism of ,aristotle4 ,the additive properties 7resultants7 are based on matter1 which is the principle of continuity4 ,the specificative 7constituitive or qualitative7 properties called emergents are rooted in entelechy 7form71 which is the principle of novelty4 ,in fact1 entelechy 7form7 itself is an emergent of matter just as the specificative properties are emergents of matter1 with the sole difference that entelechy is the primary emergent of matter1 whereas the specificative or qualitative properties are secondary emergents4 ,for in ,aristotelian philosophy1 entelechy is not1 as it is in ,neo-vitalism1 8an alien principle inserted into matter0 abruptly and capriciously 8at the level of life10 but a primary emergent and constituent of matter both living and non-living4 ,in fine1 entelechy is an emergent of matter in all the units of nature from the simplest atom to the most complex plant or animal organism4 ,the only entelechy1 which is not an emergent1 but an insert into matter1 is the spiritual human soul4 ,neither the human soul nor the superorganic functions rooted in it1 namely1 abstraction1 reflection1 and election1 are emergents4 ,here we have novelty without continuity1 and therefore not emergence 7eduction71 but insertion 7infusion74 ,in his 8,emergent ,evolution10 #aibc1 ,lloyd ,morgan lays it down as axiomatic that emergence involves continuity--8,there may often be resultants10 he says1 8without emergence2 but there are no emergents that do not involve resultant effects also4 ,resultants give quantitative continuity which underlies new constitutive steps in emergence40 7,op4 cit41 p4 #e47 ,now our proofs for human spirituality consist precisely in the complete exclusion of quantitative continuity between organic functions 7e4 g4 sensation7 and superorganic functions 7e4 g4 conceptual thought and free volition74 ,hence1 by the very axiom which ,morgan himself formulates1 the human soul and its superorganic functions are excluded from the category of material emergents4 ,if there can be no emergence without quantitative continuity1 then the human soul is not an emergent from1 but an insert into1 matter4 ,free choice1 too1 it is needless to say1 is not an emergent of matter1 but an expression of the supermaterial nature of the human soul4 ,so much for the new-old dualism of emergence and resultance4 ,two additional facts may be cited as bringing into strong relief the basic contrast existing between the higher or rational1 and the lower or animal psychosis in man4 ,the first is the occurrence of irreconcilable opposition or conflict4 ,the imagination1 for example1 antagonizes the intellect by visualizing as an extended speck of chalk or charcoal the mathematical point1 which the intellect conceives as destitute of extension and every other property except position4 ,similarly1 the effort of our rational will to be faithful to duty and to uphold ideals is antagonized by the sensual impulses of the animal appetite1 which seek immediate gratification at the expense of remote considerations that are higher4 ,such antagonism is incompatible with any identification of the warring factors1 that is1 of our rational1 with our sentient1 functions2 for1 wherever opposition is in evidence1 there a fortiori a real distinction must be recognized4 ,the understanding and the will1 therefore1 differ radically from sense and sensual appetite4 ,the second significant fact is the domination exerted by reason and will over the cognitive and appetitive functions of the organic or sentient order4 ,our intellect criticizes1 evaluates and corrects the data of sense-perception1 it discriminates between objective percepts and illusions and hallucinations1 it distinguishes dreams from realities1 it associates and dissociates imagery for purposes of comparison1 contrast1 illustration1 or analysis4 ,moreover1 it not only shows its superiority to sense by supervising1 revising1 and appraising the data of sentient experience1 but it manifests its discontent at the inaccuracy and limitation of sense by the invention and use of instrumentation 7e4 g4 ear trumpets1 spectacles1 microscopes1 telescopes1 spectroscopes1 polariscopes1 periscopes1 etc47 to remedy the defects or increase the range of sense-perception1 etc4 ,this phenomenon is without parallel among brute animals1 and is a patent manifestation of the superiority of human psychology4 ,in like manner1 the will demonstrates its preeminence over the organic or animal appetite1 by exerting supreme control over the passions and impulses of our lower nature4 ,in fact1 it is able to bridle and repress the impulses of sensuality even in the immediate presence of sensible stimuli that would irresistibly determine the brute to a gratification of its animal lusts2 and it can force the struggling and reluctant flesh to undergo a crucifixion for supersensible motives that make no appeal to the beast4 ,the understanding and the will1 therefore1 are essentially superior to the organic psychosis that they control1 namely1 the sentient consciousness and sensual appetite1 which we share in common with the brute1 but which1 in the latter1 give no evidence whatever of rational or moral control4 #d4 ,darwinian ,anthropomorphism ,the spiritual mind of man represents an eminence to which evolving matter can never attain4 ,this1 then1 is the hill that must needs be laid low1 if the path of ,darwinian materialism is to be a smooth one4 ,there is1 therefore1 nothing very surprising in the fact that ,darwin and his followers1 from ,huxley down to ,robinson1 have done all in their power to obscure and belittle the psychological differences between man and the brute4 ,the objective of their strategy is twofold1 namely1 the brutalization of man and its converse1 the humanization of the brute4 ,the ascent will be easier to imagine1 if man can be depressed1 and the brute raised1 to levels that are not far apart4 ,to this end1 the ,darwinian zealots have1 on the one hand1 spared no pains to minimize the superiority and dignity of human reason by the dissemination of sensistic associationism1 psychophysical parallelism1 and various other forms of 8psychology without a soul02 and they have striven1 on the other hand1 to exalt to the utmost the psychic powers of the brute by means of a crude and credulous anthropomorphism1 which1 for all its scientific pretensions1 is quite indistinguishable from the navet of the author of 8,black ,beauty0#ac and the sentimentality of ,s4 ,p4 ,c4 ,a4 fanatics1 vegetarians1 anti-vivisectionists1 etc4 ,the first of these tendencies we have already discussed1 the second remains to be considered4 #ac ,title of a horse's autobiography by ,anna ,sewall1 the horse's alter ego4 ,when it comes to anthropomorphizing the brute1 ,darwin has not been outdistanced by the most reckless of his disciples4 ,three entire chapters of the 8,descent of ,man0 are filled with this 8vulgar psychology0 7as ,wundt so aptly styles it74 ,it is the sum and substance of the entire fabric of argumentation1 which he erects in support of his thesis that 8the difference in mind between man and the higher animals is certainly one of degree and not of kind40 7,cf4 op4 cit41 chs4 ,,iii-,v47 ,haeckel1 ,huxley1 and ,clifford attained to equal proficiency in the sport4 ,subsequent philosophers parroted their bold metaphors and smart aphorisms1 and the game went on merrily till the close of the century4 ,then a badly needed reaction set in under the auspices of ,wundt1 ,lloyd ,morgan1 and ,thorndike1 who insisted on abandoning this nave impressionism in favor of more critical methods4 ,in his 8,vorlesungen ber die ,menschen und ,tierseele0 7cf4 #bnd ed41 p4 #cgj71 ,wundt proclaims his rupture with the impressionistic school in the following terms3 8,the one great defect of this popular psychology is that it does not take mental processes for what they show themselves to be to a direct and unprejudiced view1 but imports into them the reflections of the observer about them4 ,the necessary consequence for animal psychology is that the mental actions of animals1 from the lowest to the highest1 are interpreted as acts of the understanding4 ,if any vital manifestation of the organism is capable of possible derivation from a series of reflections and inferences1 that is taken as sufficient proof that these reflections and inferences actually led up to it4 ,and1 indeed1 in the absence of a careful analysis of our subjective perceptions we can hardly avoid this conclusion4 ,logical reflection is the logical process most familiar to us1 because we discover its presence when we think about any object whatsoever4 ,so that for popular psychology mental life in general is dissolved in the medium of logical reflection4 ,the question whether there are not perhaps other mental processes of a simpler nature is not asked at all1 for the one reason that whenever self-observation is required1 it discovers this reflective process in the human consciousness4 ,the same idea is applied to feelings1 impulses1 and voluntary actions which are regarded1 if not as acts of intelligence1 still as effective states which belong to the intellectual sphere4 8,this mistake1 then1 springs from ignorance of exact psychological methods4 ,it is unfortunately rendered worse by the inclination of animal psychologists to see the intellectual achievements of animals in the most brilliant light4444 ,unbridled by scientific criticism the imagination of the observer ascribes phnomena in perfectly good faith to motives which are entirely of its own invention4 ,the facts reported may be wholly true2 the interpretation of the psychologist1 innocently woven in with his account of them1 puts them from first to last in a totally wrong light4 ,you will find a proof of this on nearly every page of the works on animal psychology40 7,english ,translation by ,creighton ,titchener1 p4 #cda47 ,wundt's warning against taking at their face value popular1 or even so-called scientific1 accounts of wonderful feats performed by animals is very salutary4 ,the danger of subjective humanization of bestial conduct is always imminent4 ,we are unavoidably obliged to employ the analogy of our own animal nature and sentient consciousness as our principal clue to an understanding of brute psychology1 but we must beware of pressing this analogy based on our own consciousness to the uncritical extreme of interpreting in terms of our highest psychic operations animal behavior that1 in itself1 admits of a far simpler explanation4 ,according to the principle of the minimum1 it is unscientific to assume in a given agent the presence of anything that is not rigidly required for the explanation of its observed phenomena4 ,we must refrain1 therefore1 from reading into the consciousness of an animal what is not really there4 ,we must abstain from transporting our own viewpoint and personality into a brute1 by imagining1 with ,darwin1 that we discern a 8sense of humor10 or a 8high degree of self-complacency0 in some pet animal1 like a dog4 ,in general1 we can rest assured that animals are quite innocent of the motivation we ascribe to them4 ,all their manifestations of the psychic order are adequately explicable in terms of sensory experience1 associative memory1 instinct1 and the various automatisms of their innate and conditioned reflexes4 ,there is no ground whatever for supposing the brute to possess the superorganic power of understanding commonly known as intelligence4 ,etymologically speaking1 the abstract term 8intelligence10 together with the corresponding concrete term 8intellect10 is derived from the ,latin3 intus-legere1 signifying to 8read within10 the fitness of the term being based upon the fact that the intellect can penetrate beneath the outer appearances of things to inner aspects and relations1 which are hidden from the senses4 ,in its proper and most general usage1 intelligence denotes a cognoscitive power of abstraction and generalization1 which1 by means of conceptual comparison1 discovers the supersensible relationships existent between the realities conceived1 in such wise as to apprehend substances beneath phenomena1 causes behind effects1 and remote ends beyond proximate means4 ,certain animal psychologists1 however1 refuse to reserve the prerogative of intelligence for man4 ,bouvier's 8,la ,vie ,psychique des ,insectes0 7#aiah71 for example1 contains the following statement3 8,choice of a remarkably intellectual nature1 is even more noticeable in the instinctive manifestations of individual memory4 ,the animal1 endowed with well-developed senses and nervous system1 not only reacts to new necessities by new acts1 but associates the stored up impressions of new sensations and thereby appropriately directs its further activities4 ,thus1 by an intelligent process1 new habits are established1 which by heredity become part of the patrimony of instinct1 modifying the latter and constituting elements essential to its evolution4 ,of these instincts acquired through an intelligent apprenticeship ,forel was led to say that they are reasoning made automatic1 and it is to them particularly that we may apply the idea of certain biologists that instincts are habits which have become hereditary and automatic40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiah1 p4 #ded47 ,it is extremely doubtful1 however1 whether ,bouvier is here using the term intelligence in its proper sense4 ,indeed1 his words convey the impression that what he means by intelligence is an ability to profit by experience4 ,now1 ability to profit by experience may1 under one set of circumstances1 involve the power of logical reflection and inference1 while1 under another set of circumstances1 it may imply nothing more than the power of associative memory4 ,in the latter case1 the facts are explicable without any recourse to psychic powers of a superorganic nature1 and1 in point of fact1 it often happens that the very zopsychologists1 who insist on attributing this sort of 8intelligence0 to brutes1 are most emphatic in denying that brutes are endowed with reason4 ,in any case1 it is unfortunate that the word intelligence is now used in two entirely different senses4 ,this new and improper sense1 being unrelated to the etymology1 and out of harmony with the accepted use of the term1 serves only to engender a confusion of ideas4 ,it should be suppressed1 in order to avoid misunderstandings4 ,that men should be deluded1 however1 into crediting animals with 8intelligence0 7properly so-called7 is not at all surprising1 when we reflect on the source of this misapprehension2 for we find combined in the animal two important factors1 whose association closely simulates intelligence1 namely1 sentient consciousness and unconscious teleology4 ,now teleology is not inherent or subjective intelligence1 but rather an objective expression and product of intelligence4 ,it exists in unconscious mechanisms like phonographs and adding machines1 and it is1 likewise1 manifest in unconscious organisms like plants4 ,here1 however1 there is no danger of confounding it with conscious intelligence1 because machines and plants do not possess consciousness in any form whatever4 ,but in animals1 on the contrary1 teleology is intimately associated with sentient consciousness4 ,here the teleological automatisms of instinct are not wholly blind and mechanical1 but are guided by sense-perception and associative memory4 ,it is this combination of teleology with sentient 8discernment0 7as ,fabre styles it7 that conveys the illusory impression of a conscious intelligence4 ,careful analysis1 however1 of the facts1 in conjunction with judicious experiments1 will1 in every instance1 enable the observer to distinguish between this deceptive semblance of intelligence and that inherent rational power of abstraction1 classification1 and inference which is the unique prerogative of the human being4 ,a genuine intelligence of this sort need not be invoked to explain any of the phenomena of brute psychology4 ,all of them1 from the highest to the lowest1 are explicable in terms of the sensitivo-nervous functions4 ,to illustrate the truth of this statement let us cite a few typical examples of animal behavior1 that are sometimes regarded as manifestations of intelligent or rational consciousness on the part of the brute4 ,animals1 it is pointed out1 learn by experience4 ,the tiny chick that has been stung by a wasp1 for instance1 learns to avoid such noxious creatures for the future4 ,this is1 indeed1 8learning by experience40 ,obviously1 however1 it does not consist in an inference of a new truth from an old truth4 ,on the contrary1 it amounts to nothing more than a mere association of imagery1 formed in accordance with the law of contiguity in time1 sanctioned by the animal's sensual appetite1 and persistently conserved in its sentient memory4 ,a bond of association is formed between the visual image of the wasp and the immediately ensuing sensation of pain4 ,thereafter the wasp and the pain are associated in a single complex1 which the sensile memory of the animal permanently retains4 ,we are dealing with a mere association of contiguity1 and nothing further is required to explain the future avoidance of wasps by the chick4 ,the abilities acquired by animals through the trial and error method are to be explained in the same way4 ,a horse confined within an enclosure1 for example1 seeks egress to the fresh grass of the pasture4 ,the fact that repeated exits through the gate of the enclosure have associated the image of its own access to the pasture with the particular spot where the gate is located induces it to approach the gate4 ,its quest1 however1 is balked by the fact that the gate is closed and latched4 ,thereupon1 it begins to chafe under the urge of frustrated appetite4 ,certain actions ensue1 some spontaneous and others merely reflex movements4 ,it paws the ground1 prances about1 and rubs its nose against the gate4 ,its futile efforts to pass through the closed gate continue indefinitely and aimlessly1 until1 by some lucky accident1 its nose happens to strike against the latch and lift it sufficiently to release the gate4 ,this causes the gate to swing ajar1 and the horse rushes out to food and freedom4 ,by the law of contiguity1 the vision of free egress through the gate is thereafter firmly associated in the horse's sense-memory with the final sensation experienced in its nose just prior to the advent of the agreeable eventuation of its prolonged efforts4 ,henceforth the animal will be able to release itself from the enclosure by repeating the concatenated series of acts that memory associates with the pleasurable result4 ,on the second occasion1 however1 the more remote of its futile acts will have been forgotten1 and the process of opening the gate will occupy less time1 though probably a certain amount of useless pawing and rubbing will still persist4 ,gradually1 however1 the number of inefficacious actions will diminish1 until1 after many repetitions of the experience1 only those actions which directly issue in the desirable result will remain in the chain of impressions retained by memory1 all others being eliminated4 ,for1 by a teleological law1 making for economy of effort1 all impressions not immediately and constantly connected with the gratification of animal appetites tend to be inhibited4 ,pawlow's experiments on dogs show that impressions which coincide in time with such gratification tend to be recalled by a return of the appetitive impulse1 but are soon disconnected from such association and inhibited1 if they recur independently of the recurrence of gratification4 ,for this reason1 the horse tends to remember more vividly those actions which are more closely connected with the pleasurable result1 and1 as its superfluous actions are gradually suppressed by a protective process of inhibition1 it gradually comes to run through the series of actions necessary to open the gate with considerable accuracy and dispatch4 ,the point to be noted1 however1 is that the horse does not discursively analyze this concatenated series of associated stimulators and actions2 for1 let the concrete circumstances be changed never so little1 the horse will at once lose its laboriously acquired ability to open the gate4 ,such1 for example1 will be the result1 if the position of the gate be transferred to another part of the enclosure4 ,the horse1 therefore1 is incapable of adapting its acquired ability to new conditions4 ,it can only rehearse the original series in all its initial concreteness and stereotyped specificity2 and it must1 whenever the circumstances are changed1 begin once more at the beginning1 and rearrive by trial and error at its former solution of the problem4 ,the reason is that the horse merely senses1 but does not understand1 its own solution of the problem4 ,the sense1 however1 cannot abstract from the here and now4 ,consequently1 the human infant of two summers is enabled by its dawning intelligence to adapt old means to new ends1 but the ten-year-old horse cannot adjust its abilities to the slightest change in the concrete conditions surrounding the original acquisition of a useful habit4 ,the cognitive powers of an animal are confined to the sphere of concrete singularity1 it has no power to abstract or generalize4 ,the selfsame observation applies to the tricks which animals 8learn0 through human training4 ,their sensitive memory is very receptive and retentive4 ,hence1 by means of a judicious alternation of 8rewards0 and 8penalties0 7e4g4 of sugar and the whip71 a man can1 as it were1 inscribe his own thoughts on the tablets of the brute's memory1 in such a way as to force the latter to form habits that appear to rest upon a basis of intelligence4 ,and so1 indeed1 they do1 but the intelligence is that of the trainer and not that of the animal1 which is as destitute of intrinsic intelligence as is a talking phonograph1 upon whose records a man can inscribe his thoughts far more efficiently than he can write them in terms of the neurographic imagery of the canine1 equine1 or simian memory4 ,the trained monkey always renders back without change the original lesson imparted by its human trainer4 ,the lesson as first received becomes an immutable reaction-basis for the future4 ,with a school child1 however1 the case is quite different4 ,it does1 indeed1 receive 8an historical basis of reaction10 when the teacher illustrates the process of multiplication by means of an example on the blackboard4 ,but it does not receive this information passively and render it back in the original stereotyped form4 ,on the contrary1 it analyzes the information received1 and is able thereafter to reapply the analyzed information to new problems differing in specificity from the problem that the teacher originally worked out on the blackboard4 ,the human pupil does not1 like the monkey or the phonograph1 render back what it has received in unaltered specificity4 ,his reaction differs from its original passive basis4 ,to borrow the words of ,driesch1 he 8uses this basis1 but he is not bound to it as it is4 ,he dissolves the combined specificities that have created the basis40 78,the ,problem of ,individuality10 pp4 #bg1 #bh47 ,the brute1 therefore1 cannot 8learn10 or 8be taught0 in the sense of intellectual comprehension and enlightenment4 8,we see10 says ,john ,burroughs somewhere1 8that the caged bird or beast does not reason because no strength of bar or wall can convince it that it cannot escape4 ,it cannot be convinced because it has no faculties that are convinced by evidence4 ,it continues to dash itself against the bars not until it is convinced1 but until it is exhausted4 ,then slowly a new habit is formed1 the cage habit4 ,when we train an animal to do stunts1 we do not teach it or enlighten it in any proper sense1 but we compel it to form new habits40 ,human beings1 however1 can be taught and enlightened under the most adverse circumstances4 ,even those unfortunates are susceptible to it1 who1 like ,laura ,bridgman1 ,helen ,keller1 ,martha ,obrecht1 ,marie ,heurtin1 and others1 have been blind and deaf and dumb from infancy or birth4 ,with nearly all the light of sensibility extinguished1 there was1 nevertheless1 latent within them something of which a perfectly normal ape1 for all the integrity of its senses1 is essentially destitute1 namely1 the superorganic power of reason4 ,reason1 however1 is extrinsically dependent on organic sensibility1 and1 consequently1 8the gates of their souls0 were closed to human converse1 until such a time as the patient kindness and ingenuity of their educators devised means of reciprocal communication on a basis of tactile signals4 ,thereupon they revealed an intelligence perfectly akin to that of their rescuers4 ,years of similar education1 however1 would be futile in the case of an ape4 ,the 8gates of the soul0 would never open1 because the ape has no rational soul1 to which the most ingenious trainer might gain access1 in which respect it differs fundamentally from even the lowest savage4 ,a being that lacks reason may be trained by means of instruction1 but it can never be enlightened by it4 ,another consideration1 that is occasionally urged in proof of bestial intelligence1 is the fact that birds1 mammals1 and even insects communicate with one another by means of sounds or equivalent signals1 which are sometimes remarkably diversified in quality and consequent efficacy4 8,since fowls10 writes ,darwin1 8give distinct warnings for danger on the ground1 or in the sky1 from hawks 4441 may not some unusually wise ape-like animal have imitated the growl of a beast of prey1 and thus told his fellow monkeys the nature of the expected danger8 ,this would have been a first step in the formation of a language40 78,descent of ,man10 #bnd ed41 ch4 ,,iii1 pp4 #abb1 #abc47 ,this is saltatory logic with a vengeance6 ,darwin leaps at one bound across the entire chasm between irrationality and rationality1 without pausing to build even the semblance of a bridge4 ,given an animal with the foresight and inventiveness requisite to employ onomatopia for the purpose of specifying the nature of an expected danger1 in the interest of its fellows1 and we need not trouble ourselves further about plausibleizing any transition2 for so 8unusually wise0 an ape is already well across the gap that separates reason from unreason1 and far on its way towards the performance of all the feats of which reason is capable4 ,after swallowing the camel of so much progress1 it would be straining at a gnat to deny such a paragon of simian genius the mere power of articulate speech4 ,of course1 if imagination rather than logic1 is to be the dominant consideration in science1 there is no difficulty in imagining animals to be capable of thinking or doing anything we choose to ascribe to them1 as witness sop's ,fables4 ,but1 if sober and critical judgment be in order1 then1 evidently1 from the simple fact that an animal has diversified cries manifestative of different emotions or degrees of emotion 7e4g4 of fear or rage7 and capable of arousing similar emotions in other animals of the same species1 it by no means follows that such an irrational animal can adapt a means to an end by using mimicry in order to give notification of approaching danger1 and to specify the nature of the danger in question4 ,this stupid anthropomorphism arises from ,darwin's failure to appreciate the fundamental distinction that exists between the 8language0 of animals1 which is indicative1 emotional1 and inarticulate1 and human language1 which is descriptive1 conceptual1 and articulate4 ,brute animals1 under the stress of a determinate passion or emotion1 give vent impulsively and unpremeditatedly to instinctive cries indicative of their peculiar emotional state4 ,moreover1 these emotionalized sounds are capable of arousing kindred emotions in the breasts of other animals of the same species1 since organisms of the same species are syntonic with 7i4e4 attuned to7 one another4 ,hence these reflex or instinctive cries have1 no doubt1 a teleological value1 inasmuch as they serve to protect the race by inciting a peculiar flight-reaction in those that are not in immediate contact with the fear-inspiring object4 ,this so-called warning1 however1 is given without reflection or intention on the part of the frightened animal1 and is simply sensed1 but not interpreted1 by the other animals that receive it4 ,this premised1 it is easy to discriminate between bestial and human language4 ,the former is not articulate1 that is to say1 the sounds of which it is composed have not been elaborated by analysis and synthesis into phonetic elements and grammatical forms4 ,in the second place1 it is emotional and not conceptual1 because it is manifestative of the emotions or passions 7which are functions of the organic or sensual appetite71 and not of rational concepts4 ,in the third place1 it is indicative1 that is1 it merely signalizes a determinate emotional state1 as a thermometer indicates the temperature1 or a barometer the atmospheric pressure4 ,it is not1 therefore1 descriptive1 in the sense of being selected and arranged in syntactic sequence for the express purpose of making others realize one's own experiences4 ,the rational language of man1 on the contrary1 is not emotional4 ,only a negligible portion of the human vocabulary is made up of emotional interjections4 ,it consists1 for the most part1 of sounds descriptive of thought1 to express which an elaborate system of vowels and consonants are discriminated and articulated on the basis of social agreement1 the result being a conventional vocal code invented and used for the express purpose of conveying1 not emotions or imagery1 but general and abstract concepts4 #e4 ,the ,true ,significance of ,instinct ,a third class of facts commonly cited as evidence of bestial intelligence are the remarkable phenomena of instinct4#ad ,the beaver acts as though it were acquainted with the principles of hydraulics and engineering1 when it maintains the water at the height requisite to submerge the entrance to its dwelling by building a dam of mud1 logs1 and sticks across the stream at a point below the site of its habitation4 ,the predatory wasp ,pompilius is endowed with surgical art1 that suggests a knowledge of anatomy1 inasmuch as it first disarms and afterwards paralyzes its formidable prey1 the ,lycosa or black ,tarantula4 ,another predatory wasp1 the ,stizus ruficornis1 disables ,mantids in a similar fashion4 ,one of the ,american ,pompilids1 the black wasp ,priocnemis flavicornis1 is an adept in the art of navigation1 since it adopts the principle of the ,french hydroglissia 7an air-driven boat which skims the water under the propulsion of an aeroplane propeller74 ,this insect tows a huge black spider several times its own size and too heavy to be carried1 propelling its prey with buzzing wings along the open waterway1 and leaving behind a miniature wake like that of a steamer4 ,it thus avoids the obstacles of the dense vegetation1 and saves time and energy in transporting the huge carcass of its paralyzed quarry to the haven of its distant burrow4 ,spiders like the ,epeira1 for example1 are endowed with the mathematical ability of constructing their webs on the patterns of the logarithmic spiral of ,jacques ,bernouilli 7#afed-agje71 a curve which it took man centuries to discover4 ,the dog infested with parasitic tapeworms 7,taenia7 evinces a seeming knowledge of pharmaceutics1 seeing that it will avidly devour ,common ,wormwood 7,artemisia absynthium71 an herb which it never touches otherwise4 #ad ,j4 ,henri ,fabre and ,erich ,wasmann1 ,s4,j41 have formulated very sound and critical views on the subject of instinct4 ,the works of these authors are now available in ,english4 7,cf4 de ,mattos' translation of the ,souvenirs etymologiques3 8,the ,mason ,bees10 ,ch4 ,,vii2 8,the ,bramble ,bees10 ,ch4 ,,vi2 8,the ,hunting ,wasps10 ,chs4 ,,ix1 ,x1 ,,xx2 cf4 also ,wasmann's ,instinct and ,intelligence1 and ,psychology of ,ants and of ,higher ,animals1 ,engl4 translation by ,gummersbach47 ,in all these cases1 however1 as we have previously remarked1 the illusion of intelligence is due to the combination of teleology or objective purposiveness with sentient consciousness4 ,but teleology is nothing more than a material expression of intelligence1 not to be confounded with subjective intelligence1 which is its causal principle4 ,when the cells of the iris of the eye of a larval salamander regenerate the lens in its typical perfection1 after the latter has been experimentally destroyed1 we behold a process that is objectively1 but not subjectively1 intelligent4 ,in like manner the instinctive acts of an animal are teleological or objectively purposive1 but do not proceed from an intelligence inherent in the animal1 any more than the intelligent soliloquy delivered by a phonograph proceeds from a conscious intelligence inherent in the disc4 ,in the animal1 sentient consciousness is associated with this teleology or objective purposiveness1 but such consciousness is only aware of what can be sensed1 and is1 therefore1 unconscious of purpose1 that is1 of the supersensible link1 which connects a means with an end4 8,instinct10 to cite the words of ,wm4 ,james1 8is usually defined as the faculty of acting in such a way as to produce certain ends1 without foresight of the ends1 and without previous education in the performance40 78,principles of ,psychology10 vol4 ,,ii1 c4 xxiv1 p4 #chc47 ,hence the unconscious and objective purposiveness1 which the human mind discerns in the instinctive behavior of brutes1 is manifestative1 not of an intelligence within the animal itself1 but only of the infinite intelligence of the ,first ,cause or ,creator1 ,who imposed these laws replete with wisdom upon the animal kingdom1 and of the finite intelligence of man1 who is capable of recognizing the ,divine purpose expressed1 not only in the instincts of animals1 but in all the telic phenomena of nature4 ,such marvels are not the fortuitous result of uncordinated contingencies4 ,behind these correlated teleologies of the visible universe there is a ,supreme ,intelligence1 which has 8ordered all things in measure1 and number1 and weight40 7,wisdom3 ,,xi1 #ba47 8,and this universal geometry10 says ,fabre1 in allusion to the mathematics of the ,epeira's web1 8tells of an ,universal ,geometrician1 whose divine compass has measured all things4 ,i prefer that1 as an explanation of the logarithmic curve of the ,ammonite and the ,epeira1 to the ,worm screwing up the tip of its tail4 ,it may not perhaps be in accordance with latter-day teaching1 but it takes a loftier flight40 78,life of the ,spider10 p4 #djj47 ,but1 though the teleology of instinct is wonderful in the extreme1 the element of psychic regulation is so subordinate and restricted1 that1 far from postulating intelligent control1 certain scientists go so far as to deny even sentient control1 in the case of instinctive behavior4 ,animals1 in their opinion1 are nothing more than 8reflex machines10 a view which coincides with that of ,descartes1 who regarded animals as unconscious automatons4 8,the instincts10 says ,pawlow1 8are also reflexes but more complex40 7,science1 ,nov4 #i1 #aibc1 p4 #cei47 ,the late ,jacques ,loeb was a protagonist of the view that instincts are simply metachronic chain-reflexes1 in which one elementary process releases another1 each preceding phase terminating in the production of the succeeding phase1 until the entire gamut of concatenated arcs has been traversed4 ,hence1 ,john ,b4 ,watson1 the ,behaviorist disciple of ,loeb1 defines instinct as 8a combination of congenital responses unfolding serially under appropriate stimulation40 ,but1 if ,darwinian anthropomorphism sins by excess1 ,loeb's mechanism sins by defect1 and fails to account for the indubitable variability of instinctive behavior4 ,for1 however fixed and stereotyped such behavior may be1 it manifests unmistakable adaptation to external circumstances and emergencies1 as well as subordination to the general physiological condition of the organism1 phenomena that exclude the idea of fatal predetermination according to the fixed pattern of a determinate series of reflex arcs4 ,as ,jennings has shown1 synaptic cordination in the neural mechanism cannot be more than a partial factor in determining serial responses4 ,the state of the organism as a whole must also be taken into account4 7,cf4 8,behavior of the ,lower ,organisms10 p4 #bea47 ,thus an earthworm may turn to the right simply because it has just turned to the left1 but this so-called 8chain-reflex0 does not involve an invariable and inevitable sequence of events1 since the earthworm may turn twice or thrice to the left1 before the second reaction of turning to the right comes into play4 ,any animal1 when sated1 will react differently to a food stimulus than it will when it is starved1 by reason of its altered organic condition4 ,we have something more1 therefore1 to reckon with than a mere system of reflexes released by a simple physical stimulus4 ,the second type of variability manifested by instinct is its capacity for complex and continuous adjustment to variable environmental circumstances4 ,thus predatory animals1 such as wasps1 crabs1 spiders1 and carnivorous mammals1 accommodate themselves appropriately and uninterruptedly to the changing and unforeseeable movements of the prey they are engaged in stalking1 giving evidence in this way of the regulation of their hunting instincts by sensory impressions4 ,whether this element of psychic control is based upon object-perception1 or simple sensation1 and whether it involves a sensual impulse1 or is merely sensori-motor1 we have1 naturally1 no direct means of ascertaining4 ,but the presence of some sort of sensory regulation is evident enough1 e4g4 in the prompt and unerring flight of vultures to distant carrion4 ,moreover1 there is a close analogy between our sense organs and those of an animal4 ,particularly1 in the case of the higher animals1 the resemblance of the sense organs and nervous system to our own is extremely close1 so much so that even the localization of sensory and motor centers in the brain is practically identical in dogs1 apes1 and men4 ,moreover1 the animals make analogous use of their sense organs1 orientating them and accommodating them for perception1 and using them to inspect strange objects1 etc41 e4g4 they turn their eyes1 prick up their ears1 snuff the wind1 etc4 ,again1 analogous motor and emotional effects result from the stimulation of their sense organs1 and brutes make emotional displays of anger1 exultation1 fear1 etc41 similar to our own4 ,hence it is to be presumed that they have similar sensuous experiences4 ,the analogy1 however1 must not be pressed further than the external manifestations warrant4 ,with brute animals1 the manifestations in question are confined exclusively to phenomena of the sensuous order4 ,another indication of sensory control is found in the repair-work performed by animals endowed with the constructive instinct4 ,c4 ,f4 ,schroeder1 for instance1 experimenting on certain caterpillars1 found that they repaired their weaving1 whenever it was disturbed by the experimenter4 ,fabre1 too1 discovered that a ,mason-bee would plaster up holes or clefts marring the integrity of its cell1 provided that the bee was actually engaged in the process of plastering at the time1 and provided that the experimenter inflicted the damage at the level1 and within the area1 of the construction work on which the bee was then engaged4 ,in a word1 if the damage inflicted could be repaired by a simple continuation or extension of its actual work of the moment1 the bee was able to cope with the emergency4 ,there are other ways1 too1 in which the animal adapts its constructive instincts to external circumstance4 ,fabre tells us that the ,bramble-bee ,osmia1 which builds a train of partitioned cells in snail shells or in hollow reeds1 will victual first and then plaster in a partition1 if the reed be narrow1 but will first plaster a partition1 and then introduce honey and pollen through a hole left unclosed in the partition1 whenever the reed is of greater diameter4 ,this reversal of the procedure according to the exigencies of the external situation does not suggest the chain-reflex of ,loeb4 7,cf4 8,the ,bramble-,bee10 pp4 #bad-bag47 ,another kind of adaptation of instinct to external circumstances consists in the economical omission of the initial step of a serial construction1 in cases where the environmental conditions provide a ready-made equivalent4 8,the silkworm10 says ,driesch1 8is said not to form its web of silk if it is cultivated in a box containing tulle1 and some species of bees which normally construct tunnels do not do so if they find one ready made in the ground1 they then only perform their second instinctive act3 separating the tunnel into single cells40 78,science ,phil4 of the ,organism10 vol4 ,,ii1 p4 #dg47 ,driesch's analysis of the constructive instinct shows that these facts of adaptation or regulation fit in with the idea of sensory control rather than with that of a chain-reflex4 ,in the supposition that the successive stages of instinctive construction are due to a chain-reflex1 consisting of a series of elementary motor reactions a1 b1 c1 etc41 in which a produces the external work ,a and1 on terminating1 releases b1 which1 in turn1 produces external work ,b and releases c1 etc41 clearly b could never appear before a1 and the sight of ,a ready-made would not inhibit a1 nor would the removal of ,a defer the advent of b4 ,in other words1 regulation would be impossible4 ,but1 if we suppose that not the elemental act a1 but rather the sensory perception of ,a1 the first state of the external construction1 is the stimulus to b and1 consequently1 to the production of the second state of construction ,b1 then we understand why b is released independently of a1 when1 for example1 an insect discovers a ready-made substitute for ,a1 the initial step in its construction1 and we also understand why1 in cases of accidental damage resulting in the total or partial removal of ,a1 the reaction b is deferred and the reaction a prolonged1 until the repair or reconstruction of ,a is complete2 for1 in this supposition1 the addition of ,a will inhibit a and release b1 whereas the subtraction of ,a will inhibit the appearance of b and consequently defer ,b1 until the state of construction ,a1 the sight of which is the stimulus to b1 is complete4 ,the fact of regulation1 therefore1 entails sensory control of the serial responses involved in the constructive instinct4 ,hence1 as ,h4 ,p4 ,weld of ,cornell expresses it3 8,we may safely assume that even in the lowest forms of animal life some sort of sensory experience releases the 7instinctive7 disposition and to an extent determines the subsequent course of action40 7,encycl4 ,am41 v4 #ae1 p4 #afh47 ,but it would be going to the opposite extreme to interpret these adjustments of instinct to external contingencies as evidence of intelligent regulation4 ,the animal's ability1 for example1 to repair accidental damage to a construction1 which instinct impels it to build1 is rigidly limited to repairs that can be accomplished by a simple continuation of the actual and normal occupation of the moment4 ,if1 however1 the damage affects an already completed portion of the instinctive structure1 and its present occupation is capable of continuance1 the animal is impotent to relinquish this actual occupation of the moment1 in order to cope with the emergency4 ,suppose1 for illustration1 that the instinctive operations a and b are finished and the animal is in the c-stage of its instinctive performance1 then1 if the damage is inflicted in the ,a-portion of the structure1 and c can be continued independently of ,a1 the animal cannot relinquish c and return to a1 in order to restore the marred integrity of ,a4 ,this shows that the animal is guided1 in its repair-work1 by sense1 which is bound to the here and now1 and not by intelligence1 which is an abstractive faculty that emancipates from the actual and concrete present1 and enables the possessor to hark back to the past of its performance1 should necessity require4 ,thus ,fabre found that the ,mason-bee1 after it had turned from building to the foraging of honey and pollen1 would no longer repair holes pricked in its cell1 but suffered the latter to become a veritable vessel of the ,danades1 which it vainly strove to fill with its liquid provender4 ,though the holes affected portions extremely close to the topmost layer of masonry1 and although it frequently sounded and explored these unaccustomed holes with its antenn1 it took no steps to check the escape of the honey and pollen by recurring to its mason craft of earlier stages4 ,and1 finally1 when it did resume the plasterer's trade in constructing a lid for the cell1 it would spare no mortar to plug the gaping breaches in the walls of its cell1 but deposited its egg in a chamber drained of honey1 and then proceeded to perform the useless work of closing with futile diligence only the topmost aperture in this much perforated dwelling4 ,obviously1 therefore1 the bee failed to perceive the connection which existed between these breaches and the escape of the honey1 and it was unable to apply its instinctive building skill to new uses by abstraction from the definite connection1 in which the latter is normally operative4 ,sense1 therefore1 and not intelligence1 is the regulatory principle of instinct4 ,to recognize causal and telic relationships is the prerogative of a superorganic intelligence4 ,the transcendental link by which a useful means is referred to an ulterior end is something that cannot be sensed1 but only understood4 ,an animal1 therefore1 acts toward an end1 not on account of an end4 ,nature1 however1 has compensated for this ignorance by implanting in each species of animal a special teleological disposition1 by reason of which objects and actions1 which are1 under normal conditions1 objectively useful to the individual1 or the species1 become invested for the animal with a subjective aspect of agreeableness1 while objects and actions1 which are normally harmful1 are invested with a subjective aspect of repulsiveness4 ,the qualities of serviceableness and pleasantness happen1 so far as the animal is concerned1 to be united in one and the same concrete object or action1 but the animal is only aware of the pleasantness1 which appeals to its senses1 and not of the serviceableness1 which does not4 ,thus1 in the example already cited1 the dog suffering from tapeworms eats the herb known as ,common ,wormwood1 not because it is aware of the remedial efficacy of the herb1 but simply because the odor and flavor of the plant appeal to the animal in its actual morbid condition1 ceasing to do so1 however1 when the latter regains the state of health4 ,how different is the action of the man whose blood is infected with malarial parasites and who takes quinine1 not because the bitter taste of the alkaloid appeals to his palate1 but solely because he has his future cure explicitly in view6 8,finally10 says ,weld1 8the more we learn about instincts the more apparent it becomes that the situations from which they proceed are meaningful1 but we need not suppose that the organism is aware of the meaning4 ,the chick in the egg feels 7we may only guess as to its nature7 a vague discomfort1 and the complicated reaction by which it makes its egress from the shell is released40 7,encycl4 ,am41 v4 #ae1 p4 #afi47 ,recapitulating1 then1 we may define instinct as a psycho-organic propensity1 not acquired by education or experience1 but congenital by inheritance and identical in all members of the same zological species1 having as its physical basis the specific nervous organization of the animal and as its psychic basis a teleological cordination of the cognitive1 emotional1 and motor functions1 in virtue of which1 given the proper physiological state of the organism and the presence of an appropriate environmental stimulus1 an animal1 without consciousness of purpose1 is impelled to the inception1 and regulated in the performance1 of complicated behavior which is sensually gratifying and1 under normal circumstances1 simultaneously beneficial to the individual1 or the race4 ,instinctive acts are performed without previous experience or training on the part of the animal1 and are1 nevertheless1 at least in the majority of cases1 perfect in their first performance4 ,a few1 like the pecking-instinct of young chickens1 are slightly improvable through sentient experience1 e4g4 the young chick1 at first undiscriminating in the choice of the particles which it picks up1 learns later by associative memory to distinguish what is tasty and edible from what is disagreeable and inedible1 but1 for the most part1 the perfection of instinctive acts is independent of prior experience4 ,hence instinct is entirely different from human reason1 which1 in the solution of problems1 is compelled to begin with reflection upon the data furnished by previous experience1 or education4 ,the animal1 however1 in its instinctive operations1 without pausing to investigate1 deliberate1 or calculate1 proceeds unhesitatingly on the very first occasion to a prompt and perfect solution of its problems4 ,hence1 without study1 consultation1 planning1 or previous apprenticeship of any sort1 and in the complete absence of experimental knowledge1 that might serve as matter for reflection or as a basis for inference1 the animal is able to solve intricate problems in engineering1 geometry1 anatomy1 pharmaceutics1 etc41 which the combined intelligence of mankind required centuries upon centuries of schooling1 research1 and reflection in order to solve4 ,of two things1 therefore1 one3 either these actions do not proceed from an intelligent principle inherent in the animal2 or they do1 and in that case we are compelled to recognize in brute animals an intelligence superior to our own1 because they accomplish deftly and without effort ingenious feats that human reason cannot duplicate1 save clumsily and at the price of prolonged discipline and incessant drudgery4 8,perhaps the strongest reason10 says an anonymous writer1 8for not regarding the activities of instinct as intelligent is that in such enormously complex sequences of action as1 for instance1 the emperor moth carries out in the preparing of an escape-opening for itself on its completing the larval and passing into the imago state1 the intelligence needed would be so great that it could not be limited to this single activity1 and yet it is so limited40#ae #ae ,cf4 ,nelson's ,encyclopedia1 v4 #f1 p4 #deb4 ,intelligence is essentially a generalizing and abstracting power2 hence1 from its very nature1 it could not be limited to a single activity4 ,bestial instincts1 however1 though frequently so amazingly complex and ingeniously purposive as to seem the fruit of profound meditation1 are1 nevertheless1 confined exclusively to this or that determinate ability4 ,they operate within narrow and prestablished grooves1 from which they never swerve to any appreciable degree1 being but little modifiable or perfectible by experience4 ,bees always construct hexagonal cells1 spiders stick to the logarithmic spiral1 and beavers never attempt to put their engineering skill to new uses4 ,instincts have but little pliancy1 their regularity and uniformity being such as to make the instinctive abilities definitely predictable in the case of any given species of animal4 ,now1 the distinctive mark of intelligence is versatility1 that is1 aptitude for many things without determinate restriction to this or that4 ,a man who is expert in one art may1 by reason of his intelligence1 be equally proficient in a dozen others4 ,the biologist may be a competent chemist1 and the astronomer an excellent physicist4 ,michel ,angelo was a sculptor1 a frescoer1 a painter1 an anatomist1 an engineer1 and an architect1 while ,leonardo da ,vinci had even more arts to his credit4 ,to predict before birth the precise form that a man's ability will take is an impossibility4 ,certain aptitudes1 such as a musical gift1 are no doubt inherited1 but it is an inheritance which imposes no rigid necessity upon inheriter2 since he is free to neglect this native talent1 and to develop others for which he has no special innate aptitude4 ,with man1 the fashion in clothing and the styles of architecture vary from day to day4 ,the brute1 however1 never emerges from the rut of instinct1 and each generation of a given animal species monotonously reproduces the history of the previous generation4 ,man1 on the contrary1 is capable of indefinite progress1 as the march of human cultures and civilizations shows4 ,gregarious animals are restricted by their instincts to determinate types of aggregation1 as we see in the case of ants and bees4 ,hence these insect communities are unacquainted with our sanguinary revolutions which overturn monarchies in favor of republics1 or set up dictatorships in place of democracies2 for1 fortunately or unfortunately1 as one may choose to regard it1 man is not limited to one form of government rather than another4 ,animals1 then1 notwithstanding their wonderful instincts1 are deficient in precisely that quality which is the unique criterion of intelligence1 namely1 versatility4 ,each species has but one stereotyped ability1 outside of which it is woefully stupid and inefficient4 8,so long10 says ,fabre1 8as its circumstances are normal the insect's actions are calculated most rationally in view of the object to be attained0 78,the ,mason-,bees10 p4 #afg71 but let the circumstances cease to be normal1 let them vary never so little from those which ordinarily obtain1 and the animal is helpless1 while its instinctive predisposition becomes1 not merely futile1 but often positively detrimental4 ,thus the instinct1 which should1 in the normal course of events1 guide night-flying moths to the white flowers that contain the life-sustaining nectar of their nocturnal banquets1 proves their undoing1 when they come into contact with the white lights of artificial illumination4 ,in fact1 the fatal fondness of the moth for the candle flame has become in all languages a proverb for the folly of courting one's own destruction4 ,the animal may employ an exquisitely efficient method in accomplishing its instinctive work1 but is absolutely impotent to apply this ingenious method to more than one determinate purpose4 ,man1 however1 is not so restricted4 ,he varies at will both his aims and his methods4 ,he can adapt the same means 7a pocketknife1 for instance7 to different ends1 and1 conversely1 he can obtain the same end by the use of different means 7e4g4 communicate by mail1 or telegraph1 or radio74 ,man1 in a word1 is emancipated from limitation to the singular and the concrete by virtue of his unique prerogative1 reason1 or intelligence1 the power that enables him to generalize from the particular and to abstract from the concrete4 ,this is the secret of his unlimited versatility4 ,this is the basis of his capacity for progress4 ,this is the root of his freedom2 for his will seeks happiness in general1 happiness in the abstract1 and is not1 therefore1 compelled to choose any particular form or concrete embodiment of happiness1 such as this or that style of architecture1 this or that form of government1 this or that kind of clothing1 etc41 etc4 ,teleology is but a material expression of intelligence1 and may1 therefore1 occur in things destitute of intelligence1 but versatility is the inseparable concomitant and infallible sign of an inherent and autonomous intelligence4 ,lacking this quality1 instinct1 however telic1 is obviously not intelligence4 ,another indication of the fact that no intelligence lies behind the instinctive behavior of brutes is manifest from their evident unconsciousness of purpose4 ,that the animal is ignorant of the purpose implied in its own instinctive actions appears from the fact that it will carry out these operations with futile diligence and exactitude1 even when1 through accident1 the purpose is conspicuously absent4 ,thus the hen deprived of her eggs will1 nevertheless1 continue the now futile process of incubation for twenty-one days1 or longer1 despite the fact that her obstinacy in maintaining the straw of the empty nest at a temperature of #ajd ,f4 serves no useful purpose whatever4 ,she cannot but sense the absence of the eggs2 she has not1 however1 the intelligence to realize that incubation without eggs is vain4 ,the connection between the latter and the former is something that mere sense cannot apprehend4 ,hence the hen is not troubled by the purposelessness of her performance4 ,fabre gives many examples of this futile persistence in instinctive operations1 despite their complete frustration4 ,alluding to the outcome of his experiments on the ,mason-wasp ,pelapaeus1 he says3 8,the ,mason bees1 the ,caterpillar of the ,great ,peacock ,moth1 and many others1 when subjected to similar tests1 are guilty of the same illogical behaviour3 they continue1 in the normal order1 their series of industrious actions1 though accident has now rendered them all useless4 ,just like millstones unable to cease revolving though there be no corn left to grind1 let them once be given the compelling power and they will continue to perform their task despite its futility40 78,bramble ,bees10 pp4 #aib1 #aic47 ,the instance cited by ,dr4 ,h4 ,d4 ,schmidt is an excellent illustration of this inability of an animal to appreciate either the utility or futility of its instinctive behavior4 ,having described the instinct of squirrels to bury nuts by ramming them into the ground with their teeth1 and then using their paws to cover them with earth1 he continues as follows3 8,now1 as regards the young squirrel1 which1 of course1 never had been present at the burial of a nut1 ,i observed that1 after having eaten a number of hickory nuts to appease its appetite1 it would take one between its teeth1 then sit upright and listen in all directions4 ,finding all right1 it would scratch upon the smooth blanket on which ,i was playing with it as if to make a hole1 then hammer with the nut between its teeth upon the blanket1 and finally perform all the motions required to fill up a hole--in the air2 after which it would jump away1 leaving the nut1 of course1 uncovered40 7,transactions of the ,am4 ,neurological ,ass'n1 #ahge1 vol4 ,i1 p4 #abi--;italics his47 ,this whole pantomime of purposeless gesticulations1 from the useless 8,stop1 look and listen60 down to the final desertion of the uncovered nut1 is overwhelming evidence of the fact that the brute is destitute of any rational faculty capable of recognizing the telic aspect of its own instinctive conduct4 ,the claim is sometimes made that certain forms of animal behavior are not unconsciously1 but consciously1 telic4 ,bouvier1 for example1 claims that in the rare cases of the use of tools among the ,arthropoda1 we have evidence of the existence of intelligent inventiveness of a rudimentary kind4 ,thus the crab ,melia carries a sea-anemone in its chela as a weapon wherewith to sting its prey into a condition of paralysis4 ,the leaf-cutting ants of ,india and ,brazil use their own thread-spinning larv as tools for cementing together the materials out of which their nests are constructed4 ,the predatory wasp ,ammophila urnaria uses a pebble to tamp the filling of its burrow4 ,according to the ,wheelers 7cf4 ,science1 ,may #cj1 #aibd1 p4 #dhf71 the hunting wasp ,sphex 7,ammophila7 gryphus 7,sm47 makes similar use of a pebble4 ,as ,bouvier notes1 however1 this use of tools appears 8to be rather exceptional 4441 showing itself only in the primitive state consisting of the use of foreign bodies as implements40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiah1 p4 #def47 ,moreover1 the animals in question are limited to a concretely determinate kind of tool1 which their environment supplies ready-made4 ,such a use of implements does not presuppose any power of abstraction and generalization4 ,in fact1 the presence of such a power is expressly excluded by the consideration that the animal's so-called 8inventiveness0 is confined exclusively to one particularized manifestation4 ,at times the behavior of animals so closely simulates the consciously telic or intelligent conduct of men1 that only severely critical methods enable us to discriminate between them4 ,an experiment1 which ,erich ,wasmann1 ,s4,j41 performed upon ants will serve to illustrate this point4 ,in one of his glass nests1 ,father ,wasmann constructed an island of sand surrounded by a moat filled with water4 ,he then removed from their 8nursery0 a certain number of the ant larv and placed them on the island4 ,thereupon the ants were observed to build a bridge of sand across the moat 8for the purpose10 apparently1 of rescuing the marooned larv4 ,such behavior seemed to imply an intelligent ordination of a means to an end4 ,wasmann's second experiment1 however1 proved this inference to be wholly unwarranted2 for1 when he excavated a hole in the sand of the nest and filled it with water1 the ants1 stimulated by what to them was the disagreeable dampness of the marginal sand1 were impelled to perform the reflex act of kicking about in the sand4 ,this impulse persisted until all traces of the hole1 the dampness and the water had been buried under a carpet of drier sand4 ,then1 and then only1 was the aforesaid impulse inhibited4 ,applying these results to the interpretation of the first experiment1 we see that the 8building of a bridge0 in the first experiment was not intentional1 but merely an accidental result of a kicking-reflex1 with damp sand acting as a stimulator4 ,once the moat was bridged1 however1 the ants happened to find the larv1 and were then impelled by instinct to carry the larv to their proper place in the nest4 ,to see in such an incident a planned and premeditated rescue of the marooned larv would be grossly anthropomorphic4 ,nevertheless1 had only the first experiment been performed1 such an anthropomorphic interpretation would have seemed fully justified1 and it was only by an appropriate variation of the conditions of the original experiment that this false interpretation could be definitively excluded4 ,consciously telic behavior is distinguishable from unconsciously telic conduct only to the extent that it implies an agent endowed with the power of abstraction4 ,unless an agent can vary radically the specificity of the procedure1 whereby it attains a given end1 the purposiveness of its behavior is no evidence of its intelligence4 8,among animals10 says ,bergson1 8invention is never more than a variation on the theme of routine4 ,locked up as it is within the habits of its species1 the animal succeeds no doubt in broadening these by individual initiative2 but its escape from automatism is momentary only1 just long enough to create a new automatism2 the gates of its prison close as soon as they are opened2 dragging the chain merely lengthens it4 ,only with man does consciousness break the chain40 7,cf4 ,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiah1 p4 #deg47 ,in vain1 then1 do our ,darwinian humanizers of the brute exalt instinct at the expense of intelligence4 ,their attempt to reduce to a difference of degree the difference of kind that separates the irrational from the rational1 fails all along the line4 ,indeed1 far from being able to account for the appearance of intelligence in the world1 transformistic theories are impotent to account for so much as the development of instinct1 all forms of the evolutionary theory1 the ,lamarckian1 the ,darwinian1 the ,de-,vriesian1 etc41 being equally inadequate to the task of explaining the origin of animal instincts4 ,the complex instinctive behavior of predatory wasps1 for example1 is absolutely essential for the preservation of their respective races1 and yet these indispensable instincts are completely useless in any other than the perfect state4 ,from their very nature1 therefore1 they do not admit of gradual development4 ,the law of all1 or none1 holds here4 8,instinct developed by degrees10 says ,fabre1 8is flagrantly impossible4 ,the art of preparing the larva's provisions allows none but masters1 and suffers no apprentices2 the ,wasp must excel in it from the outset or leave the thing alone40 78,the ,hunting ,wasps10 p4 #djc47 ,to be useful at all1 the instinctive operation must possess an indivisible perfection1 which cannot be partitioned into degrees4 ,the ,pompilius 7,calicurgus71 for instance1 must1 under penalty of instant death1 take the preliminary precaution to sting into inaction the ganglion that controls the poison forceps of her formidable prey1 the ,black ,tarantula 7,lycosa71 before she proceeds to paralyze it by stabbing its thoracic ganglion4 ,the slightest imperfection or shortcoming in her surgery would be irretrievably disastrous4 ,such an instinct never existed in an imperfect form4 ,the first wasp to possess it must have been an expert1 or she would never have lived to serve the limp body of the huge spider as living provender for her tiny grub4 8,the first to come to grips with the ,tarantula10 says ,fabre1 8had an unerring knowledge of her dangerous surgery4 ,the least hesitation1 the slightest speculation1 and she was lost4 ,the first teacher would also have been the last1 with no disciples to take up her art and perfect it40 78,bramble ,bees10 p4 #ced47 ,another hunting wasp1 the ,hairy ,ammophila1 subdues a large caterpillar into a state of coma by pricking with its sting nine of the ventral ganglia1 while it spares the cervical ganglion1 merely compressing the latter with its mandibles1 so as not to destroy life altogether4 ,this nice discrimination rules out ,loeb's hypothesis of a so-called 8chemotaxis40 ,as a result of this elaborate surgical operation1 the power of movement is suppressed in every segment1 and the tiny larva of the wasp emerging from the egg laid on the ventral surface of the caterpillar can devour this huge living1 but motionless1 victim in peace and safety4 ,dead meat would not agree with the larva1 and any movement of the caterpillar would be fatal to the delicate grub4 ,to eliminate these contingencies1 the ,wasp's surgery must be perfect from the very outset4 8,there is10 says ,fabre1 8no via media1 no half success4 ,either the caterpillar is treated according to rule and the ,wasp and its family is perpetuated2 or else the victim is only partially paralyzed and the ,wasp's offspring dies in the egg4 ,yielding to the inexorable logic of things1 we will have to admit that the first ,hairy ,ammophila1 after capturing a ,grey ,worm to feed her larva1 operated on the patient by the exact method in use today40 78,the ,hunting ,wasps10 pp4 #djc1 #djd47 ,certain meticulous critics of our day cite the fact of the diffusion of the poison as indicating that the surgery of the hunting wasps need not be so perfectly accommodated to the nervous system of their prey1 and they attempt in this way to discredit ,fabre as having failed to take the occurrence of diffusion into account4 ,a careful reading of his works1 however1 will serve to vindicate him in this respect4 ,in a chapter on the poison of the bee1 for instance1 we read3 8,the local effect is diffused4 ,this diffusion1 which might well take place in the victims of the predatory insects1 plays no part in the latter's method of operation4 ,the egg1 which will be laid immediately afterwards1 demands the complete inertia of the prey from the outset4 ,hence all the nerve-centers that govern locomotion must be numbed instantaneously by the virus40 78,bramble ,bees10 p4 #cdg47 ,bouvier1 therefore1 very justly remarks3 8,after all1 when ,fabre's work is examined there is no trouble in seeing that none of these details escaped him4 ,he never disputed the paralytic action of the poison inoculated by the insect1 and the wonderful researches by the ,peckhams on the ,pompilids1 which hunt ,lycosids1 have clearly established the fact that the thrusts of the sting given by the predatory insect produce two different kinds of paralysis1 one functional1 and often temporary1 resulting from the action of the venom1 the other structural and persistent1 produced by the dart which more or less injures the nervous centers40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiaf1 p4 #eid47 ,in the case of predatory insects1 therefore1 the instinct must be perfect at the outset1 or survival is impossible4 ,for the origin of such instincts1 ,darwinism1 which stresses the gradualness of evolutionary progress1 has no explanation that will hold water4 ,lamarckism1 which sees in acquired habits transmitted by inheritance1 the origin of instinct1 the 8memory of the race10 is equally at a loss to account for these instincts4 ,the formation of habits requires practice and repetition4 ,the predatory insect must be perfect at the start1 and yet it only exercises its remarkable instinct once a year4 ,where is the practice and reiteration requisite for canalizing its nervous system into the conduction-paths of habit8 ,how did one particular set of rarely performed acts happen to gain precedence over all others1 and to be alone successful in stamping themselves indelibly upon the nerve plasm as habits1 and upon the germ plasm as instincts8 ,de-,vriesianism1 which would make the acquisition and perfecting of instinct dependent upon the rare and accidental contingency of a fortuitous mutation1 is even more objectionable4 ,these instincts are vital to the insect4 ,if their acquisition and improvement depend upon the lucky chance of a series of favorable mutations1 its prospects of survival are nil2 for it cannot afford to wait at all4 8,in order to live10 says ,fabre1 8we all require the conditions that enable us to live3 this is a truth worthy of the famous axioms of ,la ,palice4 ,the predatory insects live by their talent4 ,if they do not possess it to perfection1 their race is lost40 78,bramble ,bees10 p4 #cfd47 ,recently1 there has been a revival of ,lamarckism hitherto regarded as defunct4 ,guyer1 ,kammerer1 and ,pawlow profess to find factual justification for it1 and ,bouvier adopts it in his 8,la vie psychique des insectes0 7#aiah71 to account for the origin of instinct4 ,of the alleged facts of ,kammerer and ,guyer1 we have spoken in a previous chapter4 ,here we shall content ourselves with few remarks on the experiments of ,ivan ,pawlow1 as being especially relevant to the subject under consideration4 ,the ,russian physiologist has experimented on white mice1 and claims that the mice of the fifth generation learned to answer a dinner bell in the space of five lessons1 whereas their ancestors of the first generation had required a hundred lessons to answer the same signal4 ,hence he concludes3 8,the latest experiments 444 show that conditioned reflexes1 i4e41 the highest nervous activity1 are inherited40 7,science1 ,nov4 #i1 #aibc1 p4 #cfj47 ,his results1 however1 do not tally with those recently obtained by ,e4 ,c4 ,mac,dowell of the ,carnegie ,institution1 by ,h4 ,g4 ,bragg1 and by ,e4 ,m4 ,vicari of ,columbia4 ,mac,dowell found that white rats trained in a circular maze did not improve in their susceptibility to training from generation to generation4 8,children from trained parents10 he says1 8or from trained parents and grandparents1 take as long to learn the maze habit as the first generation used40 7,science1 ,march #bh1 #aibd1 p4 #cjc47 ,having cited the similar results of ,bragg1 who experimented with white mice1 he concludes3 8,the results are in full accord with those given above2 they indicate that the training of the ancestors did not facilitate the learning of the descendants40 7,ibidem47 ,e4 ,m4 ,vicari1 using a simple maze and white rats1 obtained the same results4 8,it seems clear10 she says1 8that the latter generations have not been aided by the training of their ancestors40 7,ibidem47 ,bouvier's conception1 then1 that the automatisms of instinct originate as automatisms of acquired habit1 the latter being appropriated by inheritance1 still stands in need of reliable experimental confirmation4 ,moreover1 a theory of this sort could never account1 as ,weismann points out1 for such phenomena as the specific instincts of worker bees1 which are excluded from propagation4 ,nor can the theory explain1 as originating in acquired habit1 those instinctive operations of enormous complexity1 like the complicated method of emergence employed by the larva of the emperor moth1 which only occur once in a lifetime1 and could not1 therefore1 fasten themselves on the organism as a habit4 ,an evolutionary origin of instinct1 however1 though extremely improbable1 is1 at any rate1 not absolutely inconceivable4 ,its teleology1 as we have seen1 does not imply inherent intelligence1 but is explicable as an innate law involving appropriate cordination of the sensory1 emotional1 and motor functions1 all of which are intrinsically dependent on the organism4 ,but intelligence1 as we have seen1 is a superorganic power1 having its source in a spiritual principle1 that1 from the very nature of things1 cannot be evolved from matter4 ,human reason1 therefore1 owes its origin1 not to any evolution of the human body1 but to the creation of the human soul1 which is the source and subject of that unique prerogative of man1 namely3 the power of abstract thought4 ,,chapter ,,iii ,,the ,,origin ,,of ,,the ,,human ,,body ,in an article published ,august #ca1 #ahie1 in the ,new ,york ,freeman's ,journal1 the late ,rev4 ,j4 ,a4 ,zahm gave expression to the following opinion3 8,the evolution of the body of man from some inferior animal and its subsequent endowment in this body by ,god of a rational soul is antagonistic to no dogma of faith and may be shown to be in harmony with the teachings of ,st4 ,thomas40 ,the scriptural and theological aspect of this view need not concern us here1 our sole purpose being to evaluate it from a purely scientific standpoint4 ,once evolutionary thought takes cognizance of the fact that the human soul is a spiritual principle underivable from mere matter1 once it acknowledges the immediate creation of the human soul1 and professes to do no more than account for the origin of man's animal body1 that moment is it shorn of its materialistic implications2 but what1 we may ask1 are the foundations of such an hypothesis in the realm of scientific fact8 ,the writer must confess that he cannot fathom the mentality of those who accept the evolutionary explanation1 so far as plant and animal organisms are concerned1 but proceed to draw the line when it comes to applying it to the human body4 ,for if one 7to borrow ,du ,bois-,reymond's expression7 8gives so much as his little finger to0 the evolutional argument from organic homology1 he must end1 in so far as he is consistent1 in acknowledging as incontestable its obvious application to man4 ,the only choice which sound logic can sanction is between fixism and a thoroughgoing system of transformism1 which does not exempt the human body from the scope of the evolutionary explanation4 ,indeed1 the theory of evolution itself stands or falls upon this issue2 for1 if structures so strikingly similar as the skeletons of a man and an ape1 respectively1 have originated from two distinct ancestral stocks1 then in no case at all is the inference of common descent from structural resemblance a legitimate procedure4 ,in other words1 if the homologies existent between the human and simian organisms are explicable on some other basis than that of common ancestry1 then all organic homologies are so explicable1 and the whole evolutionary argument collapses4 #a4 ,two ,theories of ,descent ,two theories have been formulated regarding the alleged bestial origin of the human body3 7#a7 the theory of lineal descent from some known species 7living or fossil7 of ape or monkey2 7#b7 the theory of collateral descent from a hypothetical bestial ancestor common to apes and men4 ,the theory of lineal descent is that to which ,darwin himself stands committed4 ,this theory1 however1 soon fell into disrepute among scientists1 who came to prefer the theory of collateral descent1 although signs of a return to the older theory are not wanting in our day4 ,at all events1 ,darwin came out flatly in favor of the monkey origin of man4 ,this1 it is true1 has been indignantly denied by loyal partisans anxious to exonerate their idol from the reproach of having advanced a crude and now obsolete theory of human descent4 ,but ,darwin's own words speak for themselves3 8,the ,simiadae10 he says1 8then branched off into two great stems1 the ,new ,world and ,old ,world monkeys2 and from the latter1 at a remote period of time1 ,man1 the wonder and glory of the ,universe1 proceeded40 78,descent of ,man10 #bnd ed41 ch4 ,,vi1 pp4 #bbj1 #bba47 ,note that he does not say 8probably02 his language is not the language of hypothesis1 but of categorical affirmation4 ,the theory1 however1 which is most generally favored at the present time holds that1 assuming the universality of the evolutionary process1 all existing types must be of equal antiquity1 and none prior or ancestral to any other4 ,hence it regards man1 not as the direct descendant of any known type of ape1 but as the offspring of an as yet undiscovered ,tertiary ancestor1 from which men and apes have diverged in two distinct lines of descent4 8,monkeys1 apes1 and men10 says ,conklin1 8have descended from some common but at present extinct ancestor4 ,existing apes and monkeys are collateral relatives of man but not his ancestors2 his cousins but not his parents4444 ,the human branch diverged from the anthropoid stock not less than two million years ago1 and since that time man has been evolving in the direction represented by existing human races1 while the apes have been evolving in the direction represented by existing anthropoids4 ,during all this time men and apes have been growing more and more unlike and conversely the farther back we go1 the more we should find them converging until they meet in a common stock which should be intermediate between these two stocks40 78,evolution and the ,bible10 pp4 #ab1 #ac--;italics his47 ,barnum ,brown's recent discovery of three jaws of the fossil ape ,dryopithecus in the ,siwalik ,hills of ,india has1 as previously intimated1 resulted in a return on the part of certain scientists1 e4g4 ,wm4 ,k4 ,gregory and ,dudley ,j4 ,morton1 to views that more nearly approximate those of ,charles ,darwin4 ,according to these men1 the fossil anthropoid ,dryopithecus is to be regarded as the common ancestor of men1 chimpanzees1 and gorillas4 7,cf4 ,science1 ,april #be1 #aibd1 ,suppl4 ,,xii47 ,many considerations1 however1 militate against the direct derivation of man's bodily frame from any known species of ape1 whether living or fossil4 ,dana has pointed out that1 as regards the mechanism of locomotion1 man belongs to a more primitive type than the ape4 ,the earliest and lowest type of vertebrates are the fish1 and these1 according to the above-mentioned author1 are urosthenic 7tail-strong71 inasmuch as they propel themselves by means of their tails4 ,next in point of organization and time came the merosthenic vertebrates1 which have their strength concentrated in the hind-limbs1 e4g4 reptiles like the dinosaurs4 ,in the last place come the prosthenic vertebrates1 whose strength is concentrated in the fore-limbs1 e4g4 the carnivora and apes4 ,now man belongs to the merosthenic type1 and his mode of progression1 therefore1 is more primitive than that of apes1 which are prosthenic1 all anthropoid apes1 such as the gorilla1 the chimpanzee1 the orang-utan and the gibbon having longer fore-limbs than hind-limbs4 ,the striking anatomical differences between apes and men1 though not of sufficient importance to exclude the possibility of collateral relationship1 are so many solid arguments against the theory of direct descent4 ,we will content ourselves with a mere enumeration of these differences4 ,in the ape1 the cranium has a protruding muzzle and powerful jaws equipped with projecting canine teeth1 but the brain-case is comparatively small2 in man1 on the contrary1 the facial development is insignificant and the teeth are small and vertical1 while the brain-case is enormous in size1 having at least twice the capacity of that of an ape4 8,the face of man10 to quote ,ranke1 8slides1 as it were1 down from the forehead and appears as an appendix to the front half of the skull4 ,but the gorilla's face1 on the contrary1 protrudes from the skull1 which in turn slides almost entirely backward from the face4 ,by a cross-cut one may sever the whole face from the skull1 except a very small part near the sockets1 without being forced to open up the interior of the skull4 ,it is only on account of its protruding1 strongly developed lower parts that the skull-cap of the animal can simulate a kind of human face40 78,der ,mensch10 vol4 ,,ii1 p4 #dja47 ,these differences may be summarized by saying that the head of the ape is specialized for mastication and defense1 whereas the head of man is specialized for psychic functions4 ,again1 as we have seen1 the fore-limbs of the ape are long1 and its hind-limbs short1 the extremities of both the latter and the former being specialized primarily for prehension and only secondarily for progression4 ,this is due to the ape's adaptation to arboreal life4 ,in man1 however1 the arms are short and specialized for prehension alone1 while the legs are long and terminate in broad plantigrade feet specialized for progression alone4 ,man1 consequently1 is not adapted to arboreal life4 ,in the ape1 the spine has a single curve1 and the occipital foramen 7the aperture through which the spinal cord enters the brain-case7 is eccentrically located in the floor of the cranial box2 in man1 the spine has a double curve1 and the occipital foramen is centrally located1 both features being in adaptation to the upright posture peculiar to man--8die zentralle ,lage dieser ,oeffnung10 says ,ranke alluding to the occipital foramen of man1 8in der ,schdelbasis ist fr den ,menschenschdel im ,unterschied gegen den ,tierschdel eine in hohem ,masse typische40 78,der ,mensch10 vol4 ,i1 p4 #cgh47 ,in the ape1 therefore1 the vertebr have an adaptation producing convexity of the back1 precluding a normal upright posture1 and enforcing progression on all fours4 ,it has1 moreover1 powerful muscles at the back of the neck to carry the head in the horizontal position necessitated by this mode of progression4 ,in man 8the skull has the occipital condyles placed within the middle fifth1 in adaptation to the vertical position of the spine0 7,nicholson71 the spinal cord enters the cranial box at a perpendicular1 and the head balances on the spinal column as on a pivot1 all of which ensures the erect posture and bipedal progression in man4 ,there are1 moreover1 no neck muscles to support the head in any other than the vertical position4 ,there are many other differences1 besides3 the ape1 for example1 has no chin1 while in man there is a marked mental protuberance2 man has a slender waist1 but the ape has a barrel-like torso without any waist2 the ape has huge bony ridges for the attachment of muscles1 e4g4 the sagittal crest1 the superciliary ridges1 etc41 while in man such features are practically absent4 ,ranke has given a very good summary of the chief anatomical differences between man and the anthropoid apes3 8,the gorilla's head leaning forward1 hangs down from the spinal column1 and his chinless snout1 equipped with powerful teeth1 touches the breastbone4 ,man's head is round1 and resting on a free neck1 balances unrestrained upon the spinal column4 ,the gorilla's body1 without a waist1 swells out barrel-shaped1 and when straightened up finds no sufficient support on the pelvis2 the back-bone1 tailless as in man1 but almost straight1 loses itself without nape or neck formation properly so-called in the rear part of the head and without protuberance of the gluteal region in the flat thighs4 ,man's body is slightly molded1 like an hour-glass1 the chest and abdomen meeting to form a waist where they are narrowest2 the abdominal viscera are perfectly supported in the pelvis as in a plate2 and elegance is decidedly gained by the double ,s-line1 which1 curving alternately convex and concave1 passes from the crown through the neck and nape1 down the back to the base of the spine and the gluteal region4 ,the normal position of the gorilla shows us a plump1 bear-like trunk1 carried by short1 crooked legs and by arms which serve as crutches and touch the ground with the knuckles of the turned-in fingers4 ,the posture of the body is perfectly straight in man1 it rests on the legs as on columns when he stands upright1 and his hands hang down on both sides always ready for use4 ,the gorilla is thickly covered with hair1 while man's body on the whole is naked40 7,op4 cit41 vol4 ,,ii1 p4 #bac47 ,in conclusion1 we may say that1 while there is a general resemblance between the human body and that of an anthropoid ape1 there is1 likewise1 a particular divergence--8there is no bone1 be it ever so small1 nay1 not even the smallest particle of a bone1 in which the general agreement in structure and function would pass over into real identity40 7,ranke1 op4 cit41 vol4 ,i1 p4 #dcg47 ,hence ,virchow declares that 8the differences between man and monkey are so wide that almost any fragment is sufficient to diagnose them40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #ahhi1 p4 #eff47 ,these differences are so considerable as to preclude the possibility of a direct genealogical connection between man and any known type of ape or monkey--8,the testimony of comparative anatomy10 to quote ,bumller1 8is decidedly against the theory of man's descent from the ape40 78,mensch oder ,affe80 p4 #ei47 ,ranke has somewhere called man a brain-animal1 and this sums up the chief difference1 which marks off the human body from all bestial organisms4 ,in the ape the brain weighs only #ajjth part of the weight of its body1 whereas in man the brain has a weight equivalent to the #cgth part of the weight of the human body4 ,the cranial capacity of the largest apes ranges from #ejj to #fjj c4cm41 while the average cranial capacity in man is #aejj c4cm4 ,moreover1 the human brain is far more extensively convoluted within the brain-case than that of an ape1 so much so that the surface or cortical area of the human brain is four times as great as that of the ape's brain4 ,thus ,wundt1 in his 8,grundzge der physiologischen ,psychologie10 cites ,h4 ,wagner as assigning to man a brain surface of from #b1aif to #a1hgg sq4 cm41 but a cortical area of only #ece sq4 cm4 in the case of an orang-outang4 7,cf4 ,english ,translation by ,titchener1 vol4 ,i1 p4 #bhf47 ,another difficulty in the way of the ,darwinian theory of direct descent is the fact that the best counterparts of human anatomy are not found united in any one species of ape or monkey1 but are scattered throughout a large number of species4 8,returning to the old discussion10 says ,thomas ,dwight1 8as to which ape can boast of the closest resemblance to man1 ,kohlbrugge brings before us ,aeby's forgotten book on the skull of man and apes4 ,his measurements show that the form nearest to man among apes is the gibbon1 or long-armed ape1 but that the ,south ,american monkey ,crysothrix is nearer still4 ,aeby recognized what modern anatomists have forgotten or wilfully ignored3 that any system of descent is inadequate which does not recognize that the type of man is not in any one organ1 but in all the physical and psychological features4 ,he declared that while we are far from having this universal knowledge1 we have learned enough about the various parts of the body to make it impossible for us to sketch any plan of descent4 #8,it almost seems as if every part had its own line of descent1 different from that of others4' 444 ,kohlbrugge now introduces ,haacke1 who denies any relationship between man and apes1 the latter being instances of one-sided development4 ,he even dares to declare anyone who speaks of an intermediate form between man and apes to be ignorant of the laws of development governing the race history of mammals4 ,he believes man came from some lemuroid form1 which may have descended from the insectivora40 78,thoughts of a ,catholic ,anatomist10 pp4 #ahh-aij47 ,all known types1 then1 of apes and monkeys are too specialized to have been in the direct line of human descent4 ,man1 as ,kohlbrugge ironically remarks1 appears to have come from an ancestor much more like himself than any species of ape we know of4 ,moreover1 no species of apes or monkeys monopolizes the honors of closest resemblance to man4 ,in many points1 the ,south ,american monkeys1 though more primitive than the anthropoid apes1 are more similar to man than the latter4 #b4 ,embryological ,resemblances ,much has been made of the so-called biogenetic law as an argument for the bestial origin of mankind4 ,this theory of the embryological recapitulation of racial history was first formulated by ,fritz ,mller4 ,haeckel1 however1 was the one who exploited it most extensively1 and who exalted it to the status of 8the fundamental law of biogenesis40#af ,the latter's statement of the principle is as follows3 8,die ,ontogenesis ist die ,palingenesis der ,phylogenesis40--,ontogeny 7the development of the individual7 is a recapitulation of phylogeny 7the development of the race74 ,for a long time this law was received with uncritical credulity by the scientific world1 but enthusiasm diminished when more careful studies made it clear that the line of descent suggested by embryology did not agree with what was inferred from comparative anatomy and the sequence of fossil forms4 ,besides1 it was manifest that certain organs in embryos were distinctively embryonic and could never have functioned in adult forms1 e4g4 the yolk sac and the amnion4 8,it was recognized10 says ,t4 ,h4 ,morgan1 8that many embryonic stages could not possibly represent ancestral animals4 ,a young fish with a huge yolk sac attached could scarcely ever have led a happy1 free life as an adult individual4 ,such stages were interpreted1 however1 as embryonic additions to the original ancestral type4 ,the embryo had done something on its own account4 ,in some animals the young have structures that attach them to the mother1 as does the placenta of mammals4 ,in other cases the young develop membranes about themselves--like the amnion of the chick and the mammal--that would have shut off an adult animal from all intercourse with the outside world4 ,hundreds of such embryonic structures are known to embryologists4 ,these were explained as adaptations and as falsifications of the ancestral records40 78,critique of the ,theory of ,evolution10 pp4 #af1 #ag47 #af ,haeckel's 8,biogenetisches ,grundgesetz10 which he formulates thus3 8,die ,ontogenie 7,keimesgeschichte7 ist eine kurze ,wiederholung der ,phylogenie 7,stammesgeschichte710 #ahgd4 ,the result has been that this so-called law has fallen into general disrepute among scientists1 especially as a means of reconstructing the phylogeny of modern organisms4 ,it is recognized1 of course1 that comparative embryology can furnish embryological homologies analogous to the homologies of comparative anatomy1 but it is now generally acknowledged that the view1 which regards the embryological process as an abridged repetition of the various states through which the species has passed in its evolutionary career must be definitively abandoned1 and that1 as a general law of organic development1 the biogenetic principle has been thoroughly discredited4 8,this law10 says ,karl ,vogt of ,geneva1 8which ,i long held as well-founded1 is absolutely and radically false4 ,attentive study of embryology shows us1 in fact1 that embryos have their own conditions suitable to themselves1 and very different from those of adults40 7,quoted by ,quatrefages ,de ,breau1 in his 8,les ,emules de ,darwin10 vol4 ,,ii1 p4 #ac47 8,there can no longer be question10 says ,prof4 ,m4 ,caullery of the ,sorbonne1 8of systematically regarding individual development as a repetition of the history of the stock4 ,this conclusion results from the very progress made under the inspiration received from this imaginary law1 the law of biogenesis40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiaf1 p4 #cbe47 ,this collapse of the biogenetic law has tumbled into ruins the elaborate superstructure of genealogy which ,haeckel had reared upon it4 ,his series of thirty stages extending from the fictitious 8cytodes0 up to man1 inclusively1 is even more worthless today than it was when ,du ,bois-,reymond made his ironic comment3 8,man's pedigree1 as drawn up by ,haeckel1 is worth about as much as is that of ,homer's heroes for critical historians40 7,revue ,scientifique1 #ahgg1 ,i1 p4 #aaja47 ,haeckel tried in vain to save his discredited law by means of the expedient of cnogenesis1 that is1 8the falsification of the ancestral record 7palingenesis740 ,that ,nature should be guilty of 8falsification0 is an hypothesis not to be lightly entertained1 and it is more credible1 as ,wasmann remarks1 to assume that ,haeckel1 and not ,nature1 is the real falsifier1 inasmuch as he has misrepresented ,nature in his 8fundamental biogenetic law40 ,cnogenesis is a very convenient device4 ,one can alternate at will between cnogenesis and palingenesis1 just as1 in comparative anatomy1 one can alternate capriciously between convergence and homology1 on the general understanding of its being a case of3 8,heads1 ,i win2 tails1 you lose0--certainly1 there is no objective consideration to restrain us in such procedure4 8,such weapons as ,cnogenesis and ,convergence10 says ,kohlbrugge 7in his 8,die ,morphologische ,abstammung des ,menschen10 #aijh7 8are unfortunately so shaped that anyone can use them when they suit him1 or throw them aside when they do not4 ,they show1 therefore1 in the prettiest way the uncertainty even now of the construction of the theory of descent4 ,as soon as we go into details it leaves us in the lurch2 it was only while our knowledge was small that everything seemed to fit together in most beautiful order40 7,quoted by ,dwight in 8,thoughts of a ,catholic ,anatomist10 p4 #ahg47 ,it is undeniable1 indeed1 that in many cases the young of higher animals pass through stages in which they bear at least a superficial resemblance to adult stages in inferior and less complex organisms4 ,obviously1 however1 there cannot be any direct derivation of the embryonic features of one organism from the adult characters of another organism4 ,this preposterous implication of the ,mller-,haeckel ,law must1 as ,morgan points out1 be entirely eliminated1 before it can merit serious consideration4 ,referring to the spiral cleavage exhibited by annelid1 planarian and molluscan eggs1 ,morgan says3 8,it has been found that the cleavage pattern has the same general arrangement in the early stages of flat worms1 annelids and molluscs4 ,obviously these stages have never been adult ancestors1 and obviously if their resemblance has any meaning at all1 it is that each group has retained the same general plan of cleavage possessed by their common ancestor4444 ,perhaps someone will say1 #8,well6 is not this all that we have contended for6 ,have you not reached the old conclusion in a roundabout way8' ,i think not4 ,to my mind there is a wide difference between the old statement that the higher animals living today have the original adult stages telescoped into their embryos1 and the statement that the resemblance between certain characters in the embryos of higher animals and corresponding stages in the embryos of lower animals is most plausibly explained by the assumption that they have descended from the same ancestors1 and that their common structures are embryonic survivals40 7,op4 cit41 pp4 #bb1 #bc47 ,after this admission1 however1 nothing remains of the law of 8recapitulation0 except simple embryological homology comparable1 in every sense1 to adult homology1 and adding nothing essentially new to the latter argument for evolution4 ,it is1 therefore1 ridiculous for evolutionists to speak of branchial 7gill7 arches and clefts in man4 ,the visceral or pharyngeal arches and grooves appearing in the human embryo are unquestionably homologous with the genuine branchial arches and clefts in a fish embryo4 ,in the latter1 however1 the grooves become real clefts through perforation1 while the arches become the lamell of the permanent gills1 thus adapting the animal to aquatic respiration4 ,it is1 accordingly1 perfectly legitimate to refer to these embryonic structures in the young fish as gill arches and gill clefts4 ,in man1 however1 the corresponding embryonic structures develop into the oral cavity1 auditory meatus1 ossicles of the ear1 the mandible1 the lower lip1 the tongue1 the cheek1 the hyoid bone1 the styloid process1 the thymus1 the thyroid and tracheal cartilages1 etc4 ,there is no perforation of the grooves1 and the arches develop into something quite different than branchial lamell4 ,hence the correct name for these structures in the human embryo is pharyngeal 7visceral7 arches and grooves1 their superficial resemblance to the embryonic structures in the fish embryo being no justification for calling them branchial4 ,in short1 the mere fact that certain embryonic structures in the young fish 7homologous to the pharyngeal arches and grooves in the human embryo7 develop into the permanent gills of the adult fish1 is no more significant than the association of homology with divergent preadaptations1 which is of quite general occurrence among adult vertebrate types4 ,in all such cases1 we have instances of fundamentally identical structures1 diverted1 as it were1 to entirely different purposes or functions 7e4g4 the arm of a man and the flipper of a whale74 ,hence the argument drawn from embryological homology is no more cogent than the argument drawn from the homologies of comparative anatomy1 which we have already discussed in a previous chapter4 ,the misuse of the term branchial1 to prejudge matters in their own favor1 is in keeping with the customary policy of evolutionists4 ,it is intended1 naturally1 to convey the impression that man1 in the course of his evolution1 has passed through a fish-like stage4 ,at bottom1 however1 it is nothing more than a verbal subterfuge1 that need not detain us further4 ,the theory of embryological recapitulation is often applied to man1 with a view to establishing the doctrine of his bestial ancestry4 ,we have seen one instance of this application1 and we shall consider one other1 for the purpose of illustrating more fully the principles involved4 ,the claim is made by evolutionists1 that man must have passed through a fish or amphibian stage1 because1 in common with all other mammals1 he exhibits1 during his embryological development1 a typical fish 7or1 if you prefer1 amphibian7 kidney1 which subsequently atrophies1 only to be replaced by the characteristic mammalian kidney4 ,the human embryo1 therefore1 repeats the history of our race1 which must have passed through a fish-like stage in the remote past4 ,in consequence of this phenomenon1 therefore1 it is inferred that man must have had fish-like ancestors4 ,let us pause1 however1 to analyze the facts upon which this inference is based4 ,in annelids1 like the earthworm1 the nephridia or excretory tubules are arranged segmentally1 one pair to each somite4 ,in vertebrates1 however1 the nephridial tubules1 instead of developing in regular sequence from before backwards1 develop in three batches1 one behind the other1 the anterior batch being called the pronephros1 the middle one1 the mesonephros and the posterior one1 the metanephros4 ,this1 according to ,j4 ,graham ,kerr1 holds true not only of the amniotic vertebrates 7reptiles1 birds1 and mammals7 but also1 with a certain reservation1 of the anamniotic vertebrates 7fishes and amphibians74 8,in many of the lower ,vertebrates10 says this author1 8there is no separation between the mesonephros and metanephros1 the two forming one continuous structure which acts as the functional kidney4 ,such a type of renal organ consisting of the series of tubules corresponding to mesonephros together with metanephros may conveniently be termed the opisthonephros40 78,textbook of ,embryology10 ,,ii--,vertebrata1 p4 #bba47 ,if we accept this view1 it is not quite accurate to regard the mesonephros in man as a homologue of the opisthonephros of a fish1 seeing that the latter is composed not only of mesonephridia 7mesonephric tubules71 but also of metanephridia 7metanephric tubules74 ,a brief description of the three nephridial systems of vertebrate embryos will serve to further clarify their interrelationship4 7#a7 ,the pronephric system3 ,this consists of a collection of tubules called the pronephros1 and a pronephric duct leading to the cloaca1 or terminal portion of the alimentary canal4 ,the pronephros is a functional organ in the frog tadpole and other larval amphibia4 ,it is also found in a few teleosts1 where it is said to persist as a functional organ in the adult4 ,in other fishes1 however1 and in all higher forms the pronephros atrophies and becomes reduced to a few rudiments4#ag #ag ,the objection may be raised that a purely embryonic organ like the pronephros1 which is functional in but few vertebrate adults and which originates in vertebrate embryos only to undergo atrophy1 can have no other explanation than that of 8recapitulation40 ,the objection1 however1 fails to take into account the possibility of the organ being serviceable to the embryo1 in which it may be a provisory solution of the excretory problem and not a vestige of past ancestry4 7#b7 ,the mesonephric system3 ,this consists of a collection of nephridial tubules called the mesonephros 7,wolffian body74 ,the tubules of the mesonephros do not develop any duct of their own1 but utilize the posterior portion of the pronephric duct1 the said tubules becoming secondarily connected with this duct in a region posterior to the pronephridia 7tubules of the pronephros74 ,the pronephric tubules together with the anterior portion of the pronephric duct then atrophy1 while the persisting posterior portion of this duct receives the name of mesonephric or ,wolffian duct4 ,the duct in question still terminates in the cloaca1 and serves1 in the male1 the combined function of a urinary and spermatic duct2 but1 in the female1 a special oviduct 7the ,mllerian duct7 is superadded because of the large size of the eggs to be transmitted1 the ,wolffian or mesonephric duct subserving only the urinary function4 ,the mesonephros is functional in mammalian embryos1 but atrophies and disappears coincidently with the development of the permanent kidney4 ,the same is true of amniotic vertebrates generally1 except that in the case of reptiles the mesonephros persists for a few months after hatching in the adult1 the definitive kidney of the adult being reinforced during that interval by the still functional mesonephros4 ,in anamniotic vertebrates1 however1 no separation exists between the mesonephros and the metanephros1 the two forming one continuous structure1 the opisthonephros1 which acts as the functional kidney of the adult4 7#c7 ,the metanephric system3 ,in the amniotic vertebrates the mesonephros and metanephros are distinct1 the former being functional in embryos and in adult reptiles 7for a few months after hatching71 while the metanephros becomes the definitive kidney of the adult4 ,the metanephros is a collection of nephridial tubules provided with a special urinary duct called the ureter1 which empties into the bladder 7not the cloaca74 ,the ,wolffian or mesonephric duct is retained as a sperm duct in the male 7of amniotic vertebrates71 but becomes vestigial in the female4 ,only a certain number of the nephridial tubules of the embryonic metanephros are taken over to form part of the permanent or adult kidney 7in mammals1 birds1 and reptiles74 ,if1 then1 as we have previously observed1 we follow ,kerr in regarding the fish kidney1 not as a simple mesonephros1 but as an opisthonephros 7i4e4 a combination of mesonephros and metanephros71 there is no warrant for interpreting the embryonic mesonephros of man and mammals generally as the fish-kidney stage4 ,but waiving this consideration1 and assuming1 for the sake of argument1 that the fish kidney is a perfect homologue of the human mesonephros1 the mere fact of the adoption by the human embryo of a temporary solution of its excretory problem similar to the permanent solution of that problem adopted by the fish1 would not1 of itself1 imply the common ancestry of men and fishes4 ,such a coincidence would be fully explicable as a case of convergent adaptation occurring in the interest of embryonic economy4 ,it is1 indeed1 a well-known fact that larval and embryonic organisms are often obliged to defer temporarily the construction of the more complex structures of adult life1 and to improvise simpler substitutes for use until such a time as they have accumulated a sufficient reserve of energy and materials to complete the work of their more elaborate adult organization4 ,the young starfish1 for example1 arising as it does from an egg but scantily supplied with yolk1 is forced1 from the very outset1 to shift for itself1 in coping with the food-getting problem4 ,under stress of this necessity1 it economizes its slender resources by constructing the extremely simple digestive and motor apparatus characteristic of the larva in its bilaterally-symmetrical ,bipinnaria stage1 and postponing the development of the radially-symmetrical structure characteristic of the adult stage1 until it has stored up the wherewithal to complete its metamorphosis4 ,from this viewpoint1 there is no difficulty in understanding why temporary solutions of the excretory problem should precede the definitive solution of this problem in mammalian embryos4 ,the problem of excretion is urgent from the outset1 and its demands increase with the growth of the embryo4 ,it is only natural1 then1 that a series of improvised structures should be resorted to1 in a case of this kind2 and1 since these temporary solutions of the excretory problem must1 of necessity1 be as simple as possible1 it should not be in the least surprising to find them coinciding with the permanent solutions adopted by inferior organisms less complexly organized than the mammals4 ,hence the bare fact of resemblance between the transitory embryonic kidney of a mammal and the permanent adult kidney of a fish would have no atavistic significance4 ,we know of innumerable cases in which an identical adaptation occurs in genetically unrelated organisms4 ,the cephalopod mollusc ,nautilus1 for example1 solves the problem of light-perception in the identical manner in which it is solved by the vertebrates4 ,this mollusc has the perfect vertebrate type of eye1 including the lens and all other parts down to the minutest detail4 ,the fact1 however1 that the mollusc solves its problem by using the stereotyped solution found in vertebrates rather than by developing a compound eye analogous to the type found among arthropods1 is wholly destitute of genetic significance4 ,in fact1 the genetic interpretation is positively rejected by the evolutionists1 who interpret the occurrence of similar eyes in molluscs and vertebrates as an instance of 8accidental convergence40 ,even assuming1 then1 what ,kerr denies1 namely1 a perfect parallelism between the mesonephros of the human embryo and the permanent kidney of an adult fish1 the alleged fact that the human embryo temporarily adopts the same type of solution for its excretory problem as the one permanently employed by the fish would not in itself be a proof of our descent from a fish-like ancestor4 ,in fact1 not only is embryological homology of no greater value than adult homology as an argument for evolution1 but it is1 on the contrary1 considerably inferior to the latter1 as regards cogency4 ,differentiation pertains to the final or adult stage of organisms4 ,embryonic structures1 inasmuch as they are undeveloped and undifferentiated1 present for that very reason an appearance of crude and superficial similarity4 8,most of what is generally ascribed to the action of the so-called biogenetic law10 says ,t4 ,garbowski1 8is erroneously ascribed to it1 since all things that are undeveloped and incomplete must be more or less alike40 78,morphogenetische ,studien10 ,jena1 #aijc47 ,when we consider the fact that the metazoa have all a similar unicellular origin1 are subject to uniform morphogenetic laws1 and are frequently exposed to analogous environmental conditions demanding similar adaptations1 it is not at all surprising that they should present many points of resemblance 7both in their embryonic and their adult morphology7 which are not referable to any particular line of descent4 ,at all events1 these resemblances are far too general in their extension to enable us to specify the type of ancestor responsible therefor4 ,more especially is this true of embryological homologies1 which are practically valueless as basis for reconstructing the phylogeny of any type4 8,that certain phenomena10 says ,oskar ,hertwig1 8recur with great regularity and uniformity in the development of different species of animals1 is due chiefly to the fact that under all circumstances they supply the necessary condition under which alone the next higher stage in ontogeny 7embryological development7 can be produced40 78,allgemeine ,biologie10 #aijf1 p4 #eie47 ,the same author1 therefore1 proposes to revamp ,haeckel's 8biogenetisches ,grundgesetz0 as follows3 8,we must leave out the words #8recapitulation of forms of extinct ancestors' and substitute for them #8repetition of forms regularly occurring in organic development1 and advancing from the simple to the more complex4'0 7,op4 cit41 p4 #eic47 ,finally1 when applied to the problem of man's alleged genetic connection with the ape1 the biogenetic principle proves the exact reverse of what the ,darwinians desire2 for as a matter of fact the young apes resemble man much more closely in the shape of the skull and facial features than do the adult animals4 ,inasmuch1 therefore1 as the ape1 in its earlier development1 reveals a more marked resemblance to man than is present in its later stages1 it follows1 according to the 8biogenetic law10 that man is the ancestor of the ape4 ,this1 however1 is inadmissible1 seeing that the ape is by no means a more recent type than man4 ,consequently1 as applied to man1 the ,haeckelian principle leads to a preposterous conclusion1 and thereby manifests its worthlessness as a clue to phylogeny4 ,julius ,kollmann1 it is true1 gives serious attention to this likeness between young apes and men1 and makes it the basis of his scheme of human evolution4 8,kollmann10 says ,dwight1 8starts from the fact that the head of a young ape is very much more like that of a child than the head of an old ape is like that of a man4 ,he holds that the likeness of the skull of a very young ape is so great that there must be a family relationship4 ,he believes that some differentiation1 some favorable variation1 must occur in the body of the mother and so a somewhat higher skull is transmitted to the offspring and is perpetuated4 ,concerning which ,kohlbrugge remarks that #8thus the first men were developed1 not from the adult1 but from the embryonic forms of the anthropoids whose more favorable form of skull they managed to preserve in further growth4' 444 ,schwalbe makes the telling criticism of these views of ,kollmann that much the same thing might be said of the heads of embryonic animals in general that is said of those of apes1 and that thus mammals might be said to have come from a more man-like ancestor40 7,op4 cit41 pp4 #ahf1 #ahg47 ,all of which goes to show that the 8biogenetic law0 is more misleading than helpful in settling the question of human phylogeny4 #c4 ,rudimentary ,organs ,darwin attached great importance to the existence in man of so-called rudimentary organs1 which he regarded as convincing evidence of man's descent from the lower forms of animal life4 ,nineteenth century science1 being ignorant of the functional purpose served by many organs1 arbitrarily pronounced them to be useless organs1 and chose1 in consequence1 to regard them all as the atrophied and 7wholly or partially7 functionless remnants of organs that were formerly developed and fully functional in remote ancestors of the race4 ,darwin borrowed this argument from ,lamarck4 ,it may be stated thus3 ,undeveloped and functionless organs are atrophied organs4 ,but atrophy is the result of disuse4 ,now disuse presupposes former use4 ,consequently1 rudimentary organs were at one time developed and functioning1 viz4 in the remote ancestors of the race4 ,since1 therefore1 these selfsame organs are developed and functional in the lower forms of life1 it follows that the higher forms1 in which these organs are reduced and functionless1 are descended from forms similar to those in which said organs are developed and fully functional4 ,this argument1 however1 fairly bristles with assumptions that are not only wholly unwarranted1 but utterly at variance with actual facts4 ,in the first place1 it wrongly assumes that all reduced organs are functionless1 and1 conversely1 that all functionless organs are atrophied or reduced4 ,facts1 however1 prove the contrary2 for we find frequent instances of reduced organs which function1 and1 vice versa1 of well-developed organs which are functionless4 ,the tail1 for example1 in cats1 dogs1 and certain ,catarrhine monkeys1 though it discharges neither the prehensile function that makes it useful in the ,platyrrhine monkey1 nor the protective function that makes it useful to horses and cattle in warding off flies1 is1 nevertheless1 despite its inutility or absence of function1 a quite fully developed organ4 ,conversely1 the reduced or undeveloped fin-like wings of the penguin are by no means functionless1 since they enable this bird to swim through the water with great facility4 ,to save his argument from this antagonism of the facts1 ,darwin resorts to the ingenious expedient of distinguishing between rudimentary organs and nascent organs4 ,rudimentary organs are undeveloped organs1 which are wholly1 or partially1 useless4 ,they have had a past1 but have no future4 ,nascent organs1 on the contrary1 are undeveloped organs1 which 8are of high service to their possessors0 78,descent of ,man10 ch4 ,i1 p4 #bh1 #bnd ed474 ,they 8are capable of further development0 7ibidem71 and have1 therefore1 a future before them4 ,he gives the following examples of rudimentary organs3 8,rudimentary organs 444 are either quite useless1 such as teeth which never cut through the gums1 or almost useless1 such as the wings of an ostrich1 which serve merely as sails40 78,origin of ,species10 #fth ed41 ch4 ,,xiv1 p4 #dfi47 ,as an example of a nascent organ1 he gives the mammary glands of the oviparous ,duckbill3 8,the mammary glands of the ,ornithorhynchus may be considered1 in comparison with the udders of a cow1 as in a nascent condition40 7,op4 cit41 ch4 ,,xiv1 p4 #dgj47 ,darwin admits that it is hard to apply this distinction in the concrete3 8,it is1 however1 often difficult to distinguish between rudimentary and nascent organs2 for we can judge only by analogy whether a part is capable of further development1 in which case alone it deserves to be called nascent40 7,op4 cit41 ch4 ,,xiv1 p4 #dfi47 ,for ,darwin 8judging by analogy0 meant judging on the assumption that evolution has really taken place2 for he describes rudimentary organs as being 8of such slight service that we can hardly suppose that they were developed under the conditions which now exist40 78,descent of ,man10 ch4 ,i1 p4 #bi47 ,he is somewhat perplexed about applying this distinction to the penguin3 8,the wing of the penguin10 he admits1 8is of high service1 acting as a fin2 it may1 therefore1 represent the nascent state3 not that ,i believe this to be the case2 it is more probably a reduced organ1 modified for a new function40 78,origin of ,species10 #fth ed41 ch4 ,,xiv1 pp4 #dfi1 #dgj47 ,in other words1 there is scarcely any objective consideration by which the validity of this distinction can be checked up in practice4 ,like homology and convergence1 like palingenesis and cnogensis1 the distinction between rudimentary and nascent organs is a convenient device1 which can be arbitrarily manipulated according to the necessities of a preconceived theory4 ,it is 8scientific0 sanction for the privilege of blowing hot and cold with the same breath4 ,the assumption that atrophy and reduction are the inevitable consequence of disuse1 or diminution of use1 in so far as this decreases the flow of nourishing blood to unexercised parts1 is certainly erroneous4 ,yet ,darwin made it the premise of his argument from so-called rudimentary organs4 8,the term #8disuse' does not relate10 he informs us1 8merely to lessened action of muscles1 but includes a diminished flow of blood to the part or organ1 from being subjected to fewer alternations of pressure1 or from being in any way less habitually active40 78,origin of ,species10 #fth ed41 p4 #dfi47 ,as a matter of fact1 however1 we have many instances in which use has failed to develop and disuse to reduce organs in certain types of animals4 ,as an example in point1 we may cite the case of right-handedness among human beings4 ,from time immemorial1 the generality of mankind have consistently used the right hand in preference to the left1 without any atrophy or reduction of the left hand1 or over-development of the right hand1 resulting from this racial practice4 8,the superiority of one hand10 says ,g4 ,elliot ,smith1 8is as old as mankind40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiab1 p4 #egj47 ,it is true that only about #f1jjj years of human existence are known to history1 but1 if one accepts the most conservative estimates of glaciologists1 man has had a much longer prehistory1 the lowest estimates for the age of man being approximately #cj1jjj years4 ,thus ,w4 ,j4 ,sollas tells us that the ,glacial period1 in which man first appeared1 came to an end about #g1jjj years ago1 and that the men buried at ,chapelle-aux-,saints in ,france lived about #be1jjj years ago4 ,his figures agree with those of ,c4 ,f4 ,wright1 who bases his calculations on the ,niagara ,gorge4 ,the ,niagara ,river is one of the postglacial streams1 and the time required to cut its gorge has been calculated as #g1jjj years4 ,gerard ,de ,geer1 the ,swedish scientist1 gives #bj1jjj years ago as the end of glacial and the commencement of recent or postglacial time4 ,he bases his estimates on the sediments of the ,yoldia ,sea in ,sweden4 ,his method consists in the actual counting of certain seasonally-laminated clay layers1 presumably left behind by the receding ice sheet of the continental glacier4 ,the melting is registered by annual deposition1 in which the thinner layers of finer sand from the winter flows alternate with thicker layers of coarser material from the summer flows4 ,in warm years1 the layers are thicker1 in colder years they are thinner1 so that these laminated ,pleistocene clays constitute a thermographic as well as a chronological record4 ,de ,geer began his study of ,pleistocene clays in #ahgh1 and in #aibj he led an expedition to the ,united ,states1 for the purpose of extending his researches4 7,cf4 ,science1 ,sept4 #bd1 #aibj1 pp4 #bhd-bhf47 ,at that time1 he claimed to have worked out the chronology of the past #ab1jjj years4 ,his figure of #bj1jjj years for postglacial time1 while very displeasing to that reckless foe of scientific caution and conservatism1 ,henry ,fairfield ,osborn1 tallies very well with the estimates of ,sollas and ,wright4 ,h4 ,obermaier1 basing his computation on ,croll's theory that glaciation is caused by variations in the eccentricity of the earth's orbit about the sun1 which would bring about protracted winters in the hemisphere having winter1 when the earth was farthest from the sun 7with consequent accumulation of ice71 gives #cj1jjj years ago as the date of the first appearance of man on earth4 ,father ,hugues ,obermaier1 it may be noted1 like ,abb ,henri ,breuil1 is one of the foremost authorities on the subject of prehistoric ,man4 ,both are ,catholic priests4 ,all such computations of the age of man are1 of course1 uncertain and theoretical4 ,evolutionists calculate it in hundreds of thousands1 and even millions1 of years4 ,after giving such a table of recklessly tremendous figures1 ,osborn has the hypocritical meticulosity to add that1 for the sake of precision 7save the mark67 the nineteen hundred and some odd years of the ,christian era should be added to his figures4 ,but1 even according to the most conservative scientific estimates1 as we have seen1 man is said to have been in existence for #cj1jjj years1 and the prevalence of right-handedness among men is as old as the human race4 ,one would expect1 then1 to find modern man equipped with a gigantic right arm and a dwarfed left arm4 ,in other words1 man should exhibit a condition comparable to that of a lobster1 which has one large and one small chela4 ,yet1 in spite of the fact that the comparative inaction of the human left hand is supposed to have endured throughout a period of1 at least1 #cj1jjj years1 this state of affairs has not resulted in the faintest trace of atrophy or retrogression4 ,bones1 muscles1 tendons1 ligaments1 nerves1 blood vessels1 and all parts are of equal size in both arms and both hands4 ,excessive exercise may overdevelop the musculature of the right arm1 but this is an individual and acquired adaptation1 which is never transmitted to the offspring1 e4g4 the child of a blacksmith does not inherit the muscular hypertrophy of his father4 ,disuse1 therefore1 has not the efficacy which ,lamarck and ,darwin ascribed to it4 ,in fine1 it must be recognized1 once for all1 that organisms are not-molded on a ,lamarckian basis of use1 nor yet on a ,darwinian basis of selected utility4 ,expediency1 in other words1 is not the sole governing principle of the organic world4 ,neither instinctive habitude nor the struggle for existence succeeds in forcing structural adaptation of a predictable nature4 ,animals with different organic structure have the same instincts1 e4g4 monkeys with1 and without1 prehensile tails alike dwell in trees2 while animals having the same organic structure may have different instincts1 e4g4 the rabbit1 which burrows1 and the hare1 which does not1 are practically identical in anatomical structure4 ,again1 some animals are highly specialized for a function1 which other animals perform without specialized organs1 as is instanced in the case of moles1 which possess a special burrowing apparatus1 and prairie-dogs1 which burrow without a specialized apparatus4 ,any system of evolution1 which ignores the internal or hereditary factors of organic life and strives to explain all in terms of the environmental factors1 encounters an insuperable obstacle in this remorseless resistance of conflicting facts4 ,another flaw in the ,darwinian argument from rudimentary organs is that it confounds1 in many cases1 apparent1 with real inutility 7or absence of function74 ,darwin and his followers frequently argued out of their ignorance1 and falsely concluded that an organ was destitute of a function1 merely because they had failed to discover its utility4 ,large numbers1 accordingly1 of highly serviceable organs were catalogued as vestigial or rudimentary1 simply because nineteenth century science did not comprehend their indubitable utility4 ,with the advance of present-day physiology1 this list of 8useless organs0 is being rapidly depleted1 so that the scientific days of the rudimentary organ appear to be numbered4 ,at any rate1 in arbitrarily pronouncing many important and functioning organs to be useless vestiges of a former stage in the history of the race1 the ,darwinians were not the friends of ,science1 but rather its reactionary enemies1 inasmuch as they sought to discourage further investigation by their dogmatic decision that there was no function to be found4 ,in so doing1 however1 they were merely exploiting the ignorance of their times in the interest of a preconceived theory1 which whetted their appetite for discovering1 at all costs1 the presence in man of functionless organs4 ,their anxiety in this direction led them to consider the whole group of organs constituting a most important regulatory and cordinative system in man and other vertebrates as so many useless vestigial organs4 ,this system is called the cryptorhetic system and is made of internally-secreting1 ductless glands1 now called endocrine glands4 ,these glands generate and instill into the blood stream certain chemical substances called hormones1 which1 diffusing in the blood1 produce immediate stimulatory1 and remote metabolic effects on special organs distant from the endocrine gland1 in which the particular hormone is elaborated4 ,as examples of such endocrine glands1 we may mention the pineal gland 7epiphysis71 the pituitary body 7hypophysis71 the thyroid glands1 the parathyroids1 the islelets of ,langerhans1 the adrenal bodies 7suprarenal capsules71 and the interstitial cells of the gonads4 ,the importance of these alleged useless organs is now known to be paramount4 ,death1 for instance1 will immediately ensue in man and other animals1 upon extirpation of the adrenal bodies4 ,the late ,robert ,wiedersheim1 it will be remembered1 declared the pineal gland or epiphysis to be the surviving vestige of a 8third eye0 inherited from a former ancestor1 in whom it opened between the parietal bones of the skull1 like the median or pineal eye of certain lizards1 the socket of which is the parietal foramen formed in the interparietal suture4 ,if the argument is based on homology alone1 then the coincidence in position between the human epiphysis and the median optic nerve of the lizards in question has the ordinary force of the evolutionary argument from homology4 ,but when one attempts to reduce the epiphysis to the status of a useless vestigial rudiment1 he is in open conflict with facts2 for the pineal body is1 in reality1 an endocrine gland generating and dispersing a hormone1 which is very important for the regulation of growth in general and of sexual development in particular4 ,hence this tiny organ in the diencephalic roof1 no larger than a grain of wheat1 is not a functionless rudiment1 but an important functioning organ of the cryptorhetic system4 ,we have no ground1 therefore1 on this score for inferring that our pineal gland functioned in former ancestors as a median eye comparable to that of the cyclops ,polyphemus of ,homeric fame4 ,in like manner1 the pituitary body or hypophysis1 which in man is a small organ about the size of a cherry1 situated at the base of the brain1 buried in the floor of the skull1 and lying just behind the optic chiasma1 was formerly rated as a rudimentary organ4 ,it was1 in fact1 regarded as the vestigial remnant of a former connection between the neural and alimentary canals1 reminiscent of the invertebrate stage4 8,the phylogenetic explanation of this organ generally accepted10 says ,albert ,p4 ,mathews1 8is that formerly the neural canal connected at this point with the alimentary canal4 ,a probable and almost the only explanation of this1 though an explanation almost universally rejected by zologists1 is that of ,gaskell1 who has maintained that the vertebrate alimentary canal is a new structure1 and that the old invertebrate canal is the present neural canal4 ,the infundibulum1 on this view1 would correspond to the old invertebrate sophagus1 the ventricle of the thalamus to the invertebrate stomach1 and the canal originally connected posteriorly with the anus4 ,the anterior lobe of the pituitary body could then correspond to some glandular adjunct of the invertebrate canal1 and the nervous part to a portion of the original circumsophageal nervous ring of the invertebrates40 78,physiological ,chemistry10 #bnd ed41 #aiaf1 pp4 #fda1 #fdb47 ,this elaborate piece of evolutionary contortion calls for no comment here4 ,we are only interested in the fact that this wild and weird speculation was originally inspired by the false assumption that the hypophysis was a functionless organ4 ,as a matter of fact1 it is the source of two important hormones4 ,the one generated in its anterior lobe is tethelin1 a metabolic hormone1 which promotes the growth of the body in general and of the bony tissue in particular4 ,hypertrophy and overfunction of this gland produces giantism1 or acromegaly 7enlargement of hands1 feet1 and skull71 while atrophy and underfunction of the anterior lobe results in infantilism1 acromikria 7diminution of extremities1 i4 e4 hands1 feet1 head71 obesity1 and genital dystrophy 7i4 e4 suppression of secondary sexual characters74 ,the posterior lobe of the pituitary body constitutes1 with the pars intermedia1 a second endocrine gland1 which generates a stimulatory hormone called pituitrin4 ,this hormone stimulates unstriated muscle to contract1 and thereby regulates the discharge of secretions from various glands of the body1 e4 g4 the mammary glands1 bladder1 etc4 ,hence the hypophysis1 far from being a useless organ1 is an indispensable one4 ,moreover1 it is an integral and important part of the cryptorhetic system4 ,the same story may be repeated of the thyroid glands4 ,these consist of two lobes located on either side of the windpipe1 just below the larynx 7,adam's apple71 and joined together across the windpipe by a narrow band or isthmus of their own substance4 ,gaskell homologized them with a gland in scorpions1 and ,mathew says that1 if his surmise is correct1 8the thyroid represents an accessory sexual organ of the invertebrate40 7,op4 cit41 p4 #fed47 ,they are1 however1 endocrine glands1 that generate a hormone known as thyroxin1 which regulates the body-temperature1 growth of the body in general1 and of the nervous system in particular1 etc41 etc4 ,atrophy or extirpation of these glands causes cretinism in the young and myxoedema in adults4 ,without a sufficient supply of this hormone1 the normal exercise of mental powers in human beings is impossible4 ,the organ1 therefore1 is far from being a useless vestige of what was formerly useful4 ,george ,howard ,parker1 the ,zologist of ,harvard1 sums up the case against the ,darwinian interpretation of the endocrine glands as follows3 8,the extent to which hormones control the body is only just beginning to be appreciated4 ,for a long time anatomists have recognized in the higher animals1 including man1 a number of so-called ductless glands1 such as the thyroid gland1 the pineal gland1 the hypophysis1 the adrenal bodies1 and so forth4 ,these have often been passed over as unimportant functionless organs whose presence was to be explained as an inheritance from some remote ancestor4 ,but such a conception is far from correct4 ,if the thyroids are removed from a dog1 death follows in from one to four weeks4 ,if the adrenal bodies are excised1 the animal dies in from two to three days4 ,such results show beyond doubt that at least some of these organs are of vital importance1 and more recent studies have demonstrated that most of them produce substances which have all the properties of hormones40 78,biology and ,social ,problems10 #aiad1 pp4 #dc1 #dd47 ,even the vermiform appendix of the ccum1 which since ,darwin's time has served as a classic example of a rudimentary organ in man1 is1 in reality1 not a functionless organ4 ,darwin1 however1 was of opinion that it was not only useless1 but positively harmful4 8,with respect to the alimentary canal10 he says1 8,i have met with an account of only a single rudiment1 namely1 the vermiform appendage of the ccum4 444 ,not only is it useless1 but it is sometimes the cause of death1 of which fact ,i have lately heard two instances4 ,this is due to small hard bodies1 such as seeds1 entering the passage and causing inflammation40 78,descent of ,man10 #bnd ed41 ch4 ,i1 pp4 #ci1 #dj47 ,the idea that seeds cause appendicitis is1 of course1 an exploded superstition1 the hard bodies sometimes found in the appendix being fecal concretions and not seeds--8,the old idea10 says ,dr4 ,john ,b4 ,deaver1 8that foreign bodies1 such as grape seeds1 are the cause of the disease1 has been disproved40 7,encycl4 ,americana1 vol4 #b1 p4 #gf47 ,what is more germane to the point at issue1 however1 is that ,darwin erred in denying the utility of the vermiform appendix4 ,for1 although this organ does not discharge in man the important function which its homologue discharges in grain-eating birds and also in herbivorous mammals1 it subserves the secondary function of lubricating the intestines by means of a secretion from its muciparous glands4 ,darwin gives the semilunar fold as another instance of a vestigial organ1 claiming that it is a persistent rudiment of a former third eyelid or membrana nictitans1 such as we find in birds4 8,the nictitating membrane1 or third eyelid10 he says1 8with its accessory muscles and other structures1 is especially well developed in birds1 and is of much functional importance to them1 as it can be rapidly drawn across the whole eyeball4 ,it is found in some reptiles and amphibians1 and in certain fishes as in sharks4 ,it is fairly well developed in the two lower divisions of the mammalian series1 namely1 in the monotremata and marsupials1 and in some higher mammals1 as in the walrus4 ,but in man1 the quadrumana1 and most other mammals1 it exists1 as is admitted by all anatomists1 as a mere rudiment1 called the semilunar fold40 7,op4 cit41 ch4 ,i1 pp4 #ce1 #cf47 ,here ,darwin is certainly wrong about his facts2 for the so-called third eyelid is not well developed in the two lower divisions of the mammalian series 7i4e4 the monotremes and the marsupials7 nor in any other mammalian type4 8,with but few exceptions10 says ,remy ,perrier1 8the third eyelid is not so complete as among the birds2 7in the mammals7 it never covers the entire eye4 ,for the rest1 it is not really perceptible except in certain types1 like the dog1 the ruminants1 and1 still more so1 the horse4 ,in the rest 7of the mammals7 it is less developed40 78,elements d'anatomie compare10 ,paris1 #ahic1 p4 #aacg47 ,moreover1 ,darwin's suggestion leaves us at sea as to the ancestor1 from whom our 8rudimentary third eyelid0 has been inherited4 ,his mention of birds as having a well developed third eyelid is not very helpful1 because all evolutionists agree in excluding the birds from our line of descent4 ,the reptiles are more promising candidates for the position of ancestors1 but1 as no trace of a third eyelid could possibly be left behind in the imperfect record of the fossiliferous rocks 7soft parts like this having but slight chance of preservation71 we do not really know whether the palozoic reptiles possessed this particular feature1 or not4 ,nor can we argue from analogy and induction1 because not all modern reptiles are equipped with third eyelids4 ,hence the particular group of palozoic reptiles1 which are supposed to have been our progenitors1 may not have possessed any third eyelid to bequeath to us in the reduced and rudimentary form of the plica semilunaris4 ,if it be replied1 that they must have had this feature1 because otherwise we would have no ancestor from whom we could inherit our semilunar fold1 it is obvious that such argumentation assumes the very point which it ought to prove1 namely3 the actuality of evolution4 ,rudiments are supposed to be a proof for evolution1 and not1 vice versa1 evolution a proof for rudiments4 ,finally1 the basic assumption of ,darwin that the semilunar fold is destitute of function is incorrect2 for this crescent-shaped fold situated in the inner or nasal corner of the eye of man and other mammals serves to regulate the flow of the lubricating lacrimal fluid 7which we call tears74 ,true this function is secondary compared with the more important function discharged by the nictitating membrane in birds4 ,in the latter1 the third eyelid is a pearly-white 7sometimes transparent7 membrane placed internal to the real eyelids1 on the inner side of the eye1 over whose surface it can be drawn like a curtain to shield the organ from excessive light1 or irritating dust2 nevertheless1 the regulation of the flow of lacrimal humor is a real function1 and it is therefore entirely false to speak of the semilunar fold as a functionless rudiment4 ,the coccyx is likewise cited by ,darwin as an example of an inherited rudiment in man4 8,in man10 he says1 8the os coccyx1 together with certain other vertebr hereafter to be described1 though functionless as a tail1 plainly represents this part in other vertebrate animals40 7,op4 cit41 ch4 ,i1 p4 #db47 ,that it serves no purpose as a tail1 may be readily admitted1 but that it serves no purpose whatever1 is quite another matter4 ,as a matter of fact1 it serves for the attachment of several small muscles1 whose functioning would be impossible in the absence of this bone4 ,darwin himself concedes this2 for he confesses that the four vertebr of the coccyx 8are furnished with some small muscles40 7,ibidem47 ,we may1 therefore1 admit the homology between the human coccyx and the tails of other vertebrates1 without being forced to regard the latter as a useless vestigial organ4 ,it may be objected that the attachment of these muscles might have been provided for in a manner more in harmony with our ideas of symmetry4 ,to this we reply that ,helmholtz criticized the human eye for similar reasons1 when he said that he would remand to his workshop for correction an optical instrument so flawed with defects as the human eye4 ,but1 after all1 it was by the use of these selfsame imperfect eyes that ,helmholtz was enabled to detect the flaws of which he complained4 ,when man shall have fully fathomed the difficulties and obstructions with which organic morphogeny has to contend in performing its wonderful work1 and shall have arrived at an elementary knowledge of the general laws of morphogenetic mechanics1 he will be more inclined to admire than to criticize4 ,it is a mistake to imagine that the finite works of the ,creator must be perfect from every viewpoint4 ,it suffices that they are perfect with respect to the particular purpose which they serve1 and this purpose must not be narrowly estimated from the standpoint of the created work itself1 but from that of its position in the universal scheme of creation4 ,all such partial views as the ,helmholtzian one are false views4 ,another consideration which ,darwin and his partisans have failed to take into account is the possibility of an ontogenetic1 as well as a phylogenetic1 explanation of rudimentary organs4 ,that is to say1 rudimentary organs might1 so far as a priori reasons are concerned1 be the now useless vestiges of organs formerly developed and functional in the ftus1 and need not necessarily be interpreted as traces of organs that functioned formerly in remote racial ancestors4 ,that there should be such things as special ftal organs1 which atrophy in later adult life1 is a possibility that ought not to excite surprise4 ,during its uterine existence1 the ftus is subject to peculiar conditions of life1 very different from those which prevail in the case of adult organisms--e4g4 respiration and the digestive process are suspended1 and there is a totally different kind of circulation4 ,what1 then1 more natural than that the ftus should require special organs to adapt it to these special conditions of uterine life8 ,such organs1 while useful and functional in the earlier stages of embryonic development1 will1 so soon as birth and maturity introduce new conditions of life1 become superfluous1 and therefore doomed1 in the interest of organic economy1 to ultimate atrophy and degeneration1 until nothing is left of them but vestigial remnants4 ,the thymus may be cited as a probable instance of such an organ4 ,this organ1 which is located in front of the heart and behind the breastbone1 in the region between the two lungs1 consists1 at the period of its greatest development in man1 of a two-lobed structure1 #e cm4 long and #d cm4 wide1 with a thickness of #f mm4 and a maximum weight of #ce grams4 ,it is supplied with numerous lymphoid cells1 which are aggregated to form lymphoid follicles 7cf4 ,gray's 8,anatomy10 #bjth ed41 #aiah1 pp4 #abgc1 #abgd2 ,burton-,opitz' 8,physiology10 #aibj1 p4 #ifd74 ,this organ is a transitory one1 well developed at birth1 but degenerating1 according to some authors1 after the second year of life 7cf4 ,starling's 8,physiology10 #crd ed41 #aibj1 p4 #abde72 according to others1 however1 not until the period of full maturity1 namely1 puberty4 7,cf4 ,gray's 8,anatomy10 loc4 cit47 ,w4 ,h4 ,howell cites both opinions1 without venturing to decide the matter 7cf4 his 8,physiology10 #hth ed41 #aiba1 pp4 #hfi1 #hgj74 ,it was at one time classified as a rudimentary or functionless organ4 ,later on1 however1 it was thought by certain observers to be an endocrine gland1 yielding a secretion important for the growth of young mammals4 ,this took it out of the class of useless vestigial organs1 but the recent discovery that it is indispensable to birds as furnishing a secretion necessary for the formation of the tertiary envelopes 7egg membrane and shell7 of their eggs1 has tended to revive the idea of its being a vestigial organ inherited from the lower vertebrates4 ,thus ,dr4 ,oscar ,riddle1 while admitting that the thymus gland in man has some influence on the growth of the bones1 contends that the newly-discovered function of this gland in birds is much more important1 since without it none of the vertebrates1 excepting mammals1 could reproduce their young4 8,it thus becomes clear10 he says1 8that though the thymus is almost without use in the human being1 it is in fact a sort of #8mother of the race4' ,the higher animals could not have come into existence without it4 ,for even while our ancestors lived in the water1 it was the thymus of these ancestors which made possible the production of the egg-envelopes within which the young were cradled and protected until they were ready for an independent life40 7,science1 ,dec4 #bh1 #aibc1 ,suppl4 ,,xiii1 ,,xiv47 ,this conclusion1 however1 is far too hasty4 ,for1 even if we disregard as negligible the minor function1 that ,riddle assigns to the thymus in man1 there remains another possibility1 which ,h4 ,h4 ,wilder takes into account1 namely1 that the thymus may1 in certain cases1 be a temporary substitute for the lymphatic vessels4 ,having called attention to certain determinate channels found in some of the lower vertebrates1 he tells us that these 8can well be utilized as adjuncts of the lymphatic system until their function can be supplied by definite lymphatic vessels40 ,he then resumes his discussion of the lymph nodules in mammals as follows3 8,aside from the solitary and aggregated nodules1 both of which appear to be centers of origin of lymphocytes1 there are numerous other places in which the cellular constituents of the blood are developed4 ,many of these1 as in the case of the aggregated nodules of the intestines1 are developed within the wall of the alimentary canal and are therefore endodermic in origin4 ,these include the tonsils1 the thymus1 and thyroid glands1 the associated epithelial bodies1 and1 perhaps1 the spleen4444 ,in their function as formative nidi for the cellular elements of the blood these organs form physiologically important auxiliaries to the vascular system as a whole1 but belong elsewhere in their anatomical developmental affinities40 78,history of the ,human ,body10 #bnd ed41 #aibc1 p4 #cie--;italics mine47 ,this being the case1 it is much more reasonable to interpret the thymus as an ontogenetic 7embryonic71 rather than a phylogenetic 7racial7 rudiment4 ,it has been observed that1 in the case of reptiles which lack definite lymphatic glands 7which function in man as formative centers of lymphocytes or white blood corpuscles71 the thymus is extraordinarily developed and abounds in lymphoid cells4 ,it has also been observed that the formation of lymphocytes in the lymphatic glands is regulated by the digestive process2 for1 after digestion1 the activity of these glands increases and the formation of leucocytes is accelerated4 ,since1 then1 the lymphatic glands appear to require the stimulus of the digestive process to incite them to action1 it is clear that in the ftus1 which lacks the digestive process1 the lymphatic glands will not be stimulated to action1 and that the task of furnishing lymphocytes will devolve upon the thymus4 ,after birth1 the digestive process commences and the lymphatic glands become active in response to this stimulus4 ,as the function of forming lymphocytes is transferred from the thymus to the lymphatic glands1 the former is gradually deprived of its importance1 and1 in the interest of organic economy1 it begins to atrophy1 until1 at the end of the child's second year1 or1 at latest1 when the child has reached sexual maturity1 nothing but a reduced vestige remains of this once functional organ4 8,the thymus10 says ,starling1 8forms two large masses in the anterior mediastinum which in man grow up to the second year of life and then rapidly diminish1 so that only traces are to be found at puberty4 ,it contains a large amount of lymphatic tissue and is therefore often associated with the lymphatic glands as the seat of the formation of lymph corpuscles4444 ,in certain cases of arrested development or of general weakness in young people1 the thymus has been found to be persistent40 78,physiology10 #crd ed41 #aibj1 p4 #abde47 ,in the light of these facts1 it is utterly unreasonable to regard the thymus as a practically useless rudiment inherited from the lower vertebrates4 8,that they have an important function in the young animal10 says ,albert ,mathews1 8can hardly be doubted40 78,physiological ,chemistry10 #aiaf1 p4 #fge47 ,in fact1 the peculiar nature of their development in the young and their atrophy in the adult forces such a conclusion upon us4 ,the thymus1 therefore1 is1 in all probability1 an ontogenetic1 and not a phylogenetic1 rudiment4 ,it might conceivably be exploited as a biogenetic recapitulation of a reptilian stage in man1 just as the so-called fish-kidney of the human embryo is exploited for evolutionary interpretation4 ,the principles by which such a view may be refuted have been given previously4 ,but1 in any case1 it is folly to interpret the thymus as a rudiment in the racial1 rather than embryonic sense4 ,moreover1 the possibility of an ontogenetic interpretation of rudiments must not be restricted to the thymus1 but must be accepted as a general and legitimate alternative for the phylogenetic interpretation4 ,in the last place1 it remains for us to consider the ,darwinian argument1 based upon so-called rudimentary organs1 from the standpoint of the science of genetics4 ,darwin1 as we have remarked elsewhere1 was ignorant of the non-inheritability of those inconstant individual variations now known as fluctuations4 ,he was somewhat perplexed1 when ,professor ,l4 ,meyer pointed out the extreme variability in position of the 8projecting point0 on the margin of the human ear1 but he still clung to his original contention that this 8blunt point0 was a surviving vestige of the apex of the pointed ears found in donkeys and horses1 etc4 8,nevertheless10 he says1 8in some cases my original view1 that the points are vestiges of the tips of formerly erect and pointed ears1 still seems to be probable40 78,descent of ,man10 #bnd ed41 ch4 ,i1 p4 #cd47 ,darwin1 as ,ranke points out1 was mistaken in homologizing his famous 8tubercule0 with the apex of bestial ears4 8,the acute extremity of the pointed animal ear10 says this author1 8does not correspond to this prominence designated by ,darwin1 but to the vertex of the helix40 78,der ,mensch10 ,,ii1 p4 #ci47 ,the feature in question is1 moreover1 a mere fluctuation due to the degree of development attained by the cartilage3 hence its variability in different human beings4 ,in very extreme cases1 fluctuations of this sort1 may be important enough to constitute an anomaly1 and1 as anomalies are often interpreted as atavisms and reversions to a primitive type1 it may be well to advert to this subject here4 ,dwight has an excellent chapter on anatomical variations and anomalies4 7,cf4 8,thoughts of a ,catholic ,anatomist10 #aiaa1 ch4 ,,ix47 ,he tells us that 8a thigh bone a little more bent1 an ear a little more pointed1 a nose a little more projecting 444 a little more or a little less of anything you please--this is variation40 8,an anatomical anomaly10 he says1 8is some peculiarity of any part of the body which cannot be expressed in terms of more or less1 but is distinctly new40 ,he divides the latter into two classes1 namely3 those which consist in the repetition of one or more elements in a series1 e4g4 the occurrence of supernumerary legs in an insect1 and those which consist in the suppression of one or more elements in a series1 e4g4 the occurrence of eleven pairs of ribs in a man4 ,variations and anomalies are fluctuational or mutational1 according as they are based on changes in the soma alone1 or on changes in the germ plasm4 ,variations1 however1 are more likely to be non-inheritable fluctuations1 and anomalies to be inheritable mutations4 ,we shall speak of the latter presently4 ,in the meantime we may note that the main trouble with interpreting these anatomical irregularities as 8reversive0 or 8atavistic0 is that they would connect man with all sorts of quite impossible lines of descent4 8,in my early days of anatomy10 says ,dwight1 8,i thought that ,i must be very ignorant1 because ,i could not understand how the occasional appearance in man of a peculiarity of some animal outside of any conceivable line of descent could be called a reversion1 as it soon became the custom to call it4444 ,it was only later that ,i grasped the fact that the reason ,i could not understand these things was that there was nothing to understand4 ,it was sham science from beginning to end40 7,op4 cit41 p4 #bji47 ,by way of anomaly1 almost any human peculiarity can occur in animals1 and1 conversely1 any bestial peculiarity in man1 but the resemblance to man of an animal outside of the alleged line of human descent represents a grave difficulty for the theory of evolution1 and not an argument in its favor4 ,the human body is certainly not a mosaic of heterogenetic organs1 i4e4 a complex of structures inherited from any and every sort of animal1 whether extant or extinct2 for such a vast number and variety of ancestors could not possibly have coperated to produce man4 ,prof4 ,d4 ,carazzi1 in his ,address of ,inauguration in the ,chair of ,zology and ,comparative ,anatomy at the ,university of ,padua1 ,jan4 #bj1 #aijf1 excoriated with scathing irony the sham ,darwinian science1 of which ,dwight complains4 8,but even in the serious works of pure science10 says the ,italian zologist1 8we read1 for example1 that the over-development of the postauricular muscles sometimes observed in man is an atavistic reminiscence of the muscles of the helix of the ear of the horse and the ass4 ,and so far so good1 because it gives evidence of great modesty in recognizing as our ancestors those well-deserving and long-eared quadrupeds4 ,but this is not all2 there appear at times in a woman one or more anomalous mammary glands below the pectoral ones2 and here1 too1 they insist on explaining the anomaly as a reversion to type1 that is1 as an atavistic reminiscence of the numerous mammary glands possessed by different lower mammals2 the bitch1 for example4444 8,but the supernumerary mammary glands are not a reversion to type2 anomalous mammary glands may appear upon the median line1 upon the deltoid1 and even upon the knee1 regions far-distant from the #8milk-line4' ,so with regard to the postauricular muscles we must say that according to the laws of ,darwinism the cases of anomalous development are not interpretable as reversions to type4 ,all these features are not phylogenetic reminiscences1 but anomalies of development1 of such a nature that1 if we should wish to make use of them for establishing the line of human descent1 we would have to say that man descends from the swine1 from the solipeds and even from the cetaceans1 returning1 namely1 to the old conception of lineal descent1 that is1 to ,buffon's idea of the concatenation of creatures40 78,teorie e critiche nella moderna biologia10 #aijf47 ,darwin's doctrine1 however1 on the origin and significance of rudimentary organs has been damaged by genetic analysis in a yet more serious fashion4 ,in fact1 with the discovery that anomalous suppression and anomalous duplication of organs may result from factorial mutation1 this ,darwinian conception received what is tantamount to its deathblow4 ,darwin1 it will be remembered1 was convinced that the regression of organs was brought about by 8increased disuse controlled by natural selection40 7,cf4 8,origin of ,species10 #fth ed41 ch4 ,v47 ,such phenomena1 he thought1 as the suppression of wings in the ,apteryx and the reduction of wings in running birds1 arose from their 8inhabiting ocean islands10 where they 8have not been exposed to the attacks of beasts1 and consequently lost the power of using their wings for flight40 78,descent of ,man10 #fth ed41 ch4 ,i1 p4 #cb47 ,in some cases1 he believed that disuse and natural selection had coperated ex aequo to produce results of this nature1 e4g4 the reduction of the eyes in the mole and in ,ctenomys2 for this reduction1 he claims1 has some selection-value1 inasmuch as reduction of the eyes1 adhesion of the lids1 and covering with hair tends to protect the unused and useless eye against inflammation4 ,in other cases1 however1 he is inclined to discount the idea that suppression of organs is an 8effect of long-continued disuse10 and to regard the phenomenon as 8wholly1 or mainly1 due to natural selection10 e4g4 in the case of the wingless beetles of the island of ,madeira4 8,for during successive generations10 he reasons1 8each individual beetle which flew least1 either from its wings having been ever so little less developed or from indolent habit1 will have had the best chance of surviving from not being blown out to sea2 and1 on the other hand1 those beetles which most readily took to flight would oftenest have been blown to sea1 and thus destroyed40 ,in a third class of instances1 however1 he assigns the principal rle to disuse1 e4g4 in the case of the blind animals 8which inhabit the caves of ,carniola and ,kentucky1 because10 as he tells us1 8it is difficult to imagine that eyes1 though useless1 could be injurious to animals living in darkness40 ,hence he concludes that1 as the obliteration of eyes has no selection-value1 under the circumstances prevailing in dark caves1 8their loss may be attributed to disuse40 7,cf4 8,origin of ,species10 #fth ed41 ch4 ,v1 pp4 #abh-acc47 ,morgan's comment on these elaborate speculations of ,darwin is very caustic and concise4 ,referring to factorial mutations1 which give rise to races of flies having supernumerary and vestigial organs1 he says3 8,in contrast to the last case1 where a character is doubled1 is the next one in which the eyes are lost4 ,this change took place at a single step4 ,all the flies of this stock1 however1 cannot be said to be eyeless1 since many of them show pieces of eye--indeed the variation is so wide that the eye may even appear like a normal eye unless carefully examined4 ,formerly we were taught that eyeless animals arose in caves4 ,this case shows that they may also arise suddenly in glass milk bottles1 by a change in a single factor4 8,i may recall in this connection that wingless flies also arose in our cultures by a single mutation4 ,we used to be told that wingless insects occurred on desert islands because those insects that had the best developed wings were blown out to sea4 ,whether this is true or not1 ,i will not pretend to say1 but at any rate wingless insects may also arise1 not through a slow process of elimination1 but at a single step40 78,a ,critique of the ,theory of ,evolution10 #aiaf1 pp4 #ff1 #fg47 ,in directing attention to the fact that a permanent and inheritable reduction of organs to the vestigial state can result from mutation1 we do not1 of course1 intend to exclude the possible occurrence of somatic atrophy due to lack of exercise rather than to germinal change4 ,thus the blind species of animals in caves may1 in some instances1 be persistently blind1 because of the persistent darkness of the environment in which they live1 and not by reason of any inherited factor for blindness4 ,darwin gives one such instance1 namely1 that of the cave rat ,neotoma4 ,to test such cases1 the blind animals would have to be bred in an illuminated environment4 ,if1 under this condition1 they failed to develop normal eyes1 the blindness would be due to a germinal factor1 and would be inherited in an illumined1 no less than a dark1 environment4 ,in any case1 a mutation which suppresses a character is not1 as we have seen1 a specific change1 but merely one of the varietal order1 which does not result in the production of a genuine new species4 ,the factorial mutant with a vestigial wing or eye belongs to the same species as its wild or normal parent stock4 ,moreover1 neither disuse nor natural selection has the slightest power to induce mutations of this kind4 ,if mutation be the cause of the blindness of cave animals1 then their presence in such caves must be accounted for by supposing that they migrated thither because they found in the cave a most suitable environment for safety1 foraging1 etc4 ,darkness alone1 however1 could never induce germinal1 but1 at most1 merely somatic blindness4 ,the ,lamarckian factor of disuse and the ,darwinian factor of selection have been definitely discredited as agents which could bring about hereditarily-transmissible modifications4 #d4 ,fossil ,links ,all efforts1 then1 to establish1 by means of anatomical and embryological homologies1 the lineal descent of man from any known type of monkey or ape have ended in ignominious failure4 ,comparative anatomy and embryology can1 at most1 only furnish grounds for extremely vague and indefinite speculations regarding the descent of man1 but they can never become a basis for specific conclusions with respect to the phylogeny of ,homo sapiens4 ,every known form of ape1 whether extant or extinct1 is1 as we have seen1 far too specialized in its adaptation to arboreal life to pass muster as a feasible ancestor4 ,the only conceivable manner in which the human body could be related to simian stock is by way of collateral descent1 and the only means of proving such descent is to adduce a series of intermediate fossil types connecting modern men and modern apes with this alleged common ancestor of both4 8,the ascent 7sic7 of man as one of the ,primates10 says ,henry ,fairfield ,osborn1 8was parallel with that of the families of apes4 ,man has a long line of ancestry of his own1 perhaps two million or more years in length4 ,he is not descended from any known form of ape either living or fossil40 7,the ,ill4 ,london ,news1 ,jan4 #h1 #aiba1 p4 #dj47 ,this theory of a hypothetical primate ancestor of man1 which is supposed to have inhabited the earth during the earlier part of the ,tertiary period1 and to have presented a more man-like appearance than any known type of ape1 was first propounded by ,karl ,snell in #ahfc4 ,it was popularized at the beginning of the present century by ,klaatsch1 who saw in it a means of escape from the absurdities and perplexities of the theory of lineal descent--8the less10 says the latter1 8an ape has changed from its original form1 just so much the more human it appears40 ,this saying is revamped by ,kohlbrugge to read3 8,man comes from an original form much more like himself than any existing ape40 ,kohlbrugge's comment is as follows3 8,the line of descent of man thus receives on the side of the primates a quite different form from its previous-one4 ,such new hypotheses as those of ,hubrecht and ,klaatsch seem1 therefore1 fortunate for nature-philosophers1 because evolution always failed us when we compared known forms in their details1 and led us only to confusion4 ,but if one works with such distant hypothetical ancestors1 one escapes much disillusioning40 7,quoted by ,dwight1 op4 cit41 p4 #aie47 ,one thing1 at any rate1 is certain1 namely3 that we do not possess any fossils of this primitive 8large brained1 erectly walking primate10 who is alleged to have roamed the earth during the eocene or oligocene epoch4 ,the ,foxhall ,man1 whose culture ,osborn ascribes to the ,upper ,pliocene1 is far too recent1 and1 what is worse1 far too intelligent1 to be this ,tertiary ,ancestor4 ,the ,pithecanthropus erectus1 likewise1 is excluded for reasons which we shall presently consider4 ,meanwhile1 let it be noted1 that we have ,osborn's assurance for the fact that we are descended from a brainy and upright oligocene ancestor1 as yet1 however1 undiscovered4 ,but the situation is more hopeful1 if we hark back to a still more remote period1 whose remains are so scarce and fragmentary1 as to eliminate the possibility of embarrassment arising from intractable details4 8,back of this10 says ,osborn1 8 444 was a prehuman arboreal stage40 7,loc4 cit47 ,here1 then1 we are back again in the same old rut of tree-climbing simian ancestry1 whence we thought to have escaped by abandoning the theory of lineal descent2 and1 before we have time to speculate upon how we got there1 ,prof4 ,wm4 ,gregory of the ,american ,museum is summoned by ,osborn to present us with specimens of this prehuman arboreal stage4 ,this expert1 it would seem1 favored up till the year #aibc the fossil jaw of the ,propliopithecus as representing the common root1 whence the human race diverged1 on one side1 and the races of anthropoid apes1 on the other4 7,cf4 ,osborn's ,museum-leaflet of #aibc on 8,the ,hall of the ,age of ,man10 p4 #bi47 ,on ,april #ad1 #aibc1 however1 ,gregory announced the deposition of ,propliopithecus and the enthronement of the jaw of ,dryopithecus4 ,this sudden accession of ,dryopithecus to the post of common ancestor of apes and men was due to the discovery by ,dr4 ,barnum ,brown of three fossil jaws of ,dryopithecus in the ,miocene deposits of the ,siwalik beds in northern ,india4 ,by some rapturous coincidence1 the three jaws in question happen to come from three successive 8horizons10 and to be representative of just three different stages in the evolution of ,dryopithecus4 ,doctor ,gregory finds1 moreover1 that the patterns of the minute cracks and furrows on the surviving molar teeth correspond to those on the surface of the enamels of modern ape and human teeth4 ,hence1 with that ephemeral infallibility1 which is characteristic of authorities like ,doctor ,gregory1 and which is proof against all discouragement by reason of past blunders1 the one who told us but a year ago that the cusps of all the teeth of ,propliopithecus 8are exactly such as would be expected in the common starting point for the divergent lines leading to the gibbons1 to the higher apes1 and to man0 7loc4 cit471 now tells us that both we and the apes have inherited our teeth from ,dryopithecus1 who had heretofore remained neglected on the side-lines4 ,in #aibc1 apparently1 ,dr4 ,gregory was unimpressed with the crown patterns of ,dryopithecus1 whose jaw he then excluded from the direct human line4 7,cf4 ,museum-leaflet1 p4 #e47 ,now1 however1 that the new discoveries have brought ,dryopithecus into the limelight1 and1 particularly because these jaws were found in ,miocene deposits1 ,gregory has shifted his favor from ,propliopithecus to ,dryopithecus4 7,cf4 ,science1 ,april #be1 #aibd1 suppl4 ,,xiii47 ,when palontologists are obliged to do a volte face of this sort1 one ought not to scoff4 ,one ought to be an optimist1 and eschew above all the spirit of the ,english statesman1 who1 on hearing a learned lecture by ,pearson on the question of whether ,man was descended from hylobatic1 or troglodytic stock1 was guilty of the following piece of impatience3 8,i am not particularly interested in the descent of man 444 this scientific pursuit of the dead bones of the past does not seem to me a very useful way of spending life4 ,i am accustomed to this mode of study2 learned volumes have been written in ,sanscrit to explain the conjunction of the two vowels #8a' and #8u'4 ,it is very learned1 very ingenious1 but not very helpful4444 ,i am not concerned with my genealogy so much as with my future4 ,our intellects can be more advantageously employed than in finding our diversity from the ape4444 ,there may be no spirit1 no soul2 there is no proof of their existence4 ,if that is so1 let us do away with shams and live like animals4 ,if1 on the other hand1 there is a soul to be looked after1 let us all strain our nerves to the task2 there is no use in digging into the sands of time for the skeletons of the past2 build your man for the future40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiba1 pp4 #dcb1 #dcc47 ,it is to be hoped1 however1 that this reactionary spirit is confined to the few1 and that the accession of this new primitive ancestor will be hailed with general satisfaction4 ,at any rate1 we can wish him well1 and trust that the fossilized jaw of ,dryopithecus will not lose caste so speedily as that of ,propliopithecus4 ,propliopithecus1 or ,dryopithecus8 ,hylobatic1 or troglodytic affinities8 ,such questions are scarcely the pivots on which the world is turned6 ,nevertheless1 we rejoice that ,doctor ,gregory has again settled the former problem 7provisorily1 at least7 to his own satisfaction4 ,more important1 however1 than that of the dentition of ,dryopithecus1 is the crucial question of whether or not ,palontology is able to furnish evidence of man's genetic continuity with this primitive pithecoid root4 ,certainly1 no effort has been spared to procure the much desired proofs of our reputed bestial ancestry4 ,the ,tertiary deposits of ,europe1 ,asia1 ,africa1 ,america1 and the oceanic islands have been diligently ransacked for fossil facts that would be susceptible to an evolutionary interpretation4 ,the aprioristic criterion that all large-brained men are recent1 and all small-brained men with recessive chins are necessarily ancient1 has always been employed in evaluating the fossil evidence4 ,notwithstanding all endeavors1 however1 to bring about the consummation so devoutly desired1 the facts discovered not only fail to support the theory of collateral descent1 but actually militate against it4 ,for assuming that man and the anthropoid apes constitute two distinct lines of evolution branching out from common ,tertiary or pre-,tertiary stock1 palontology should be able to show numerous intermediate fossil forms1 not alone for the lateral branch of the apes1 but also1 and especially1 for the lateral line connecting modern men with the common root of the primate tree4 ,but it is precisely in this latter respect that the fossil evidence for collateral descent fails most egregiously4 ,palontology knows of many fossil genera and species of apes and lemurs1 that might conceivably represent links in a genetic chain connecting modern monkeys with ,tertiary stock1 but it has yet to discover so much as a single fossil species1 much less a fossil genus1 intermediate between man1 as we know him1 and this alleged ,tertiary ancestor common to apes and men4 ,not even catastrophism can be invoked to save this irremediable situation2 for any catastrophe that would have swept away the human links would likewise have swept away the ape links4 ,the presence of many genera and species of fossil apes1 in contrast to the absence of any fossil genus or species of man distinct from ,homo sapiens1 is irreconcilable with the theory of collateral descent4 ,such is the dilemma proposed to the upholders of this theory by ,wasmann1 in the #ajth chapter of his 8,die ,moderne ,biologie0 7#crd edition1 #aijf71 a dilemma1 from which1 as we shall see1 their every attempt to extricate themselves has failed most signally4 8,but what10 asked ,wasmann1 8has palontology to say concerning this question8 ,it tells us that1 up to the present1 no connecting link between man and the ape has been found2 and1 indeed1 according to the theory of ,klaatsch1 it is absurd to speak of a link of direct connection between these two forms1 but it tells us much more than this4 ,it shows us1 on the basis of the results of the most recent research1 that we know the genealogical tree of the various apes1 a tree very rich in species1 which extends from the present as far back as the hypothetical primitive form assigned to the earliest part of the ,tertiary period2 and1 in fact1 in ,zittel's work1 8,grundzge der ,palontologie0 7#ahie71 not less than thirty genera of fossil ,pro-simi and eighteen genera of genuine fossil apes are enumerated1 the which have been entombed in those strata of the earth that intervene between the ,lower ,eocene and the ,alluvial epoch1 but between this hypothetical primitive form and man of the present time we do not find a single connecting link4 ,the entire genealogical tree of man does not show so much as one fossil genus1 or even one fossil species40 7,op4 cit41 italics his47 ,a brief consideration of the principal fossil remains1 in which certain palontologists profess to see evidence of a transition between man and the primitive pithecoid stock1 will serve to verify ,wasmann's statement1 and will reveal the fact that all the alleged connecting links are distinctly human1 or purely simian1 or merely mismated combinations of human and simian remains4 7#a7 ,pithecanthropus erectus3 ,in #ahia ,eugne ,dubois1 a ,dutch army surgeon1 discovered in ,java1 at ,trinil1 in the ,ngawa district of the ,madiun ,residency1 a calvarium 7skull-cap71 #b upper molars and a femur1 in the central part of an old river bed4 ,the four fragments1 however1 were not all found in the same year1 because the advent of the rainy season compelled him to suspend the work of excavation4 8,the teeth10 to quote ,dubois himself1 8were distant from the skull from one to1 at most1 three meters2 the femur was fifteen meters 7#ej feet7 away40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #ahih1 p4 #ddg47 ,dubois judged the lapilli stratum1 in which the bones were found1 to be older than the ,pleistocene1 and older1 perhaps1 than the most recent zones of the ,pliocene series4 8,the ,trinil ape-man10 says ,osborn1 8 444 is the first of the conundrums of human ancestry4 ,is the ,trinil race prehuman or not80 7,loc4 cit41 p4 #dj47 ,certainly1 ,lower ,pleistocene1 or ,upper ,pliocene represents too late a time for the appearance of the upright primate1 whence we are said to have sprung4 ,even ,miocene would be too late a date for our alleged divergence from the primitive arboreal stock4 ,of the capacity of the calvarium1 ,dubois says3 8,i found the above-mentioned cavity measured #eej c4cm4 ,the cast of the cavity of the ,neanderthal skull taken to the same plane measures #gej c4cm40 7,loc4 cit41 p4 #dej1 footnote47 ,his first estimate of the total cranial capacity of ,pithecanthropus was #ajjj c4cm41 but1 later on1 when he decided to reconstruct the skull on the basis of the cranium of a gibbon 7,hylobates agilis7 rather than that of a chimpanzee 7,troglodytes niger71 he reduced his estimate of the cranial capacity to #ijj c4cm4 ,recently1 it is rumored1 he has increased the latter estimate1 as a sequel to his having removed by means of a dentist's tool all the siliceous matter adhering to the skull-cap4 ,as regards shape1 the calvarium seems to resemble most closely the cranial vault of gibbon4 ,this similarity1 as we have seen1 led ,dubois to reconstruct the skull on hylobatic lines--8the skull of ,hylobates agilis10 says ,dubois1 8 444 strikingly resembles that of ,pithecanthropus40 7,loc4 cit41 p4 #dej1 footnote47 ,the craniologist ,macnamara1 it is true1 claims that the skull-cap most closely approximates the ,troglodyte type4 ,speaking of the calvarium of ,pithecanthropus1 the latter says3 8,the cranium of an average adult male chimpanzee and the ,java cranium are so closely related that ,i believe them to belong to the same family of animals--i4e4 to the true apes40 7,archiv4 fr ,anthropologie1 ,,xxviii1 #aijc1 pp4 #cdi-cfj47 ,the large cranial capacity1 however1 would seem to favor ,dubois' interpretation1 seeing that gibbons have1 in proportion to their bodies1 twice as large a brain as the huge ,troglodyte apes1 namely1 the chimpanzee and the gorilla4 ,the maximum cranial capacity for any ape is from #ejj to #fjj c4cm4 ,hence1 with #ijj c4cm4 of cranial capacity estimated by ,dubois1 the ,pithecanthropus stands midway between the ape and the ,neanderthal ,man1 a human dwarf1 whose cranial capacity ,huxley estimated at #a1bcf c4cm4 ,this consideration1 however1 does not of itself entitle the ,pithecanthropus to be regarded as a connecting link between man and the anthropoid apes4 ,in all such comparisons1 it is the relative1 and not the absolute1 size of the brain1 which is important4 ,the elephant for example1 has as large a brain as a man1 but the elephant's brain is small1 in comparison to its huge body4 ,the brain of a mouse is insignificant1 as regards absolute size1 but1 considered in relation to the size of the mouse's body1 it is as large as1 if not larger than1 that of an elephant1 and hence the elephant1 for all the absolute magnitude of its brain1 is no more 8intelligent0 than a mouse4 ,as we have already seen1 man's brain is unique1 not for its absolute size1 but for its weight and enormous cortical surface1 considered with reference to the comparatively small organism controlled by the brain in question4 ,it is this excess in size which manifests the specialization of the human brain for psychic functions4 ,the ,weddas1 a dwarf race of ,ceylon1 have a far smaller cranial capacity than the ,neanderthal ,man1 their average cranial capacity being #ifj c4cm41 but they are human pigmies1 whereas the ,pithecanthropus1 according to ,richard ,hertwig1 was a giant ape4 8,the fragments10 says ,hertwig1 8were regarded by some as belonging to a connecting link between apes and man1 ,pithecanthropus erectus ,dubois2 by others they were thought to be the remains of genuine apes1 and by others those of genuine men4 ,the opinion that is most probably correct is that the fragments belonged to an anthropoid ape of extraordinary size and enormous cranial capacity40 78,lehrbuch der ,zoologie10 #gth ed47 ,prof4 ,j4 ,h4 ,mc,gregor essays to make a gradational series out of conjectural brain casts of a large ape1 the ,pithecanthropus and the ,neanderthal ,man1 in the ratio of #f3 #i3 #ab1 this ratio being based upon the estimated cranial capacities of the skulls in question4 ,in a previous chapter1 we have seen that such symmetrically graded series have little force as an argument for common descent4 ,in the present instance1 however1 the gradation gives a wrong impression of the real state of affairs4 ,if ,doctor ,mc,gregor had taken into account the all-important consideration of relative size1 he would not have been able to construct this misleading series4 ,this consideration1 however1 did not escape ,dubois himself1 and in his paper of ,dec4 #ad1 #ahif1 before the ,berlin ,anthropological ,society1 he confessed that a gigantic ape of hylobatic type would have a cranial capacity close to that of ,pithecanthropus1 even if we suppose it to have been no taller than a man4 7,cf4 ,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #ahih1 p4 #cej47 ,the admission is all the more significant in view of the fact that ,dubois was then endeavoring to exclude the possibility of regarding ,pithecanthropus as an anthropoid ape4 ,the teeth1 according to ,dubois1 are unlike the teeth of either men or apes1 but according to ,virchow and ,hrdlika1 they are more ape-like than human4 ,the femur1 though unquestionably man-like1 might conceivably belong to an ape of the gibbon type1 inasmuch as the upright posture is more normal to the long-armed gibbon than to any other anthropoid ape1 and its thighbone1 for this reason1 bears the closest resemblance to that of man4 ,according to the 8,text-,book of ,zology0 by ,parker and ,haswell1 the gibbon is the only ape that can walk erectly1 which it does1 not like other apes1 with the fore-limbs used as crutches1 but balanced exclusively upon its hind-limbs1 with its long arms dangling to the ground--8,the ,gibbons can walk in an upright position without the assistance of the fore-limbs2 in the others1 though1 in progression on the surface of the ground1 the body may be held in a semi-erect position with the weight resting on the hind-limbs1 yet the assistance of the long fore-limbs acting as crutches is necessary to enable the animal to swing itself along40 7,op4 cit41 #crd ed41 #aiba1 vol4 ,,ii1 p4 #did47 ,the ,javanese femur is rounder than in man1 and is1 in this1 as well as other respects1 more akin to the thighbone of the gibbon4 8,after examining hundreds of human femora10 says ,dubois1 8,manouvrier could find only two that had a somewhat similar shape4 ,it is therefore a very rare form in man4 ,with the gibbon a similar form normally occurs40 7,loc4 cit41 pp4 #def1 #deg47 ,whether the thighbone really belonged to an erectly walking animal has not yet been definitely settled4 ,to decide this matter1 it would be necessary to apply the ,walkhoff x-ray method1 which determines the mode of progression from the arrangement of the bone fibers in frontal1 or other1 sections from the femur4 ,this test1 however1 has not hitherto been made4 ,nor should the significance of the fact that the thighbone was found at a distance of some fifty feet away from the skull-cap be overlooked1 seeing that this fact destroys1 once and for all1 any possibility of certainty that both belonged to the same animal4 ,in conclusion1 therefore1 we may say that the remains of ,pithecanthropus are so scanty1 fragmentary1 and doubtful1 as to preclude a reliable verdict on their true significance4 ,as ,virchow pointed out1 the determination of their correct taxonomic position is impossible1 in the absence of a complete skeleton4 ,meanwhile1 the most probable opinion is that they represent the remains of a giant ape of the hylobatic type4 ,in other words1 the ,pithecanthropus belongs to the genealogical tree of the apes1 and not to that of man4 ,in fact1 he has been excluded from the direct line of human descent by ,schwalbe1 ,alsberg1 ,kollmann1 ,haacke1 ,hubrecht1 ,klaatsch1 and all the foremost protagonists of the theory of collateral descent4 7,cf4 ,dwight1 op4 cit41 ch4 ,,viii47 ,professor ,mc,gregor's series consisting of an ape1 the ,pithecanthropus1 ,homo neanderthalensis1 and the ,cr-,magnon ,man fails as an argument1 not only for the general reason we have discussed in our third chapter1 but also for two special reasons1 namely3 7#a7 that he completely ignores the chronological question of the comparative age of the fossils in his series1 and 7#b7 that he has neglected to take into account the consideration of the body-brain ratio4 ,for as ,prof4 ,g4 ,grant ,mac,curdy puts it1 8,we must distinguish between relative 7cranial7 capacity and absolute capacity40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiji1 p4 #ege47 ,in justice to ,professor ,mc,gregor1 however1 it should be noted that he proposes his interpretation in a purely provisory and tentative sense1 and does not dogmatize after the fashion of ,osborn and ,gregory4 ,after the year #ahif1 ,dubois appears to have withdrawn the relics of ,pithecanthropus from further inspection on the part of scientific men1 and to have kept them securely locked up in his safe at ,haarlem1 ,holland4 7,cf4 ,science1 ,june #ae1 #aibc1 suppl4 ,,viii47 ,since all existing casts of the skull-cap of ,pithecanthropus are inaccurate1 according to the measurements originally given by ,dubois1 anthropologists were anxious to have access to bones1 in order to verify his figures and to obtain better casts4 7,cf4 ,hrdlika1 ,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiac1 p4 #dih47 ,his obstinate refusal1 therefore1 to place the ,javanese remains at the disposal of scientists was bitterly resented by the latter4 ,some of them accused him of having become 8reactionary0 and 8orthodox0 in his later years1 and others went so far as to impugn his good faith in the matter of the discovery4 7,cf4 ,w4 ,h4 ,ballou's article1 ,north ,american ,review1 ,april1 #aibb47 ,a writer in ,science says3 8,it has been rumored that he was influenced by religious bigotry0 and refers to the bones as a 8skeleton in the closet40 7,cf4 loc4 cit47 ,dubois' own explanation1 however1 was that he wished to publish his own finds first4 ,recently1 he seems to have yielded to pressure in the matter1 since he permitted ,hrdlika1 ,mc,gregor1 and others to examine the fragments of ,pithecanthropus4 7,cf4 ,science1 ,aug4 #ag1 #aibc1 ,suppl4 ,,viii47 ,meanwhile1 too1 his opinion has changed with reference to these bones1 which he now regards as the remains of a large ape of the hylobatic type1 and not of a form intermediate between men and apes4 ,this opinion is1 in all likelihood1 the correct one4 7#b7 ,the ,heidelberg ,man3 ,in a quarry near ,mauer in the ,elsenz ,valley1 ,germany1 on ,oct4 #ba1 #aijg1 a workman engaged in excavating drove his shovel into a fossilized human jaw1 severing it into two pieces4 ,herr ,joseph ,rsch1 the owner of the quarry1 immediately telegraphed the news of the find to ,prof4 ,otto ,schoetensack of the neighboring ,university of ,heidelberg4 ,the ,professor arrived on the scene the following day1 and 8once he got hold of the specimen1 he would no more let it out of his possession40 7,cf4 ,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiac1 p4 #eaj47 ,he took it back with him to ,heidelberg1 where he cleaned and repaired it4 ,the crowns of four of the teeth broken by the workman's shovel were never recovered4 ,the ,heidelberg jaw was found at a depth of about #gi feet below the surface 7#bd4a meters74 ,fossil bones of ,elephas antiquus1 ,rhinoceros etruscus1 ,felis leo fossilis1 etc41 are said to have been discovered at the same level4 ,the layer in which it was found has been classed by some as ,middle ,pleistocene1 by others as ,early ,quaternary2 for 8there seems to be some uncertainty as to the exact subdivision of the period to which it should be attributed40 7,hrdlika1 loc4 cit41 p4 #eaf47 ,no other part of the skeleton except the jaw was discovered4 ,the teeth are of the normal human pattern1 being small and vertical4 ,prof4 ,arthur ,keith says they have the same shape as those of the specimen found at ,spy4 ,the jaw has an ape-like appearance1 due to the extreme recessiveness of the chin4 ,it is also remarkable for its massiveness and the broadness of the ascending rami4 ,its anomalous character is indicated by the manifest disproportion between the powerful jaw and the insignificant teeth4 8,one is impressed10 says ,prof4 ,george ,grant ,mac,curdy of ,yale1 8by the relative smallness of the teeth as compared with the massive jaw in the case of ,homo heidelbergensis40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiji1 p4 #egj47 8,why so massive a jaw10 says the late ,professor ,dwight1 former anatomist at ,harvard1 8should have such inefficient teeth is hard to explain1 for the very strength of the jaw implies the fitness of corresponding teeth4 ,either it is an anomaly or the jaw of some aberrant species of ape40 7,op4 cit41 p4 #afd47 ,this fact alone destroys its evidential force2 for1 by way of anomaly1 almost any sort of feature can appear in apes and men1 that is1 human characters in apes and simian characters in man4 8,thus it is certain10 says ,dwight1 8that animal features of the most diverse kinds appear in man apparently without rhyme or reason1 and also that they appear in precisely the same way in animals far removed from those in which they are normal4 ,it is hopeless to try to account for them by inheritance2 and to call them instances of convergence does not help matters40 7,op4 cit41 pp4 #bcj1 #bca47 ,kramberger1 however1 claims that1 with the exception of the extremely recessive chin1 the features of the ,heidelberg jaw are approximated by those which are normal in the modern ,eskimo skull4 7,cf4 ,sitzungbericht der ,preuss4 ,akad4 der ,wissenschaften1 #aiji47 ,prof4 ,j4 ,h4 ,mc,gregor holds similar views4 ,he claims that the greater use of the jaw in uncivilized peoples1 who must masticate tough foods1 tends to accentuate and increase the recessiveness of the chin4 ,it is also possible that the backward sloping of the chin may have been intensified in certain primitive races or varieties of the human species as a result of factorial mutation4 ,we would not1 however1 be justified in segregating a distinct human species on the basis of minor differences1 such as the protuberance or recessiveness of chins4 ,on the whole1 we are hopelessly at sea with reference to the significance of the ,heidelberg mandible4 ,taxonomic allocation must be grounded on something more than a jaw1 otherwise it amounts to nothing more than a piece of capricious speculation4 7#c7 ,eoanthropus ,dawsoni3 ,dec4 #ah1 #aiab1 is memorable with evolutionary anthropologists as the day on which ,charles ,dawson announced his discovery of the famous ,dawn ,man4 ,the period of discovery extended from the years prior to #aiaa up to ,aug4 #cj1 #aiac1 when the canine tooth was found by ,father ,teilhard de ,chardin4 ,the locality was ,piltdown ,common1 ,sussex1 in ,england4 ,the fragments recovered were an imperfect cranium1 part of the mandible1 and the above-mentioned canine tooth4 ,the stratified ,piltdown gravel1 which ,dawson assigns to the ,lower ,pleistocene or ,glacial epoch1 had been much disturbed by workmen1 8who were digging the gravel for small repairs40 7,dawson47 ,the discoverer first found a fragment of a parietal bone4 ,then several years later1 after the gravels had been considerably rainwashed1 he recovered other fragments of the skull4 ,all parts of the skeletal remains are said to have been found within a radius of several yards from the site of the initial discovery4 ,the skull was reconstructed by ,dr4 ,a4 ,smith ,woodward and deposited in the ,british ,museum of ,natural ,history at ,south ,kensington4 ,eoliths were found in the same gravel as the skull4 ,of the skull1 according to ,woodward1 four parts remain1 which1 however1 were integrated from nine fragments of bone4 8,the human remains10 he says1 8comprise the greater part of a brain-case and one ramus of the mandible1 with two lower molars40 ,of ,woodward's reconstruction1 ,keith tells us that 8an approach to symmetry and a correct adjustment of parts came only after many experimental reconstructions0 7cf4 8,antiquity of ,man10 p4 #cfd71 and he also remarks that1 when ,woodward undertook to 8replace the missing points of the jaws1 the incisor and canine teeth1 he followed simian rather than human lines40 7,op4 cit41 p4 #cbd47 ,here we may be permitted to observe that1 even apart from the distorting influence of preconceived theories1 this business of reconstruction is a rather dubious procedure4 ,the absence of parts and the inevitable modification introduced by the use of cement employed to make the fragments cohere make accurate reconstruction an impossibility4 ,the fact that ,woodward assigned to the lower jaw a tooth which ,gerrit ,miller of the ,united ,states ,museum assigns to the upper jaw1 may well give pause to those credulous persons1 who believe that palontologists can reliably reconstruct a whole cranium or skeleton from the minutest fragments4 ,sometimes1 apparently1 the 8experts0 are at sea even over so simple a question as the proper allocation of a tooth4 ,woodward1 however1 was fully satisfied with his own artistic work on ,eoanthropus2 for he says3 8,while the skull1 indeed1 is evidently human1 only approaching a lower grade in certain characters of the brain1 in the attachment for the neck1 the extent of the temporal muscles and in the probable size of the face1 the mandible appears to be almost precisely that of an ape1 with nothing human except the molar teeth40 7,cf4 ,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiac1 pp4 #eje1 #ejf47 ,of the cranial capacity ,woodward gives the following estimate3 8,the capacity of the brain-case cannot1 of course1 be exactly determined2 but measurements both by millet seed and water show that it must have been at least #a1jgj cc41 while a consideration of the missing parts suggests that it may have been a little more 7note the parsimoniousness of this concession674 ,it therefore agrees closely with the capacity of the ,gibraltar skull1 as determined by ,professor ,keith1 and equals that of the lowest skulls of the existing ,australians4 ,it is much below the ,mousterian skulls from ,spy and ,la ,chapelle-aux-,saints40 7,loc4 cit41 p4 #eje47 ,where ,doctor ,woodward came to grief1 however1 was in his failure to discern the obvious disproportion between the mismated cranium and mandible4 ,as a matter of fact1 the mandible is older than the skull and belongs to a fossil ape1 whereas the cranium is more recent and is conspicuously human4 ,woodward1 however1 was blissfully unconscious of this msalliance4 ,what there is of the lower jaw1 he assures us1 8shows the same mineralized condition as the skull0 and 8corresponds sufficiently well in size to be referred to the same individual without any hesitation40 7,loc4 cit41 p4 #ejf47 ,for this he was roundly taken to task by ,prof4 ,david ,waterston in an address delivered by the latter before the ,london ,geological ,society1 ,dec41 #aiab4 ,nature1 the ,english scientific weekly1 reports this criticism as follows3 8,to refer the mandible and the cranium to the same individual would be equivalent to articulating a chimpanzee foot with the bones of a human thigh and leg40 ,prof4 ,j4 ,h4 ,mc,gregor of ,columbia1 though he followed ,woodward in modeling the head of ,eoanthropus now exhibited in 8,the ,hall of the ,age of ,man10 told the writer that he believed the jaw and the skull to be misfits4 ,recently1 ,hrdlika has come out strongly for the separation of the mandible from the cranium1 insisting that the former is older and on the order of the jaw of the fossil ape ,dryopithecus1 while the skull is less antique and indubitably human4 ,the following abstract of ,hrdlika's view is given in ,science1 ,may #d1 #aibc3 8,dr4 ,hrdlika10 we read1 8holds that the ,piltdown jaw is much older than the skull found near it and to which it had been supposed to belong40 7,cf4 suppl4 ,x47 ,hrdlika asserts that1 from the standpoint of dentition1 there is a striking resemblance between the ,piltdown jaw and that of the extinct ape ,dryopithecus rhenanus4 ,he comments1 in fact1 on 8the close relation of the ,piltdown molars to some of the ,miocene or early ,pliocene human-like teeth of this fossil ape40 7,ibidem47 ,still other authorities1 however1 have claimed that the jaw was that of a chimpanzee4 ,to conclude1 therefore1 the ,eoanthropus ,dawsoni is an invention1 and not a discovery1 an artistic creation1 not a specimen4 ,anyone can combine a simian mandible with a human cranium1 and1 if the discovery of a connecting link entails no more than this1 then there is no reason why evidence of human evolution should not be turned out wholesale4 7#d7 ,the ,neanderthal ,man 7,no4 #a73 ,the remains of the famous ,neanderthal ,man were found in ,august1 #ahef1 by two laborers at work in the ,feldhofer ,grotte1 a small cave about #ajj feet from the ,dssel river1 near ,hochdal in ,germany4 ,this cave is located at the entrance of the ,neanderthal gorge in ,westphalia1 at a height of #fj feet above the bottom of the valley4 ,no competent scientist1 however1 saw the bones in situ4 ,both the bones and the loam1 in which they were entombed1 had been thrown out of the cave and partly precipitated into the ravine1 long before the scientists arrived4 ,indeed1 the scientific discoverer1 ,dr4 ,c4 ,fuhlrott1 did not come upon the scene until several weeks later4 ,it was then too late to determine the age of the bones geologically and stratigraphically1 and no petrigraphic examination of the loam was made4 ,the cave1 which is about #be meters above the level of the river1 communicates by crevices with the surface1 so that it is possible that the bones and the loam1 which covered the floor of the cave1 may have been washed in from without4 ,fuhlrott recovered a skull-cap1 two femurs1 both humeri1 both uln 7almost complete71 the right radius1 the left pelvic bone1 a fragment of the right scapula1 five pieces of rib1 and the right clavicle4 7,cf4 ,hugues ,obermaier's article1 ,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aijf1 pp4 #cid1 #cie47 8,whether they 7the bones7 were really in the ,alluvial loam10 says ,virchow1 8no one saw4444 ,the whole importance of the ,neanderthal skull consists in the honor ascribed to it from the very beginning1 of having rested in the ,alluvial loam1 which was formed at the time of the early mammals40 7,quoted by ,ranke1 8,der ,mensch10 ,,ii1 p4 #dhe47 ,we know nothing1 therefore1 regarding the age of the fragmentary skeleton2 for1 as ,obermaier says3 8,it is certain that its exact age is in no way defined1 either geologically or stratigraphically40 7,loc4 cit41 p4 #cie47 ,the remains are no less enigmatic from the anthropological standpoint4 ,for while no doubt has been raised as to their human character1 they have given rise to at least a dozen conflicting opinions4 ,thus ,professor ,clemont of ,bonn pronounced the remains in question to be those of a ,mongolian ,cossack shot by snipers in #ahad1 and cast by his slayers into the ,feldhofer ,grotte4 ,the same verdict had been given by ,l4 ,meyer in #ahfd4 ,c4 ,carter ,blake 7#ahfd7 and ,karl ,vogt 7#ahfc7 declared the skull to be that of an idiot4 ,j4 ,barnard ,davis 7#ahfd7 claimed that it had been artificially deformed by early obliteration of the cranial sutures4 ,pruner-,bey 7#ahfc7 said that it was the skull of an ancient ,celt or ,german2 ,r4 ,wagner 7#ahfd71 that it belonged to an ancient ,hollander2 ,rudolf ,virchow1 that the remains were those of a primitive ,frieslander4 ,prof4 ,g4 ,schwalbe of ,strassburg erected it into a new genus of the ,anthropid in #aija4 ,in #aijd1 however1 he repented of his rashness and contented himself with calling it a distinct human species1 namely1 ,homo primigenius1 in contradistinction to ,homo sapiens 7modern man74 ,as we shall see presently1 however1 it is not a distinct species1 but1 at most1 an ancient variety or subspecies 7race7 of the species ,homo sapiens1 differing from modern ,europeans only in the degree that ,polynesians1 ,mongolians1 and ,hottentots differ from them1 that is1 within the limits of the one and only human species4 ,other opinions might be cited 7cf4 ,hrdlika1 ,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiac1 p4 #eah1 and ,h4 ,muckermann's 8,darwinism and ,evolution10 #aijf1 pp4 #fc1 #fd71 but the number and variety of the foregoing bear ample testimony to the uncertain and ambiguous character of the remains4 ,the skull is that of a low1 perhaps1 degenerate1 type of humanity4 ,the facial and basal parts of the skull are missing4 ,hence we are not sure of the prognathism shown in ,mc,gregor's reconstruction4 ,the skull has1 however1 a retreating forehead1 prominent brow ridges and a sloping occiput4 ,yet1 in spite of the fact that it is of a very low type1 it is indubitably human4 8,in no sense10 says ,huxley1 8can the ,neanderthal bones be regarded as the remains of a human being intermediate between men and apes40 78,evidence of ,man's ,place in ,nature10 ,humb4 ed41 p4 #bec47 ,d4 ,schaaffhausen makes the same confession--8,in making this discovery10 he owns1 8we have not found the missing link40 78,der ,neanderthaler ,fund10 p4 #di47 ,the cranial capacity of the ,neanderthal skull1 as we have seen1 is #a1bcf c4cm41 which is practically the same as that of the average ,european woman of today4 ,in size it exceeds1 but in shape it resembles1 the dolichocephalic skull of the modern ,australian1 being itself a dolichocephalic cranium4 ,huxley called attention to this resemblance1 and ,macnamara1 after comparing it with a large number of such skulls1 reaches this conclusion3 8,the average cranial capacity of these selected #cf skulls 7namely1 of ,australian and ,tasmanian blacks7 is even less than that of the ,neanderthal group1 but in shape some of these two groups are closely related40 7,archiv4 fr ,anthropologie1 ,,xxviii1 #aijc1 p4 #ceh47 ,schwalbe's opinion that the ,neanderthal ,man constitutes a distinct species1 though its author has since abandoned it 7cf4 ,wasmann's 8,modern ,biology10 ,eng4 ed41 #aiaj1 p4 #ejf71 will be considered later1 viz4 after we have discussed the ,men of ,spy1 ,krapina and ,le ,moustier1 all of whom have been assigned to the ,neanderthal group4 7#e7 ,neanderthal ,man 7,no4 #b73 ,this specimen is said to be more recent than ,no4 #a4 ,its discoverers were ,rautert1 ,klaatsch1 and ,koenen4 ,it consists of a human skeleton without a skull4 ,it was found buried in the loess at a depth of #ej centimeters4 ,this loess had been washed into the ruined cave1 where the relics were found1 subsequently to its deposition on the plateau above4 ,the bones were most probably washed into the cave along with the loess1 which fills the remnant of the destroyed cave4 ,the upper plateau of the region is covered with the same loess4 ,the site of the second discovery was #bjj meters to the west of the ,neanderthal ,cave 7i4e4 the ,feldhofer ,grotte74 ,the bones were either washed into the broken cave1 or buried there later4 ,we have no indication whatever of their age4 7#f7 ,the ,man of ,la ,naulette3 ,in #ahff1 ,andr ,dupont found in the cavern of ,la ,naulette1 valley of the ,lesse1 ,belgium1 a fossil lower jaw1 or rather1 the fragment of a lower jaw1 associated with remains of the mammoth and rhinoceros4 ,the fragment was sufficient to show the dentition1 and to indicate the absence of a chin4 8,its kinship with the man of ,neanderthal10 remarks ,professor ,mac,curdy very navely1 8whose lower jaw could not be found1 was evident4 ,it tended to legitimatize the latter1 which hitherto had failed of general recognition40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiji1 p4 #egb47 7#g7 ,the ,men of ,spy3 ,in ,june of #ahhf two nearly complete skeletons1 probably of a woman and a man1 were discovered by ,messrs4 ,marcel de ,puydt and ,maximin ,lohest in a terrace fronting a cave at ,spy in the ,province of ,namur1 ,belgium1 #dg feet above the shallow bed of the stream ,orneau4 ,the bones were found at a depth of #ac feet below the surface of the terrace4 ,the remains were associated with bones of the rhinoceros 7,rhinoceros tichorhinus71 the mammoth 7,elephas primigenius71 and the great bear 7,ursus spelaeus74 ,there were also stone implements indicating ,mousterian industry1 and the position of one of the skeletons shows that the bodies were buried by friends4 ,the present valley of the ,orneau was almost completely formed at the time of the burial4 ,the exact age of the bones cannot be determined nor can these cave deposits be correlated with the river drift and the loess4 ,the cultural evidences are said to be ,mousterian1 and ,mousterian culture is assigned by ,obermaier to the ,fourth1 or last1 ,glacial period4 ,prof4 ,julien ,fraipont of the ,university of ,lige announced the discovery of these palolithic skeletons ,aug4 #af1 #ahhf4 ,skeleton ,no4 #a has weaker bones and is thought to be that of a woman2 ,no4 #b shows signs of strong musculature and is evidently that of a man4 ,of ,no4 #a we have the cranial vault1 two portions of the upper jaw 7with five molars and four other teeth71 a nearly complete mandible with all the teeth1 a left clavicle1 a right humerus1 the shaft of the left humerus1 a left radius1 the heads of two uln1 a nearly complete right femur1 a complete left tibia1 and the right os calcis4 ,of ,no4 #b we have the vault of the skull1 two portions of the maxilla with teeth1 loose teeth belonging to lower jaw1 fragments of the scapul1 the left clavicle1 imperfect humeri1 the shaft of the right radius1 a left femur1 the left os calcis1 and the left astragalus4 ,the separation of the bones1 however1 is not yet satisfactory4 ,the jaw of ,no4 #a is well-preserved1 except in the region of the coronoids and condyles1 which makes any position we may give it more or less arbitrary4 ,the skull of this specimen is almost the replica of the ,neanderthal skull1 except that the forehead is lower and more sloping4 ,but ,no4 #a has a trace of chin prominence and in this it resembles modern skulls4 ,no4 #b has a higher forehead and the cranial vault is higher and more spacious4 ,in both skeletons the radius and femur show a peculiar curvature1 and in both1 too1 the arms and legs must have been very short4 ,hence the men of ,spy are described as having been only partially erect1 and as having had bowed thighs and bent knees4 ,the source of this modification1 however1 is not a surviving pithecoid atavism1 but a non-inheritable adaptation acquired through the habitual attitude or posture maintained in stalking game--8,now we know10 says ,dwight1 8that this feature1 which is certainly an ape-like one1 implies simply that the race was one of those with the habit of #8squatting1' which implies that the body hangs from the knees1 not touching the ground for hours together4 ,as a matter of course we look for this in savage tribes40 78,thoughts of a ,catholic ,anatomist10 p4 #afh47 ,the same may be said of the receding chin1 which1 as we have seen1 is also an acquired adaptation4 ,the same1 finally1 is true of the prominent brow ridges1 which are not pithecoid1 but are1 as ,klaatsch has pointed out1 related to the size of the eye sockets1 and consequently the result of an adaptation of early palolithic man to the life of a hunter1 a natural sequel of the very marked development of his sense of sight4 ,similar brow ridges1 though not quite so prominent1 occur among modern ,australian blacks4 ,nor are the remains as typically ,neanderthaloid as ,keith and others 7who wish to see in palolithic men a distinct human species7 could desire4 ,no4 #a1 as we have seen1 though almost a replica of the ,neanderthal skull-cap1 has a trace of chin prominence in the mandible4 ,no4 #b1 though the chin is recessive1 has a higher forehead and higher and more spacious cranial vault than the ,neanderthal ,man4 8,on the whole10 says ,hrdlika1 8it may be said that ,no4 #b1 while in some respects still very primitive1 represents morphologically a decided step from the ,neanderthaloid to the present-day type of the human cranium40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiac1 p4 #ebe47 7#h7 ,the ,men of ,krapina3 ,in the cave1 or rather rock shelter1 of ,krapina1 in northern ,croatia1 beside the small stream ,kaprinica which now flows #hb feet below the cave1 ,k4 ,gorjanovi-,kramberger1 ,professor of geology and palontology at the ,university of ,zagreb1 found1 in the year #ahii1 ten or twelve skulls in fragments1 a large number of teeth1 and many other defective parts of skeletons4 ,all told1 they represent at least fourteen different individuals4 ,the bones are in a bad state of preservation1 and show traces of burning1 some of them being calcined4 ,the bones were associated with objects of ,mousterian industry1 and bones of extinct animals such as ,rhinoceros merckii1 ,ursus spelaeus1 ,bos primigenius1 etc4 ,the aforesaid ,rhinoceros is an older type than the ,rhinoceros tichorhinus associated with the men of ,spy1 and implies a hot climate1 wherein the ,rhinoceros merckii managed to persist for a longer time than in the north4 ,hence the remains are thought to belong to the last ,interglacial period4 ,in general1 the bones show the same racial characteristics as those of ,neanderthal and ,spy1 though they are said to be of a perceptibly more modern type than the latter4 ,they were men of short stature and strong muscular development4 8,the crania10 says ,hrdlika1 8were of good size externally1 but the brain cavities were probably below the present average4 ,the vault of the skull was of good length and at the same time fairly broad1 so that the cephalic index1 at least in some of the individuals1 was more elevated than usual in the crania of early man40 7,loc4 cit41 pp4 #ecj1 #eca47 ,the reader must take ,hrdlika's use of the word 8usual0 with 8the grain of salt0 necessitated in view of the scanty number of specimens whence such inductive generalizations are derived4 ,the pronounced and complete supraorbital arcs characteristic of the ,neanderthaloid type occur in this group also1 though in a less marked manner4 ,the stone implements are evidence of the intelligence of these men4 7#i7 ,the ,le ,moustier ,man3 ,this specimen1 ,homo mousteriensis ,hauseri1 was found by ,prof4 ,o4 ,hauser in the 8lower ,moustier ,cave0 at ,le ,moustier in the valley of the ,vzre1 ,department of ,dordogne in ,france1 during the ,march of #aijh4 ,it consists of the complete skull and other skeletal parts of a youth of about #ae years4 ,at this age1 the sex cannot be determined from the bones alone4 ,obermaier assigns these bones to the ,fourth ,glacial period4 ,prof4 ,george ,grant ,mac,curdy's anthropological evaluation is the following3 8,the race characters 444 are not so distinct 7i4e4 at the age of #ae years7 as they would be at full maturity2 but they point unmistakably to the type of ,neanderthal1 ,spy1 and ,krapina--the so-called ,homo primigenius which now also becomes ,homo mousteriensis4 ,it was a rather stocky type1 robust and of a low stature4 ,the arms and legs were relatively short1 especially the forearm and from the knee down1 as is the case among the ,eskimo4 ,ape-like characters are noticeable in the curvature of the radius and of the femur1 the latter being also rounder in section than is the case with ,homo sapiens4 ,in the retreating forehead1 prominent brow ridges1 and prognathism 7i4e4 projection of the jaws7 it is approached to some extent by the modern ,australian4 ,the industry associated with this skeleton is that typical of the ,mousterian epoch40 7,loc4 cit41 p4 #egc47 ,as we have already seen1 the so-called ape-like features are simply acquired adaptations to the hunter's life1 and1 if inheritable characters1 they do not exceed the limits of a varietal mutation4 ,that the ,mousterian men were endowed with the same intelligence as ourselves1 appears from the evidences of solemn burial which surround the remains of this youth of #ae years1 and prove1 as ,klaatsch points out1 that these men of the ,glacial period were persuaded of their own immortality4 ,the head reclined on a pillow of earth1 which still retains the impression of the youth's cheek1 the body having been laid on its side4 ,around the corpse are the best examples of the stone implements of the period1 the parents having buried their choicest possession with the corpse of their son4 7#aj7 ,the ,la ,chapelle ,man3 ,on ,august #c1 #aijh1 the ,abbs ,j4 and ,a4 ,bouyssonie and ,l4 ,bardon1 assisted by ,paul ,bouyssonie 7a younger brother of the first two71 discovered palolithic human remains1 which are also assigned to the ,neanderthal group4 ,the locality of the discovery was the village of ,la ,chapelle-aux-,saints1 #bb kilometers south of the town of ,brive1 in the department of ,corrze1 in southern ,france4 ,in the side of a moderate elevation1 #bjj yards south of the aforesaid village1 and beyond the left bank of a small stream1 the ,sourdoire1 there is a cave now known as the ,cave of ,la ,chapelle-aux-,saints4 ,it was here1 on the above-mentioned date1 that the priests discovered the bones of a human skeleton surrounded by unmistakable evidences of solemn burial4 8,the body lay on its back1 with the head to the westward1 the latter being surrounded by stones4444 ,about the body were many flakes of quartz and flint1 some fragments of ochre1 broken animal bones1 etc40 7,hrdlika47 ,another token of burial is the rectangular pit1 in which the remains were found4 ,it is sunk to a depth of #cj to #dj centimeters in the floor of the cavern4 8,they 7the remains7 were covered10 says ,prof4 ,g4 ,g4 ,mac,curdy1 8by a deposit intact #cj to #dj centimeters thick1 consisting of a magma of bone1 of stone implements1 and of clay4 ,the stone implements belong to a pure ,mousterian industry4 ,while some pieces suggest a vague survival of ,acheulian implements 7i4e4 from the cool latter half of the ,third ,interglacial period71 others presage the coming of the ,aurignacian 7close of last ,glacial period74 ,directly over the human skull were the foot bones1 still in connection1 of a bison--proof that the piece had been placed there with the flesh still on1 and proof1 too1 that the deposit had not been disturbed4 ,two hearths were noted also1 and the fact that there were no implements of bone1 the industry differing in this respect from that of ,la ,quina and ,petit-,puymoyen 7,charente71 as well as at ,wildkirchli1 ,switzerland4 8,the human bones include the cranium and lower jaw 7broken1 but the pieces nearly all present and easily replaced in exact position71 a few vertebr and long bones1 several ribs1 phalanges1 and metacarpals1 clavicle1 astragalus1 calcaneum1 parts of scaphoid1 ilium1 and sacrum4 ,the ensemble denotes an individual of the male sex whose height was about #a4fj meters4 ,the condition of the sutures and of the jaws proves the skull to be that of an old man4 ,the cranium is dolichocephalic1 with an index of #ge4 ,it is said to be flatter in the frontal region than those of ,neanderthal and ,spy40 7,loc4 cit41 p4 #egd47 ,the associated remains of fossil animals comprise the horse1 reindeer1 bison1 ,rhinoceros tichorinus1 etc41 and1 according to ,hrdlika1 8indicate that the deposits date from somewhere near the middle of the glacial epoch40 7,loc4 cit41 p4 #eci47 ,the discoverers turned over the skeleton to ,marcellin ,boule of the ,paris ,museum of ,natural ,history for cleaning and reconstruction4 ,it is the first instance of a palolithic man1 in which the basal parts of the skull1 including the foramen magnum1 were recovered4 ,professor ,boule estimates the cranial capacity as being something between #a1fjj and #a1fbj c4cm4 ,he found the lower part of the face to be prognathic1 but not excessively so1 the vault like the ,neanderthal cranium1 but larger1 the occiput broad and protruding1 the supraorbital arch prominent and complete1 the nasal process broad1 the forehead low1 and the mandible stout and chinless1 though not sloping backward at the symphysis4 ,alluding to the rectangular burial pit in the cave1 ,hrdlika remarks3 8,the depression was clearly made by the primitive inhabitants or visitors of the cave for the body and the whole represents very plainly a regular burial1 the most ancient intentional burial thus far discovered40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiac1 p4 #eci47 ,the specimens of ,neanderthal1 ,spy1 ,la ,naulette1 ,krapina1 ,le ,moustier and ,la ,chapelle1 as we have seen1 are the principal remains said to represent the ,neanderthal type1 which1 according to ,keith and others1 is a distinct human species4 ,as ,aurignacian ,man 7assigned to the close of the 8,old ,stone ,age10 or ,glacial epoch71 including the ,grimaldi or ,negroid as well as the ,cr-,magnon type1 are universally acknowledged to belong to the species ,homo sapiens1 we need not discuss them here4 ,the same holds true1 a fortiori1 of ,neolithic races such as the ,solutreans and the ,magdalenians4 ,the main issue for the present is whether or not the ,neanderthal type represents a distinct species of human being4 ,anent this question1 ,professor ,mac,curdy has the following3 8,boule estimated the capacity of the ,chapelle-aux-,saints skull according to the formul of ,manouvrier1 of ,lee1 and of ,beddoe1 obtaining results that varied between #a1egj and #a1gej cubic centimeters4 ,by the use of millet and of shot an average capacity of #a1fbf was obtained4 ,judging from these figures the capacity of the crania of ,neanderthal and ,spy has been underestimated by ,schaaffhausen1 ,huxley1 and ,schwalbe4 ,by its cranial capacity1 therefore1 the ,neanderthal race belongs easily in the class of ,homo sapiens4 ,but we must distinguish between relative capacity and absolute capacity4 ,in modern man1 where the transverse and antero-posterior diameters are the same as in the skull of ,la ,chapelle-aux-,saints1 the vertical diameter would be much greater1 which would increase the capacity to #a1hjj cubic centimeters and even to #a1ijj cubic centimeters4 ,such voluminous modern crania are very rare4 ,thus ,bismarck1 with horizontal cranial diameters scarcely greater than in the man of ,la ,chapelle-aux-,saints1 is said to have had a cranial capacity of #a1ife cubic centimeters40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiji1 p4 #ege47 ,as for the structural features which are alleged to constitute a specific difference between the ,neanderthal type and modern man1 v4g4 the prominent brow ridges1 prognathism1 retreating forehead1 receding chin1 etc41 all of these occur1 albeit in a lesser degree1 in modern ,australian blacks1 who are universally acknowledged to belong to the species ,homo sapiens4 ,moreover1 there is much fluctuation1 as ,kramberger has shown from the examination of an enormous number of modern and fossil skulls1 in both the ,neanderthal and the modern type2 that is to say1 ,neanderthaloid features occur in modern skulls and1 conversely1 modern features occur in the skulls of ,homo neanderthalensis 7cf4 8,biolog4 ,zentralblatt10 #aije1 p4 #haj2 and ,wasmann's 8,modern ,biology10 ,eng4 ed41 pp4 #dgb1 #dgc74 ,all the differences between modern and palolithic man are explicable1 partly upon the basis of acquired adaptation1 inasmuch as the primitive mode of life pursued by the latter entailed the formation of body-modifying habits very different from our present customs and habits 7viz4 those of our modern civilized life74 ,but these modifications1 not being inheritable1 passed away with the passing of the habits that gave rise to them4 ,in part1 however1 the differences may be due to heritable mutations1 which gave rise to new races or varieties or subspecies1 such as ,indo-,europeans1 ,mongolians1 and ,negroes4 ,and1 if the evolutionary palontologist insists on magnifying characters that are well within the scope of mere factorial mutation into a specific difference1 we shall reply1 with ,bateson and ,morgan1 by denying his competence to pronounce on taxonomic questions1 without consulting the verdict of the geneticist4 ,without breeding tests1 the criterions of intersterility and longevity cannot be applied1 and breeding tests are impossible in the case of fossils4 ,as for an a priori verdict1 no modern geneticist1 if called upon to give his opinion1 would concede that the differences which divide the modern and the ,neanderthal types of men exceed the limits of factorial mutations1 or of natural varieties within the same species4 ,here1 then1 it is a case of the wish being father to the thought4 ,so anxious are the materialistic evolutionists to secure evidence of a connection between man and the brute1 that no pretext is too insignificant to serve as warrant for recognizing an 8intermediate species40 ,even waiving this point1 however1 there is no evidence at all that the ,neanderthal type is ancestral to the ,cr-,magnon type4 ,both of these races must have migrated into ,europe from the east or the south1 and we have no proof whatever of genetic relationship between them4 ,true1 attempts have been made to capitalize the fact that the ,neanderthal race was represented by specimens discovered in what were alleged to be the older deposits of the ,glacial epoch1 but we have seen that the evidences of antiquity are very precarious in the case of these ,neanderthaloid skeletons4 ,time-scales based on extinct species and characteristic stone implements1 etc41 are always satisfactory to evolutionists1 because they can date their fossils and archological cultures according to the theory of evolution1 but1 for one whose confidence in the 8reality0 of evolution is not so great1 these palontological chronometers are open to grave suspicion4 ,if the horizon levels are not too finely graded1 the difficulty of accepting such a time-scale is not excessive4 ,hence we might be prepared to accept the chronometric value of the division of fossiliferous rocks into ,groups1 such as the ,palozoic1 the ,mesozoic1 and the ,cnozoic1 even though we are assured by ,grabau that this time-scale is 8based on the changes of life1 with the result that fossils alone determine whether a formation belongs to one or the other of these great divisions0 78,principles of ,stratigraphy10 p4 #aajc71 but when it comes to projecting an elaborate scheme of levels or horizons into ,pleistocene deposits on the dubious basis of index fossils and 8industries10 our credulity is not equal to the demands that are made upon it4 ,and this is particularly true with reference to fossil men4 ,man has the geologically unfortunate habit of burying his dead4 ,other fossils have been entombed on the spot where they died1 and therefore belong where we find them4 ,but it is otherwise with man4 ,in ,hilo1 ,hawaii1 the writer heard of a ,kanaka1 who was buried to a depth of #hj feet1 having stipulated this sort of burial through a special disposition in his will4 ,his purpose1 in so doing1 was to preclude the possibility of his bones ever being disturbed by a plough or other instrument4 ,nor have we any right to assume that indications of burial will always be present in a case of this nature4 ,we may1 on the contrary1 assume it as a general rule that human remains are always more recent than the formations in which they are found4 ,be that as it may1 the evidences for the antiquity of the ,neanderthaloid man prove1 at most1 that he was prior to the ,cr-,magnon man in ,europe1 but they do not prove that the former was prior to the latter absolutely4 ,things may1 for all we know1 have been just the reverse in ,asia4 ,hence we have no ground for regarding the ,man of ,neanderthal as ancestral to the race of artists1 who frescoed the caves of ,france and ,spain4 ,in fact1 to the unprejudiced mind the ,neanderthal type conveys the impression of a race on the downward path of degeneration rather than an embodiment of the promise of better things4 8,there is another view10 says ,dwight1 8 444 though it is so at variance with the ,zeitgeist that little is heard of it4 ,may it not be that many low forms of man1 archaic as well as contemporary1 are degenerate races8 ,we are told everything about progress2 but decline is put aside4 ,it is impossible to construct a tolerable scheme of ascent among the races of man2 but cannot dark points be made light by this theory of degeneration8 ,one of the most obscure1 and to me most attractive of questions1 is the wiping out of old civilizations4 ,that it has occurred repeatedly1 and on very extensive scales1 is as certain as any fact in history4 ,why is it not reasonable to believe that bodily degeneration took place in those fallen from a higher estate1 who1 half-starved and degraded1 returned to savagery8 ,moreover1 the workings of the soul would be hampered by a degenerating brain4 ,for my part ,i believe the ,neanderthal man to be a specimen of a race1 not arrested in its upward climb1 but thrown down from a higher position40 7,op4 cit41 pp4 #afi1 #agj47 ,the view1 however1 that the ,neanderthaloid type had degenerated from a previous higher human type was not at all in accord with the then prevalent opinion that this type was far more ancient than any other4 ,and ,dwight himself admitted the force of the 8objection 444 that the ,neanderthal race was an excessively old one and that skeletons of the higher race which1 according to the view which ,i have offered1 must have existed at the same time as the degenerate ones1 are still to be discovered40 7,op4 cit41 p4 #agj47 ,in fact1 the ,neanderthal ancestry of the present human race was so generally accepted that1 in the very year in which ,dwight's book appeared1 ,sir ,arthur ,keith declared3 8,the ,neanderthal type represents the stock from which all modern races have arisen40 ,time1 however1 as ,dr4 ,james ,walsh remarked 7,america1 ,dec4 #ae1 #aiag1 pp4 #bcj1 #bca71 has triumphantly vindicated the expectations of ,professor ,dwight4 ,for in his latest book1 8,the ,antiquity of ,man0 7#aiaf71 ,sir ,arthur ,keith has a chapter of ,conclusions1 in which the following recantation appears3 8,we were compelled to admit10 he owns1 8that men of the modern type had been in existence long before the ,neanderthal type40 ,but1 even if it were true that savagery preceded civilization in ,europe1 such could not have been the case everywhere2 for it is certain that civilization and culture of a comparatively high order were imported into ,europe before the close of the ,old ,stone ,age4 ,the ,hungarian ,lake-dwellings show that culture of a high type existed in the ,new ,stone ,age4 ,these two ages are regarded as prehistoric in ,europe1 though in ,america the ,stone ,age belongs to history4 ,it is also possible that in ,europe much of the ,stone ,age was coval with the history of civilized nations1 and that it may be coincident with1 instead of prior to1 the ,bronze ,age1 which seems to have begun in ,egypt1 and which belongs unquestionably to history4 ,and here we may be permitted to remark that history gives the lie to the evolutionary conceit that civilized man has arisen from a primitive state of barbarism4 ,history begins almost contemporaneously in many different centers1 such as ,egypt1 ,babylonia1 ,chaldea1 ,china1 and ,crete1 about #e1jjj or #f1jjj years ago1 and1 as far back as history goes1 we find the record of high civilizations existing side by side with a coval barbarism4 ,barbarism is historically a state of degeneration and stagnation1 and history knows of no instance of a people sunk in barbarism elevating itself by its own efforts to higher stages of civilization4 ,always civilization has been imposed upon barbarians from without4 ,savages1 so far as history knows them1 have never become civilized1 save through the intervention of some contemporary civilized nation4 ,history is one long refutation of the ,darwinian theory of constant and inevitable progress4 ,the progress of civilization is not subsequent1 but prior1 or parallel1 to the retrogression of barbarism4 ,that savagery and barbarism represent a degenerate1 rather than a primitive1 state1 is proved by the fact that savage tribes1 in general1 despite their brutish degradation1 possess languages too perfectly elaborated and systematized to be accounted for by the mental attainments of the men who now use them1 languages which testify unmistakably to the superior intellectual and cultural level of their civilized ancestors1 to whom the initial construction of such marvelous means of communication was due4 8,it is indeed one of the paradoxes of linguistic science10 says ,dr4 ,edwin ,sapir1 in a lecture delivered ,april #a1 #aiaa1 at the ,university of ,pennsylvania1 8that some of the most complexly organized languages are spoken by so-called primitive peoples1 while1 on the other hand1 not a few languages of relatively simple structure are found among peoples of considerable advance in culture4 ,relatively to the modern inhabitants of ,england1 to cite but one instance out of an indefinitely large number1 the ,eskimos must be considered as rather limited in cultural development4 ,yet there is just as little doubt that in complexity of form the ,eskimo language goes far beyond ,english4 ,i wish merely to indicate that1 however we may indulge in speaking of primitive man1 of a primitive language in the true sense of the word we find nowhere a trace40 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiab1 p4 #egc47 ,pierre ,duponceau makes a similar observation with reference to the logical and orderly organization of the ,indian languages3 8,the dialects of the ,indian tribes10 he says1 8appear to be the work of philosophers rather than of savages40 7,cited by ,f4 ,a4 ,tholuck1 8,verm4 ,schr410 ii1 p4 #bfj47 ,it was considerations of this sort which led the great philologist ,max ,mller to ridicule ,darwin's conception of primitive man as a savage4 8,as far as we can trace the footsteps of man10 he writes1 8even on the lowest strata of history1 we see that the ,divine gift of a sound and sober intellect belonged to him from the very first2 and the idea of humanity emerging slowly from the depths of an animal brutality can never be maintained again in our century4 ,the earliest work of art wrought by the human mind--more ancient than any literary document1 and prior even to the first whisperings of tradition--the human language1 forms one uninterrupted chain1 from the first dawn of history down to our own times4 ,we still speak the language of the first ancestors of our race2 and this language with its wonderful structures1 bears witness against such gratuitous theories4 ,the formation of language1 the composition of roots1 the gradual discrimination of meanings1 the systematic elaboration of grammatic forms--all this working which we can see under the surface of our own speech attests from the very first the presence of a rational mind1 of an artist as great at least as his work40 78,essays10 vol4 ,i1 p4 #cjf47 ,history and philology are far more solid and certain as a basis for inference than are 8index fossils0 and prehistoric archology2 and the lesson taught by history and philology is that primitive man was not a savage1 but a cultured being endowed with an intellect equal1 if not superior1 to our own4 ,but1 even if we grant the priority1 which evolutionists claim for the ,old ,stone ,age1 there are not absent even from that cultural level evident tokens of artistic genius and high intellectual gifts4 ,speaking of the pictures in the caves of ,altamira1 of ,marsoulas in the ,haute ,garonne1 and of ,fonte de ,gaume in the ,dordogne1 the archologist ,sir ,arthur ,evans says3 8,these primeval frescoes display not only consummate mastery of natural design1 but an extraordinary technical resource4 ,apart from the charcoal used in certain outlines1 the chief coloring matter was red and yellow ochre1 mortars and palettes for the preparation of which have come to light4 ,in single animals the tints varied from black to dark and ruddy brown or brilliant orange1 and so1 by fine gradations1 to paler nuances1 obtained by scraping and washing4 ,outlines and details are brought out by white incised lines1 and the artists availed themselves with great skill of the reliefs afforded by convexities of the rock surface4 ,but the greatest marvel of all is that such polychrome masterpieces as the bisons1 standing and couchant1 or with limbs huddled together1 of the ,altamira ,cave1 were executed on the ceilings of inner vaults and galleries where the light of day has never penetrated4 ,nowhere is there any trace of smoke1 and it is clear that great progress in the art of artificial illumination had already been made4 ,we know that stone lamps1 decorated in one case with the engraved head of an ibex1 were already in existence4 ,such was the level of artistic attainment in southwestern ,europe1 at a modest estimate1 some #aj1jjj years earlier than the most ancient monuments of ,egypt or ,chalda60 7,smithson4 ,inst4 ,rpt4 for #aiaf1 pp4 #dbi1 #dcj47 ,while reaffirming our distrust of the undocumented chronology of 8prehistory10 we cite these examples of palolithic art as a proof of the fact that everywhere the manifestation of man's physical presence coincides with the manifestation of his intelligence1 and that neither in history nor in prehistory have we any evidence of the existence of a bestial or irrational man preceding ,homo sapiens1 as we know him today4 ,it is interesting to note in this connection that a certain ,j4 ,taylor claims to have found a prehistoric engraving of a mastodon on a bone found in a rock shelter known as ,jacobs' ,cavern in ,missouri 7cf4 ,science1 ,oct4 #ad1 #aiba1 p4 #ceg74 ,incidents of this sort must needs dampen the enthusiasm of those who are overeager to believe in the enormous antiquity of the ,old ,stone ,age in ,europe4 7#aa7 ,the ,rhodesian ,man3 ,in #aiba a human skull was found by miners in the 8,bone ,cave0 of the ,broken ,hill ,mine in southern ,rhodesia4 ,it was associated with human and animal bones1 as well as very crude instruments 7knives and scrapers7 in flint and quartz4 ,it was found at a depth of #fj feet below the surface4 ,the lower jaw was missing1 and has not been recovered4 ,it was sent to the ,british ,museum1 ,south ,kensington1 where it is now preserved4 ,doctor ,smith-,woodward has examined and described it4 8,the skull is in some features the most primitive one that has ever been found2 at the same time it has many points of resemblance to 7or even identity with7 that of modern man40 7,science1 ,feb4 #c1 #aibb1 p4 #abi47 ,the face is intact4 ,the forehead is low1 and the brow ridges are more pronounced than in any known fossil human skull4 ,the prognathism of the upper jaw is very accentuated4 ,the cranium is very flat on top and broad in the back4 8,its total capacity is surprisingly large4 ,at least one prominent authority thinks that this man had quite as much gray matter as the average modern man40 7,loc4 cit41 pp4 #abi1 #acj47 ,woodward1 however1 estimates the cranial capacity of this skull as #abhj c4cm4 ,the neck must have had powerful muscles4 ,the nasal bone is prominent and ,neanderthaloid in character4 8,the wisdom tooth is reduced in size--another point in common with modern man and never found before in a fossil skull40 7,ibidem47 ,the palate and the teeth in general are like those of existing men4 ,the femur is not curved like that of the ,neanderthal man--8,in contrast to the ,neanderthal man who is supposed to have walked in a crouching position 7because of the rather curved femur and other bits of evidence71 this man is believed to have maintained the upright position1 because the femur is relatively straight and when fitted to the tibia 7which was also found7 presents a perfectly good1 straight leg40 7,ibidem47 ,according to the writer we have quoted1 ,dr4 ,elliot ,smith entertained hopes that the ,rhodesian man might represent the 8missing link0 in man's ancestry1 leaving the ,neanderthal man as an offshoot from the main ancestral trunk4 ,no comment is necessary4 ,the skull may be a pathological specimen1 but1 in any case1 it is evidently human as regards its cranial capacity4 ,the remains1 moreover1 serve to emphasize the fluctuational character of the so-called ,homo primigenius type1 being a mixture of modern and ,neanderthaloid features4 ,they are not fossilized and present a recent appearance4 ,hence1 as ,b4 ,windle suggests1 they may have fallen into the cave through a crack1 and may be modern rather than prehistoric4 7#ab7 ,the ,foxhall ,man3 ,this is the earliest known prehistoric man4 ,he is known to us1 however1 only through 8his flint instruments partly burned with fire1 found near the little hamlet of ,foxhall1 near ,norwich1 on the east coast of ,england4 ,these flints1 discovered in #aiba1 constitute the first proofs that man of sufficient intelligence to make a variety of flint implements and to use fire existed in ,britain at the close of the ,age of ,mammals2 this is the first true ,tertiary man ever found40 7,osborn3 ,guide-leaflet to 8,the ,hall of the ,age of ,man10 #bnd ed41 #aibc1 p4 #i47 ,osborn assigns the twelve kinds of flint instruments typical of the ,foxhallian culture to the ,upper ,pliocene epoch4 ,r4 ,a4 ,macalister1 however1 denies that the deposits are ,tertiary4 ,abb ,henri ,breuil's verdict was undecided4 ,in any case1 the ,foxhallian culture proves that the earliest of prehistoric men were intelligent like ourselves4 ,summa summarum3 ,so far as science knows1 only one human species has ever existed on the earth1 and that is ,homo sapiens4 ,all the alleged connecting links between men and apes are found1 on careful examination1 to be illusory4 ,when not wholly ambiguous in view of their inadequate preservation and fragmentary character1 they are 7as regards both mind and body7 distinctly human1 like the ,neanderthal man1 or they are purely simian1 like the ,pithecanthropus1 or they are heterogeneous combinations of human and simian bones1 like the ,eoanthropus ,dawsoni4#ah 8,with absolute certainty10 says ,hugues ,obermaier1 8we can only say that man of the ,quaternary period differed in no essential respect from man of the present day4 ,in no way did he go beyond the limits of variation of the normal human body40 78,the ,oldest ,remains of the ,human ,body1 etc410 ,vienna1 #aije47 ,the so-called ,homo primigenius1 therefore1 is not a distinct species of human being1 but merely an ancient race that is1 at most1 a distinct variety or subspecies of man4 ,in spite of tireless searching1 no traces of a bestial1 irrational man have been discovered4 ,indeed1 man whom nature has left naked1 defenseless1 unarmed with natural weapons1 and deficient in instinct1 has no other resource than his reason and could never have survived without it4 ,to imagine primitive man in a condition analogous to that of the idiot is preposterous4 8,for other animals10 says ,st4 ,thomas of ,aquin1 8nature has prepared food1 garments of fur1 means of defense1 such as teeth1 horns1 and hoofs1 or at least swiftness in flight4 ,but man is so constituted that1 none of these things having been prepared for him by nature1 reason is given him in their stead1 reason by which through his handiwork he is enabled to prepare all these things4444 ,moreover1 in other animals there is inborn a certain natural economy respecting those things which are useful or hurtful1 as the lamb by nature knows the wolf to be its enemy4 ,some animals also by natural instinct are aware of the medicinal properties of herbs and of other things which are necessary for life4 ,man1 however1 has a natural knowledge of these things which are necessary for life only in general1 as being able to arrive at the knowledge of the particular necessities of human life by way of inference from general principles40 78,de regim4 princ410 l4 ,i1 c4 ,i47 ,as a matter of fact1 man is never found apart from evidences of his intelligence4 ,the ,neanderthaloid race1 with their solemn burials and implements of bone and stone1 exemplify this truth no less than the palolithic artists of the ,cave of ,altamira4 #ah ,see ,addenda4 #e4 ,the ,edict of the ,american ,association ,in the ,cincinnati meeting 7#aibc-aibd7 of the ,american ,association for the ,advancement of ,science1 a number of resolutions were passed regarding the subject of evolution4 ,true1 the session in which these resolutions were passed was but sparsely attended1 and packed1 for the most part1 with the ultra-partisans of transformism4 ,nevertheless1 it is to be regretted that the dignity of this eminent and distinguished body was so unfittingly compromised by the fulmination of rhetorical anathemas against ,w4 ,j4 ,bryan and his ,round ,head adherents4 ,among the resolutions1 of which we have spoken1 the following dictatorial proclamation occurs3 8,the evidences in favor of the evolution of man are sufficient to convince every scientist in the world40 ,this authoritative decree is both rash and intolerant4 ,the resolution-committee of the ,american ,association is by no means infallible1 and1 in the absence of infallibility1 no group of men should be so unmindful of their own limitations as to strive to make their subjective views binding upon others4 ,scientific questions are not settled by authority1 but exclusively by means of irresistible evidence1 which is certainly absent in the present case4 ,moreover1 the declaration in question is untrue2 for many of the foremost palontologists and anthropologists of the day confess their complete ignorance1 as scientists1 with respect to the origin of man4 ,dr4 ,clark ,wissler1 for example1 who is the ,curator-in-,chief of the ,anthropological section of the ,american ,museum of ,natural ,history in ,new ,york ,city1 made1 in the course of an interview published in the ,new ,york ,american of ,april #b1 #aiah1 the following statement3 8,man1 like the horse or elephant1 just happened anyhow1 so far as has been discovered yet4 ,as far as science has discovered1 there always was a man--some not so developed1 but still human beings in all their functions1 much as we are today40 ,asked by the reporter1 whether this did not favor the idea of an abrupt1 unheralded appearance of man on earth1 ,doctor ,wissler replied3 8,man came out of a blue sky as far as we have been able to delve back40 ,fearing lest the reporter might have sensationalized his words1 the writer took occasion to question the learned anthropologist on the subject during the ,pan ,pacific ,conference held at ,honolulu1 ,hawaii 7,aug4 #b-bj1 #aibj74 ,his answer was that the foregoing citations were substantially correct4 ,the same verdict is given by the great palontologist1 ,prof4 ,w4 ,branco1 ,director of the ,institute of ,geology and ,palontology at the ,university of ,berlin4 ,in his discourse on 8,fossil ,man0 delivered ,august #af1 #aija1 before the ,fifth ,international ,zological ,congress at ,berlin1 ,branco said1 with reference to the origin of man3 8,palontology tells us nothing on the subject--it knows no ancestors of man40 ,the well-known palontologist ,karl ,a4 von ,zittel reached the same conclusion4 ,he says somewhere 7probably in his 8,grundzge der ,palontologie073 8,such material as this 7the discovered remains of fossil men7 throws no light upon the question of race and descent4 ,all the human bones of determinable age that have come down to us from the ,european ,diluvium1 as well as all the skulls discovered in caves1 are identified by their size1 shape1 and capacity as belonging to ,homo sapiens1 and are fine specimens of their kind4 ,they do not by any means fill up the gap between man and the ape40 ,joseph ,le ,conte repeats the identical refrain4 ,in the revised ,fairchild edition 7#aijc7 of his 8,elements of ,geology0 we read3 8,the earliest men yet found are in no sense connecting links between man and ape4 ,they are distinctly human40 7,ch4 ,,vi1 p4 #fch47 ,replying to ,haeckel1 who in his 8,weltrtsel0 proclaims man's descent from pithecoid primates to be an historical fact1 ,j4 ,reinke1 the biologist of ,kiel1 declares3 8,we are merely having dust thrown in our eyes when we read in a widely circulated book by ,ernst ,haeckel the following words3 #8,that man is immediately descended from apes1 and more remotely from a long line of lower vertebrates1 remains established as an indubitable historic fact1 fraught with important consequences4' ,it is absurd to speak of anything as a fact when experience lends it no support40 78,haeckel's ,monism and ,its ,supporters10 ,leipzig1 #aijg1 p4 #f47 ,the sum-total1 in fact1 of scientific knowledge concerning the origin of the human body is contained in the saying of the geologist1 ,sir ,wm4 ,dawson1 ,president of ,mc,gill ,university3 8,i know nothing about the origin of man1 except what ,i am told in the ,scripture--that ,god created him4 ,i do not know anything more than that1 and ,i do not know of anyone who does40 ,in view of this uncertainty and ignorance regarding the origin of the human body1 it is extremely unethical to strive to impose the theory of man's bestial origin by the sheer weight of scientific authority and prestige4 ,conscientious scientists would never venture to abuse in such a fashion the confidence which the people at large place in their assurances4 ,hence those who respect their honor and dignity as scientists should refrain from dogmatizing on the undemonstrated animal origin of man1 however much they may personally fancy this theory4 8,we cannot teach10 says ,virchow1 8nor can we regard as one of the results of scientific research1 the doctrine that man is descended from the ape or from any other animal40 78,the ,liberty of ,science10 p4 #cj1 et seq47 ,and ,professor ,reinke of ,kiel concludes3 8,the only statement consistent with her dignity1 that ,science can make1 is to say that she knows nothing about the origin of man40 7,der ,trmer1 ,v1 ,oct41 #aijb1 ,part ,i1 p4 #ac47 ,a slave1 we are told 7,tertul41 ,apolog4 #cc71 rode in the triumphal chariot of the ,roman conqueror1 to whisper ever and anon in his ear3 ,hominem memento te6--8,remember that thou art a man60 ,it is unfortunate that no similar warning is sounded when the tone of scientific individuals or organizations threatens to become unduly imperious and intolerant4 ,this tendency1 however1 to forget limitations and to usurp the prerogative of infallibility is sometimes rebuked by other reminders4 ,the writer recalls an instance1 which happened in connection with the ,pan ,pacific ,conference at ,honolulu during the ,august of #aibj4 ,the ,conference was attended by illustrious scientists from every land bordering upon the ,pacific4 ,after the preliminary sessions1 the delegates paid a visit to the famous volcano of ,kilauea4 ,doctor ,t4 ,a4 ,jaggar1 ,jr41 vulcanologist and ,director of the ,united ,states ,observatory at ,kilauea1 acted as guide1 the writer himself being one of the party4 ,in the course of our tour of inspection1 we came to the extinct volcano of ,kenakakoe4 ,there a number of volcanic bombs1 some shattered and some intact1 were pointed out to us4 ,for the benefit of readers1 who may not know1 ,i may state that a volcanic bomb originates as a fragment of foreign material1 e4g4 a stone1 which1 falling into a volcano1 becomes coated with an external shell of lava4 ,in addition to the bombs1 certain holes in the soil were shown to us1 which ,doctor ,jaggar1 evidently under the influence of military imagery suggested by the then recent ,european ,war1 described as 8shell-craters0 dug by the aforesaid volcanic bombs4 ,doctor ,jaggar accounted for the bombs and craters by a very ingenious theory4 ,in #agij1 he said1 the year in which ,kamehameha ,i was contending with ,keoua for the mastery of the large island of ,hawaii1 the only explosive eruption of ,kilauea known to history occurred1 and it was during this eruption 7which destroyed part of ,keoua's army7 that the bombs found at ,kenakakoe were ejected from the above-mentioned volcano4 ,it was then1 we were informed1 that these bombs hurtling through the air in giant trajectories from ,kilauea struck the ground and scooped out the 8shell-craters0 at ,kenakakoe4 ,some of them1 it appeared1 did not remain in the craters1 but rebounded to strike again on the rocks beyond4 ,of the latter1 part were shattered1 while others withstood the force of the second impact4 ,the whole party was much impressed by the grandeur of this vivid description1 and some of the scientists were at great pains to photograph the craters as awe-inspiring vestiges of the mighty bombardment wrought in times past by ,nature's volcanic artillery4 ,when ,i returned to ,hilo1 ,i happened to mention to ,brother ,matthias ,newell some misgivings which ,i had felt concerning the size and appearance of the so-called 8shell-craters40 ,brother ,newell1 a member of the ,marist ,congregation and quite a scientist in his way1 is famous in the ,islands as the discoverer of a fungus1 by which the ,japanese ,beetle1 a local pest1 has been largely exterminated4 ,for several years1 prior to the advent of ,doctor ,jaggar and the ,united ,states ,observatory1 he had studied extensively the famous volcano on the slopes of ,mauna ,loa4 ,on hearing my narrative of the foregoing incident1 ,brother ,newell was curious to know the exact locality1 and burst into a hearty laugh as soon as ,i mentioned ,kenakakoe4 ,he himself1 he told me1 in company with ,brother ,henry1 had frequently dug for bombs at ,kenakakoe4 ,when successful in their quest1 the two were wont to carry the volcanic bomb to the rocks1 and to break it open for the purpose of examining the inner core4 ,some of the bombs1 however1 escaped this fate through being too resistent to the hammer4 ,the holes1 needless to say1 were not 8shell-craters0 scooped by volcanic bombs1 but ordinary excavations dug by prosaic spades4 ,such was the simple basis of fact upon which the elaborate superstructure of ,jaggar's theory had been reared6 ,though ,jaggar was1 in a sense1 entirely blameless1 his theory was pure fiction from start to finish4 ,no scientist present1 however1 took exception to it4 ,on the contrary1 all of them appeared perfectly satisfied with his pseudoscientific explanation4 ,if the foregoing incident conveys any lesson1 it is this1 that neither singly nor collectively are scientists exempt from error1 especially when they deal with a remote past1 which no one has observed4 ,the attempt to reconstruct the past by means of inference alone produces1 not history1 but romance4 ,doctor ,gregory's genealogy of ,man displayed in the ,american ,museum is quite as much the fruit of imagination as ,jaggar's ,kilauean fantasy4 ,the sham pedigree bears like witness to the ingenuity of the human mind1 but1 if anyone is tempted by its false show of science to take it seriously1 let him think of the bombs of ,kenakakoe4 ,,afterword ,with the close of the nineteenth century the hour hand of biological science had completed another revolution4 ,one after another1 the classic systems of evolution had passed into the discard1 as its remorseless progress registered their doom4 ,the last of these systems1 ,de-,vriesianism1 enjoyed a meteoric vogue in the first years of the present century1 but it1 too1 has gone into eclipse with the rise of rediscovered ,mendelism4 ,notwithstanding all these reverses1 however1 the evolutionary theory still continues to number a host of steadfast adherents4 ,some of its partisans uphold it upon antiquated grounds4 ,culturally speaking1 such men still live in the days of ,darwin1 and fail to realize that much water has passed under the bridge since then4 ,it has other protagonists1 however1 who are thoroughly conversant with modern data1 and fully aware1 in consequence1 of the inadequacy of all existent formulations of the evolutional hypothesis4 ,minds of the latter type are proof1 apparently1 against any sort of disillusionment1 and it is manifest that their attitude is determined by some consideration other than the actual results of research4 ,this other consideration is monistic metaphysics4 ,in defect of factual confirmation1 evolution is demonstrated aprioristically from the principle of the minimum4 ,the scope of this methodological principle is to simplify or unify causation by dispensing with all that is superfluous in the way of explanation4 ,in olden days1 it went by the name of ,occam's ,razor and was worded thus3 ,entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem--8,things are not to be multiplied without necessity40 ,evolution meets the requirements of this principle4 ,it simplifies the problem of organic origins by reducing the number of ancestors to a minimum4 ,therefore1 argues the evolutionist1 evolution must be true4 ,as an empirical rule1 the principle of the minimum is1 no doubt1 essential to the scientific method4 ,to erect it into a metaphysical axiom1 however1 is preposterous2 for simple explanations are not necessarily true explanations4 ,in the rle of aprioristic metaphysics1 the principle of continuity is destructive1 and tends to plane down everything to the dead level of materialistic monism4 ,for those who transcendentalize it1 it becomes the principle 8that everything is #8nothing but' something else1 probably inferior to it40 7,santayana47 ,to assert continuity1 they are driven to deny1 or1 at least1 to leave unexplained and inexplicable1 the obvious novelty that emerges at each higher level of the cosmic scale4 ,and thus it comes to pass that intelligence is pronounced to be nothing but sense1 and sense to be nothing but physiology1 and physiology to be nothing but chemistry1 and chemistry to be nothing but mechanics1 until this philosophical nihilism weeps at last for want of further opportunities of devastation4 ,its exponents have an intense horror for abrupt transitions1 and resent the discovery of anything that defies resolution into terms of mass and motion4 ,evolution smooths the path for monism of this type by transforming nature's staircase into an inclined plane of imperceptible ascent4 ,hence ,dewey refers to evolution as a 8clinching proof0 of the continuity hypothecated by the monist4 ,for the latter1 there is no hierarchy of values1 and all essential distinctions are abolished2 for him nothing is unique and everything is equally important4 ,he affirms the democracy of facts and is blind to all perspective in nature4 ,he is1 in short1 the enemy of all beauty1 all spirituality1 all culture1 all morality1 and all religion4 ,he substitutes neurons for the soul1 and enthrones ,natural ,selection in the place of the ,creator4 ,he sets up1 in a word1 the ideal of 8an animalistic man and a mechanistic universe10 and offers us evolution as a demonstration of this 8ideal40 ,vernon ,kellogg objects to our indictment4 8,the evolutionist10 he says1 8does not like being called a bad man4 ,he does not like being posted as an enemy of poetry and faith and religion4 ,he does not like being defined as crassly materialist1 a man exclusively of the earth earthy40 7,atlantic ,monthly1 ,april #bd1 #aibd1 p4 #dij47 ,apart from their object1 the likes or dislikes of an evolutionist are a matter of indifference4 ,what we want to know is whether his dislike is merely for the names1 or whether it extends to the reality denoted by these names4 ,human nature has a weakness for euphemisms4 ,men may 8want the game without the name10 particularly when1 deservedly or undeservedly1 the name happens to have an offensive connotation4 ,there are1 no doubt1 evolutionists who mingle enough dualism with their philosophy to mitigate the most objectionable aspects of its basic monism4 ,in so doing1 however1 they are governed by considerations that are wholly extraneous to evolutionary thought4 ,indeed1 if we take ,kellogg's words at their face value 7that is1 in a sense which he would probably disclaim71 it is in spite of his philosophy that the evolutionist is a spiritualist4 8,and just as religion and cheating10 reasons ,kellogg1 8can apparently be compassed in one man1 so can one man be both evolutionist and idealist40 7,loc4 cit41 p4 #dij47 ,if this comparison holds true1 the evolutionist can be an idealist only to the extent that he is inconsistent or hypocritical1 since under no other supposition could piety and crime coxist in one and the same person4 ,be that as it may1 the majority of evolutionists are avowed mechanists and materialists1 in all that concerns the explanation of natural phenomena4 8,that there may be ,god who has put his ,spirit into men0 7,kellogg1 ibid41 p4 #dia71 they are condescendingly willing to concede4 ,and small credit to them for this2 for who can disprove the existence of ,god1 or the spirituality of the human soul8 ,nevertheless1 it is impossible1 they maintain1 to be certain on these subjects4 ,natural science is in their eyes the only form of human knowledge that has any objective validity4 ,proofs of human spirituality they denounce as metaphysical1 and metaphysics is for them synonymous with 8such stuff as dreams are made of10 unworthy to be mentioned in the same breath with physical science--8,es gibt fr uns kein anderes ,erkennen als das mechanische1 444 ,nur mechanisch begreifen ist ,wissenschaft40 7,du ,bois-,reymond47 ,in practice1 therefore1 if not in theory1 the tendency of evolution has been to unspiritualize and dereligionize the philosophy of its adherents1 a tendency which is strikingly exemplified in one of its greatest exponents1 ,charles ,darwin himself4 ,the ,english naturalist began his scientific career as a theist and a spiritualist4 ,he ended it as an agnostic and a materialist4 ,his evolutionary philosophy was1 by his own confession1 responsible for the transformation4 8,when thus reflecting10 he says1 8,i feel compelled to look to a first cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man1 and ,i deserve to be called a ,theist4 ,this conclusion was strong in my mind about the time1 as far as ,i remember1 when ,i wrote the #8,origin of ,species'2 and it is since that time that it has very gradually1 with many fluctuations1 become weaker4 ,but then arises the doubt1 can the mind of man1 which has1 as ,i fully believe1 been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals1 be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions8 ,i can not pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems4 ,the mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us2 and ,i1 for one1 must be content to remain an ,agnostic40 78,the ,life and ,letters of ,charles ,darwin10 edited by ,francis ,darwin1 #ahhg1 vol4 ,i1 p4 #bhb47 ,darwin likewise exemplifies in his own person the destructive influence exercised upon the sthetic sense by exclusive adherence to the monistic viewpoint4 ,having alluded in his autobiography to his former predilection for poetry1 music1 and the beauties of nature1 he continues as follows3 8,but now for many years ,i cannot endure to read a line of poetry3 ,i have tried lately to read ,shakespeare1 and found that it nauseated me4 ,i have also lost my taste for pictures and music4444 ,i retain some taste for fine scenery1 but it does not cause me the exquisite delight which it formerly did4444 ,my mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts2 444 if ,i had to live my life again1 ,i would have made it a rule to read some poetry and listen to some music at least every week2 for perhaps the parts of my brain now atrophied would have been kept alive through use4 ,the loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness1 and may possibly be injurious to the intellect1 and more probably to the moral character by enfeebling the emotional part of our nature40 7,op4 cit41 vol4 ,i1 pp4 #ha1 #hb47 ,evolution1 we repeat1 has brought us materialistic monism1 in whose barren soil nor faith1 nor idealism1 nor morality1 nor poesy1 nor art1 nor any of the finer things of life can thrive4 ,to its dystelic and atomistic view1 ,nature has ceased to be the vicar of ,god1 and material things are no longer sacramental symbols of eternal verities4 ,it denies all design in ,nature1 and dismembers all beauty into meaningless fragments4 ,it is so deeply engrossed in the contemplation of parts1 that it has forgotten that there is any such thing as a whole4 ,the rose and the bird-of-paradise are not ineffable messages from ,god to man2 they are but accidental aggregates of colloidal molecules fortuitously assembled in the perpetual1 yet aimless1 flux of evolving matter4 ,from the standpoint of the moral and sociological consequences1 however1 the gravest count against evolution is the seeming support which this theory has given to the monistic conception of an animalistic man4 ,darwin's doctrine on the bestial origin of man brought no other gain to natural science than the addition of one more unverified and unverifiable hypothesis to its already extensive stock of unfounded speculations4 ,it did1 however1 work irreparable harm to millions of unlearned and credulous persons1 whose childlike confidence the unscrupulous expounders of this doctrine have not hesitated to abuse4 ,the exaggerations and misrepresentations of the latter met with an all too ready credence on the part of those who were not competent to discriminate between theory and fact4 ,the sequel has been a wholesale abandonment of religious and moral convictions1 which has ruined the lives and blighted the happiness of countless victims4 ,has it been worth while1 we may well ask of the propounders of this theory1 to sacrifice so much in exchange for so little8 ,the solid gain to natural science has been negligible1 but the consequences of the blow unfairly dealt to morals and religion are incalculable and beyond the possibility of repair4 8,morals and ,religion10 says ,newman1 8are not represented to the intelligence of the world by intimations and notices strong and obvious such as those which are the foundation of physical science4444 ,instead of being obtruded on our notice1 so that we cannot possibly overlook them1 they are the dictates either of ,conscience or of ,faith4 ,they are faint shadows and tracings1 certain indeed1 but delicate1 fragile1 and almost evanescent1 which the mind recognizes at one time1 not at another1 discerns when it is calm1 loses when it is in agitation4 ,the reflection of sky and mountains in the lake is proof that sky and mountains are around it1 but the twilight or the mist or the sudden thunderstorm hurries away the beautiful image1 which leaves behind it no memorial of what it was4444 ,how easily can we be talked out of our clearest views of duty2 how does this or that moral precept crumble into nothing when we rudely handle it6 ,how does the fear of sin pass off from us1 as quickly as the glow of modesty dies away from the countenance6 and then we say #8,it is all superstition4' ,however1 after a time1 we look around1 and then to our surprise we see1 as before1 the same law of duty1 the same moral precepts1 the same protest against sin1 appearing over against us1 in their old places1 as if they had never been brushed away1 like the ,divine handwriting upon the wall at the banquet40 78,idea of a ,university10 pp4 #eac-eae47 ,had evolutionary enthusiasts adhered more strictly to the facts1 had they proceeded in the spirit of scientific caution1 had they shown1 in fact1 even so much as a common regard for the simple truth1 the 8progress of science0 would not have been achieved at the expense of morals and religion4 ,as it is1 this so-called progress has left behind a wake of destruction in the shape of undermined convictions1 blasted lives1 crimes1 misery1 despair1 and suicide4 ,it has1 in short1 contributed largely to the present sinister and undeserved triumph of ,materialism1 ,agnosticism1 and ,pessimism1 which ,john ,talbot ,smith has so fittingly characterized as the three ,d's of dirt1 doubt1 and despair4 ,a little less sensationalism1 a little more conscientiousness1 a little more of that admirable quality1 scientific caution1 and the concord of faith and reason would have become a truism instead of a problem4 ,but such regrets are vain4 ,the evil effects are here to stay1 and nothing can undo the past4 ,if man is but a higher kind of brute1 if he has no unique1 immortal principle within him1 if his free will is an illusion1 if his conduct is the necessary resultant of chemical reactions occurring in his protoplasm1 if he is nothing more than an automaton of flesh1 a mere decaying organism which is the sport of all the blind physical forces and stimuli playing upon it1 if he has no prospect of a future life of retribution1 if he is unaccountable to any higher authority1 ,divine or human1 then morality ceases to have a meaning1 right and wrong lose their significance1 virtue and vice are all the same4 ,the constancy of the martyr and the patriotism of the fallen soldier become unintelligible folly1 while a heartless and infamous sensualism preying vulturelike upon the carrion of human misery and corruption is to be reckoned the highest expression of wisdom and efficiency4 ,the grandest ideals that have inspired enthusiasm and devotion in human breasts are but idle dreams and worthless delusions4 ,from a world which accepts this degraded view of human nature all heroism and chivalry must vanish utterly2 for it will recognize no loftier incentives to action than pleasure and love of self4 ,such doctrines1 too1 are essentially antisocial4 ,they destroy the very foundation of altruism4 ,to seek immortality in the effects of one's unselfish deeds becomes ridiculous4 ,for what assurance can we have that the fruits of our sacrifice will be acceptable to a progressive posterity1 or what difference will our self-denial make1 when the whole human species shall have become extinct on the desolate surface of a dying world8 ,without an adequate motivation for altruism1 however1 the existence of society becomes impossible1 since self-interest is not a feasible substitute4 ,to urge the observance of social laws on the ground that they protect person1 life1 and property1 will hardly appeal to men who have no possessions to be protected nor a comfortable life to be prolonged4 ,yet the major portion of mankind are in this category4 ,for such the laws can mean nothing more than artificial corruptions1 of the natural and primitive order of things introduced for the special benefit of the rich and powerful4 ,under circumstances of this sort1 no plea avails to silence the heralds of revolt4 ,if there is no future life for the righting of present injustices1 then naught remains but to terminate the prosperity of the wicked here and now4 ,if there is no heaven for man beyond the grave1 then it behooves everyone to get all the enjoyment he can out of the present life4 ,it is high time1 therefore1 that this earthly heaven of mankind should cease to be monopolized by a few coupon-holding capitalists and become1 instead1 the property of the expropriated proletariat4 ,anarchy and ,socialism are the consequences which the logic of the situation inexorably portends4 ,the starving swine must hurl their bloated brethren from the trough that the latter have heretofore reserved for themselves4 ,the sequel1 of course1 can be none other than the complete disintegration of civilization and its ultimate disappearance in a hideous vortex of carnage1 rapine1 and barbarity4 ,nor is this prognosis based on pure conjecture4 ,in proportion as these pernicious doctrines have gained ground1 modern society has become infected with the virus of animalism1 egoism1 and perfidy2 expediency has been substituted for honor2 and purity has been replaced by prophylaxis4 ,one could not1 of course1 expect to see a universal and thoroughgoing application of these principles in the concrete4 ,the materialistic view of human nature is horribly unnatural1 and1 in practice1 would be quite unbearable4 ,natural human goodness and even the mere instinct of self-preservation militate against a reduction to the concrete of this inhuman conception1 and these tend1 in real life1 to mitigate the evil effects of its acceptance4 ,nevertheless1 the actual consequences resulting from the spread of evolutionary principles are so conspicuous and appalling as to leave no doubt whatever of the deadly nature of this philosophy4 ,marxian ,socialism has been called 8scientific0 for no other reason than that it is based upon materialistic evolution1 and this scientific socialism has brought upon modern ,russia a reign of terror1 which eclipses that of ,france in the bloodiest days of the ,revolution4 ,eleanor ,marx1 it will be remembered1 after falling a victim to her father's teachings regarding 8free love10 committed suicide4 ,the same confession of failure has been made by two recent editors of the socialist ,appeal to ,reason 7,j4 ,w4 ,wayland and ,j4 ,o4 ,welday71 both of whom committed suicide4 ,these are but a few of the many instances that might be cited to show that the life philosophy inculcated by materialistic evolution is so intolerably unnatural and revolting that neither society nor the individual can survive within the lethal shadow of its baleful influence4 ,but may not the extreme materialism and pessimism of this view be peculiar to the sordid and joyless outlook of the social malcontent8 ,does not evolutionary thought conduce to something finer and more hopeful in the case of the progressive and optimistic liberal8 ,vain hope6 ,we cannot console ourselves with any delusions on this score4 ,liberalism proclaims the emancipation of humanity from all authority1 and the rejection of a future life of retribution is the indispensable premise of the doctrine that makes man a law unto himself4 ,hence1 wherever ,liberalism controls the tongues of educators1 the human soul becomes a myth1 religion a superstition1 and immortality an anodyne for mental weaklings4 ,strong-minded truth-seekers are advised to abandon these irrational beliefs1 and to adopt the 8,new ,religion10 which dispenses once for all with ,god and the hereafter4 8,the new religion10 says ,charles ,eliot1 ex-,president of ,harvard1 8will not attempt to reconcile people to present ills by the promise of future compensation4 ,i believe that the advent of just freedom has been delayed for centuries by such promises4 ,prevention will be the watchword of the new religion1 and a skillful surgeon will be one of its ministers4 ,it cannot supply consolation as offered by old religions1 but it will reduce the need of consolation40 78,the ,new ,religion407 ,again1 it may be objected that evolutionists1 for all their agnosticism and materialism1 frequently put ,christians to shame by their irreproachably upright and moral lives4 ,that they sometimes succeed in doing this cannot be gainsaid4 ,but they do so because they borrow their moral standards from ,christianity1 and do not follow the logical consequences of their own principles4 ,their morality1 therefore1 is parasitic1 as ,balfour has wisely observed1 and it will soon die out when the social environment shall have been sufficiently de-,christianized4 8,eat1 drink1 and be merry1 for tomorrow we die10 is their proper philosophy of life1 only they have not the courage of their convictions4 ,for the rest1 their philosophical convictions have nothing in common with the moral standards which they actually observe4 ,in fact1 not only does the monism of evolutionary science fail to motivate the ,christian code of morals1 but it is radically and irreconcilably opposed to all that ,christianity stands for4 ,hartmann1 a modern philosopher1 notes with grim satisfaction the clash of the two viewpoints1 and predicts 7with what1 perhaps1 is premature assurance7 the ultimate triumph of 8modern progress40 8,many there are10 he tells us1 8who speak and write of the struggle of civilization1 but few there are who realize that this struggle is the last desperate stand of the ,christian ideal before its final disappearance from the world1 and that modern civilization is prepared to resort to any means rather than relinquish those things1 which it has won at the cost of such great toil4 ,for modern civilization and ,christianity are antagonistic to each other1 and it is therefore inevitable that one give place to the other4 ,modern progress can acknowledge no ,god save one immanent to the world and opposed to the transcendent ,god of ,christian revelation1 nor other morality save only that true kind whose source is the human will determining itself by itself and becoming a law unto itself40 78,religion de l'avernir407 ,the ,world ,war has done much to dampen the ardor of those who looked forward with enthusiasm to the millennium of a purely scientific religion4 ,in this spectacular lesson they have learned that science can destroy as well as build4 ,they have come to see that biology1 physics1 and chemistry are morally colorless1 and that we must go outside the realm of natural science when we are in quest of that which can give meaning to our lives and noble inspiration to our conduct4 ,when science supersedes religion1 the result is always disillusionment following in the wreck-strewn wake of moral and physical disaster4 ,grave little manikins digging in the slime ,intent upon the old game of #8,once-upon-a-time4' ,other little manikins engaged with things-to-come1 ,building up the sand-heap called ,millennium4 7,theodore ,mac,manus7 ,recently1 the chancellor of a great university has seen fit publicly to disclaim1 in the name of his institution1 all responsibility for a crime committed by two members of the student body4 ,the young men involved in this affair had performed an experimental murder4 ,the experimenters1 it would seem1 were unable to discriminate between man and beast4 ,they had been taught by their professors that scientific psychology dispenses with the soul1 and that the difference between men and brutes is one of degree only1 and not of kind4 ,even that negligible distinction1 they were told1 had been bridged by evolution4 ,in the sequel1 the young men failed1 apparently1 to see why vivisection1 which was right in the case of animals1 should be wrong in the case of human beings4 ,their astounding obtuseness on this particular point was1 of course1 exceedingly regrettable and hard to understand4 ,yet1 somehow1 one cannot help thinking but that their education was largely responsible for it4 ,in the startling crime of these students1 modern educators will find much food for serious thought4 ,it should give pause to those1 especially1 who have been overzealous in popularizing the ,darwinian conception of human nature4 ,let men of this type reflect upon what slender grounds their dogmatism rests1 and let them then weigh well the gravity of the responsibility1 which they incur4 ,tuccimei summarizes for them1 in the following terms1 the nature and extent of their accountability3 8,this perverse determination to place man and brutes in the same category1 interests me not so much from the scriptural standpoint as for reasons moral and social4 ,science1 as the more moderate of our adversaries have told us often enough1 does not assail religion1 but proceeds on its way regardless of the consequences4 ,and the consequences we see only too plainly1 now that the evolutionary philosophy has invaded every branch of knowledge and walk of life1 and has seeped down among the ignorant and turbulent masses4 ,these consequences are known as socialism and anarchy4 ,the protagonists of the new philosophy strove to repudiate them at first3 but now many of their number have laid aside even this pretense4 ,socialistic doctrines are based exclusively upon our assumed kinship with the brutes1 and the leaders of militant socialism have inscribed on the frontispieces of their books the chain fatally logical and terribly true of three names1 ,darwin1 ,spencer1 ,marx4 8,in truth1 our common origin with the brutes being taken for granted1 why should we not enjoy in common with them the right to gratify every instinct8 ,social inequalities are the product of laws and conventionalities willed by the rich and powerful4 ,in the natural and primitive state of things they did not exist2 why not proceed then to a general leveling of the existing social order8 8,such an origin of the human race being assumed1 the existence of the soul and a future life becomes a myth invented by the priests of the various religions4 ,with this inconvenient restraint removed1 there remains no alternative save to aspire to the acquisition of all the pleasures of life2 and for him who lacks the wherewithal to procure them for himself there remains no other recourse than to seek them by means of violence or strategy4 ,hence anarchy4 ,in this supposition1 morality no longer possesses that sole1 true1 and efficacious sanction which religion alone can furnish2 it amounts to nothing more than the resultant of the evolution of the individual's perfections and their cordination to the well-being of his race and of society4 ,but if1 by reason of retarded evolution1 the social instincts have not progressed to the point of repressing the individual or egoistic instincts1 what guilt will there be in the delinquent who lapses into the most atrocious crimes8 ,hence free will is another myth that positive psychology and the science of moral statistics have already been at pains to explode4 8,and behold the suffering1 the unfortunate1 and the dying deprived of their sole consolation1 the last hope which faith held out to them1 and society reduced to an inferno of desperadoes and suicides6 ,i could go on showing in this way1 to what a pass the evolutionistic theories bring society and the individual40 78,la teoria dell' evoluzione e le sue applicazioni10 p4 #df47 ,,glossary ,abiogenesis3 ,the discredited hypothesis that life may originate spontaneously in lifeless matter1 i4e41 apart from the influence of living matter4 ,adaptation3 7#a7 ,the reciprocal aptitude of organism and environment for each other2 7#b7 a structure1 modification of structure1 or behavioristic response enabling the organism to solve a special problem imposed by the environment2 7#c7 the process by which the organism's adjustment to the environment is brought about4 ,allelomorphs3 ,genes located opposite each other on homologous chromosomes and representing contrasting characters2 they are separated during meiosis according to the ,mendelian law of segregation1 e4g4 the genes for red and white in ,four o'clocks which when united give rise to pink1 and when segregated1 to red and white flowers respectively1 are allelomorphs of each other4 ,alluvial3 ,pertaining to the ,alluvium1 which consists of fresh-water deposits of the ,pleistocene and ,recent series1 to be distinguished from the ,diluvium which consists of older ,pleistocene formations4 ,amino-acids3 ,the chemical building-stones of the proteins--organic acids containing one or more amino-groups 7--,,nh7 in place of hydrogen1 e4g41 amino-acetic acid1 ,,ch,,nh,,cooh4 ,amnion3 ,a membranous bag which encloses the embryo in higher vertebrates4 ,the lower vertebrates1 namely1 fishes and amphibia1 have no amnion and are termed 8anamniotic40 ,the reptiles1 birds1 and mammals which possess it are termed amniotic vertebrates4 ,amphioxus3 ,the most simply organized animal having a dorsal notochord4 ,it is classified among the ,acrania in contradistinction to the craniate ,chordates which make up the bulk of the vertebrates4 ,angiosperms3 ,the higher plants1 which have their seeds enclosed in seed-vessels4 ,anthropoid ,apes3 ,apes of the family ,,simiid1 which approach man most closely in their organization1 namely1 the chimpanzee1 the gorilla1 the gibbon1 and orang-utan4 ,antibody3 ,chemical substances produced in the blood in reaction to the injection of antigens or toxic substances and capable of counteracting or neutralizing said substance4 ,such antibodies are specific for determinate antigens4 ,antigen3 ,any substance that causes the production of special antibodies in the blood of susceptible animals1 after one or several injections4 ,arthropods3 ,the phylum of exoskeletal invertebrates comprising crustaceans1 arachnida1 insects1 etc4 ,atavism3 ,the resemblance to an ancestor more distant than the parents4 ,automatism3 ,a spontaneous action1 not in response to recognizable stimuli4 ,basichromatin3 ,that portion of a cell's nuclear network which contains nuclein and is deeply stained by basic dyes4 ,biparental3 ,derived from two progenitors1 i4e41 a father and mother4 ,brachiopods3 ,invertebrate animals bearing a superficial resemblance to bivalve molluscs1 but belonging to a totally different group--lamp shells4 ,cambrian3 ,the 8oldest0 system of the ,palozoic group of fossiliferous rocks4 ,carbohydrates3 ,the sugars1 starches1 etc41--polyhydric alcohols with aldehydic or ketonic groups1 and acetals of same1 etc4 ,catalyst3 ,a substance which accelerates a chemical reaction without permanently participating in it1 being left over unchanged at the end of the process4 ,centriole3 ,the centrioles or central bodies are the foci of mitotic division in animal cells1 as well as the source of the kinetic elements developed by such cells4 ,they are minute bodies usually located within a larger sphere known as the centrosome or centrosphere4 ,they do not occur in the cells of the higher plants4 ,cephalopods3 ,a class of molluscs in which the foot is developed into a headlike structure with eyes and a circle of arms1 e4g41 the octopus1 the cuttlefish1 the squid1 and the nautilus4 ,ceratites3 ,a genus of extinct cephalopods having a coiled shell and crooked sutures4 ,character3 ,an external feature or sensible property of an organism4 ,it is the joint product of germinal factors 7genes7 and environmental influences4 ,chlorophyll3 ,the green pigment formed in the chloroplasts 7green plastids7 of plant cells4 ,it is a diester of phytyl and methyl alcohols with the tribasic acid1 chlorophyllin1 one of whose carboxyls is esterified with methyl alcohol1 a second with phytol1 while the third is otherwise engaged4 ,chlorophyllin is a tribasic acid consisting of the chlorophyllic chromogen group 7containing magnesium7 joined to three carboxyl groups4 ,chondriosomes3 ,cytoplasmic granules rodlike1 threadlike1 or spherical in form1 which often appear to divide on the mitotic spindle1 and are therefore credited with the power of independent growth and division4 ,the chondriosomes of embryonic tissues are thought to be the original sources of the plastids1 the fibrill1 and certain metaplastic granules4 ,chordates3 ,the phylum of animals whose primary axial skeleton consists temporarily or permanently of a notochord4 ,chromatin3 ,same as basichromatin4 ,chromosomes3 ,the short threads or rodlike bodies into which the basichromatin of the cell-nucleus is aggregated during mitosis--each chromosome is segmented into granules called chromomeres--in its submicroscopic structure it consists of chain or linear series of genes 7hereditary factors7 representing characters linked together in heredity1 each single chromosome being termed1 on this account1 a 8linkage-group0 by geneticists4 ,ciliate3 ,a protozoan whose motor-apparatus consists of cilia1 i4 e41 hairlike protoplasmic projections capable of rapid and cordinated vibratile movement4 ,cloaca3 ,a common passageway through which the intestine1 kidneys1 and sex organs discharge their products1--it occurs in certain fishes1 in amphibia1 reptiles1 and birds1 and in a few mammals4 ,coccyx3 ,lower extremity of the vertebral column in man4 ,colloids3 ,insoluble gumlike substances1 which will not diffuse through organic membranes4 ,commensalism3 ,the harmonious cohabitation of two organisms belonging to different species1 where the relation is not necessarily beneficial nor necessarily harmful to either4 ,crossover3 ,the exchange or reciprocal transfer of whole blocks of genes from one homologous chromosome to the other1 which sometimes occurs in synapsis1 probably at the strepsinema-stage4 ,crystalloids3 ,soluble substances1 which usually form crystals and readily diffuse through organic membranes4 ,cyst3 ,a protective envelope formed around an organism during period of rest4 ,cytode3 ,the non-nucleated cell hypothecated by ,haeckel4 ,cyptoplasm3 ,the cell-body or extranuclear protoplasm of a cell4 ,endomixis3 ,a process of nuclear reorganization among the protozoa1 which does not require the coperation of two cells as in conjugation 7amphimixis74 ,endoskeleton3 ,an internal living skeleton providing support and protection 7as well as organs of movement1 in the bone-levers to which the muscles are attached7--it is characteristic of the vertebrates4 ,enzymes3 ,organic catalysts1 i4 e41 complex chemical substances formed by organisms and serving to accelerate chemical processes taking place in said organisms1 e4 g41 the digestive enzymes1 which accelerate the hydrolysis of starches1 fats1 and proteins4 ,epigenesis3 ,development of the embryo by differentiation of previously undifferentiated protoplasm4 ,fats3 ,esters of the higher fatty or organic acids 7such as stearic1 palmitic1 and oleic7 esterified with the trihydric alcohol glycerine 7glycerol74 ,gamete3 ,a reproductive cell specialized for syngamy1 i4e41 for union with a complementary germ cell1 their union giving rise to a synthetic cell known as a zygote4 ,ganglion3 ,an aggregate of nerve-cells consisting mainly of neural cell-bodies together with supporting cells4 ,ganoids3 ,fishes covered with enameled bony scales1 and now1 for the most part1 extinct4 ,gene3 ,a factor or infinitesimal element in a nuclear thread or chromosome1 the latter being a linear aggregate of such factors1 each having definite specificity and manifesting itself in the external character which develops from it4 ,genotype3 ,the total assemblage of germinal factors transmitted by a given species of organism1 that is1 the complete complex of genes synthesized in the zygote and perpetuated by equation-divisions in the somatic cells4 ,hence the basic germinal or hereditary constitution of an organism or group of organisms4 ,germ ,cells3 ,cells specialized for reproduction as contrasted with other vital functions1 e4g41 spores and gametes4 ,germ-plasm3 ,the material basis of inheritance4 ,glacial ,epoch3 ,after the close of the ,tertiary period1 ,europe and ,north ,america are said to have been covered with vast ice sheets known as continental glaciers 7the result of great climatic changes in the ,northern hemisphere74 ,as the weather varied these ice sheets advanced and retreated1 the retreats corresponding to the so-called ,interglacial intervals4 ,four ,glacial and three ,interglacial stages are distinguished1 and it was during the ,second and ,third of these ,interglacial stages that ,palolithic ,man is alleged to have entered ,europe4 ,golgi ,bodies3 ,a cytoplasmic apparatus consisting1 in its localized form1 of a network1 and1 in its dispersed form1 of scattered granules4 ,it appears to divide on the mitotic spindle1 and seems to have some important function connected with secretion4 ,habitat3 ,the locality in which a given animal or plant normally lives4 ,hallux3 ,the great toe1 opposable in the ape1 but not in man4 ,heredity3 8,the appearance in offspring of characters whose differential causes are in the germ cells0 7,conklin74 ,heterozygous3 ,hybrid1--the condition in which the chromosomal genes paired by syngamy in the zygote are unlike4 ,homologous ,chromosomes3 ,corresponding chromosomes of the same synaptic pair1 being of paternal and maternal origin respectively4 ,homozygous3 ,pure1--the condition in which the chromosomal genes paired in the zygote by syngamy are alike4 ,hormone3 ,an internal secretion elaborated in the endocrine or ductless glands and diffused in the blood stream for the purpose of influencing the activities or metabolism of parts of the organism at a distance from the source of the hormone1 e4 g41 secretin1 gastrin1 adrenalin1 etc4 ,hydrotheca3 ,the cuplike extension of the perisarc 7skeletal sheath7 surrounding the hypostome 7oral cone7 and tentacles of certain polyps4 ,hyloblatic3 ,resembling the gibbon4 ,lemurs3 ,four-handed animals allied to the ,insectivora1 with curved nostrils and a claw instead of a nail on the first finger of the rear hands4 ,lethals3 ,a genetical term for hereditary factors 7genes7 which cause the death of the gametes or the zygotes that contain them4 ,in the case of zygotes1 death results from the homozygous1 but not from the heterzygous1 condition4 ,linin3 ,same as oxychromatin4 ,litopterna3 ,a suborder of extinct ungulate mammals from the ,miocene and ,pliocene of ,south ,america resembling horses or llamas4 ,mammals3 ,vertebrate animals which suckle their young after birth4 ,meiosis3 ,the process whereby the chromosomes of synaptic pairs 7in the primary ocyte or spermatocyte7 are separated in such a way that the resulting gametes 7eggs1 or sperms7 receive a haploid 7halved7 number of unpaired chromosomes1 instead of the diploid 7double7 number of paired chromosomes characteristic of the zygote and the somatic cells of the species4 ,metista3 ,animals and plants normally multicellular and having their cells differentiated into at least two distinct layers or tissues--the ,metazoans and ,metaphytes4 ,mitosis3 ,typical cell-division1 whose mechanism consists of the spindle-fibers1 and whose scope is to secure an exactly equal partition of the single components of the nucleus of the dividing cell between the two resultant daughter-cells4 ,monism3 ,a system of thought which holds that there is but one substance1 either mind 7idealistic subjectivism71 or matter 7objectivistic materialism71--or else a substance that is neither mind nor matter1 but is the substantial ground of both4 ,idealistic monism regards mind as the sole reality and matter as its product4 ,materialistic monism regards matter as the sole reality and mind as its product4 ,neolithic3 ,pertaining to the ,young-,stone ,age1 that is1 to prehistoric man of ,post-glacial time4 ,the implements of the latter are of polished stone4 ,the ,young-,stone ,age is said to have begun about #g1jjj years ,b4,c41 and to have ended with the ,copper ,culture about #b1jjj ,b4,c4 ,the ,bronze ,age1 which followed it1 belongs to history4 ,neurone3 ,the nerve-cell with all its processes1 consisting1 therefore1 of the nucleated cell-body1 the axone or discharging fiber1 and the dentrites or receiving fibers4 ,olites3 ,an ,english term for the ,jurassic1 or middle system of the ,mesozoic group of fossiliferous rocks4 ,ontogeny3 ,the embryological development of the individual4 ,opposable3 ,a term applied to the thumb or great toe when they are capable of being placed with their tips opposite to those of the other digits4 ,organelle3 ,literally1 a 8miniature organ10 i4e41 one of the living components of a cell as distinguished from the metaplastic or non-living inclusions4 ,oxychromatin3 ,that portion of the nuclear network which stains with acidic dyes1 the finer nuclear reticulum in which the coarser strands of basichromatin appear to be suspended4 ,palolithic3 ,belonging to the ,old-,stone ,age1 which corresponds to the latter half of the ,glacial or ,pleistocene epoch4 ,it is alleged to be the second period of prehistoric man 7following the ,eolithic7 and is characterized by implements of unpolished stone shaped from flint by the chipping off of flakes of the latter substance4 ,palontology3 ,the science of fossil organisms4 ,palozoic3 ,a term applied to the second group of fossiliferous rocks1 following the earliest1 or ,proterozoic1 group1 and preceding the ,mesozoic group4 ,it comprises the ,cambrian1 ,ordovician1 ,devonian1 ,silurian1 and ,carboniferous systems1 and its sediments are the first that contain well-preserved fossils4 ,parasitism3 ,a condition in which one organism 7the parasite7 residing in1 or upon1 another species of organism 7the host7 lives at its expense1 the relation being detrimental to the latter4 ,parthenogenesis3 ,the production of offspring from unfertilized eggs4 ,phenotype3 ,the sum-total of external characters by whose enumeration an organism is described--the somatic or expressed characters of an organism 7or group of organisms7 as distinguished from those that are merely potential in the germ cells4 ,phylogeny3 ,developmental history of the race1 the hypothetical evolutionary history of the race1 in contradistinction to the embryological development of the individual 7ontogeny74 ,phylum3 ,a term used in classification to denote any primary group of the plant or animal kingdom4 ,plantigrade3 ,walking on the whole sole of the foot1 like bears4 ,plastids3 ,permanent organelles or living components of the cellular cytoplasm1 e4g41 chloroplasts1 leucoplasts1 etc4 ,pleistocene3 ,the lower series of the ,quaternary system of fossiliferous rocks4 ,it corresponds to the so-called ,glacial epoch1 and extends from the close of the ,tertiary period 7system7 to the dawn of the ,recent or ,historical epoch4 ,polar ,cell3 ,a synonym for polar body1 or policyte4 ,the polar bodies are minute abortive cells given off by the egg undergoing meiosis4 ,into them are shunted the chromosomes which the egg discards in its process of nuclear reduction 7maturation74 ,prformation3 ,theory that the egg contains a complete miniature of the organism into which it develops4 ,prehension3 ,grasping1 catching hold4 ,progression3 ,advancing movement1 locomotion4 ,pro-simi3 ,the lemurs as distinguished from genuine apes 7,simi74 ,protista3 ,animals or plants which are normally unicellular and which when multicellular show no differentiation into tissues--the ,protozoans and ,protophytes4 ,protoplasm3 ,living matter4 ,receptor3 ,an organ specialized to receive stimuli1 e4g41 a sense-organ4 ,sedimentary3 ,a term applied to rocks which originated as sediments deposited under water4 ,serum3 ,watery portion of the blood1 the plasma4 ,somatic ,cells3 ,vegetative cells not especially set aside by the organism for reproductive purposes1 e4g41 tissue-cells4 ,somite3 ,one of the uniform segments of the longitudinal series into which a metameric organism 7such as an earthworm7 is partitioned4 ,spermatist3 ,an old term applied to one who held that the animal embryo was produced entirely by the male parent4 ,spore3 ,a single cell1 incapable of syngamy1 but capable of giving rise to a new individual without the sexual process4 ,symbiosis3 ,the obligatory association of two organisms of different species for mutual benefit4 ,synapsis3 ,union in pairs of corresponding 7homologous7 chromosomes of opposite parental origin as a preliminary to their separation in meiosis4 ,systematist3 ,an expert in classification 7systematics71 i4 e41 a taxonomist4 ,taxonomy3 ,the science of classification4 ,tertiary ,period3 ,a geological time-division corresponding to the rock-system that comprises the greater part of the ,cenozoic group4 ,it is made up of four series1 namely1 the ,eocene1 ,oligocene1 ,miocene1 and ,pliocene4 ,its close marks the beginning of the ,glacial or ,pleistocene epoch4 ,tissue3 ,a layer of uniform cells specialized for the same function4 ,tissue ,cell3 ,one of the somatic cells of which a tissue is composed4 ,troglodytic3 ,resembling the chimpanzee and the gorilla4 ,woods ,hole3 ,the seat of the ,marine ,biological ,laboratory4 ,it is a watering-place on the ,new ,england coast opposite ,martha's ,vineyard4 ,zygote3 ,the synthetic cell formed by the union of two gametes and giving rise by division either to a new multicellular organism1 or to a rejuvenated cycle of unicellular forms4 ,,index ,,to ,,authors ,adami1 ,j4 ,g41 #eg4 ,aeby1 ,christoph ,theod41 #bgd4 sop1 #bdf4 ,alsberg1 ,moritz1 #cag4 ,altman1 ,richard1 #ada4 ,aquinas1 ,st4 ,thomas1 #cb1 #gc1 #bfh1 #cdc4 ,aristotle1 #acc1 #aee1 #agb1 #agd1 #aib1 #aif1 #aig1 #bjj1 #bjb1 #bad1 #bae1 #bbg1 #bcj4 ,armstrong1 ,h4 ,e41 #aij4 ,arrhnius1 ,svante1 #aff1 #afg1 #ahb1 #ahc1 #ahd4 ,augustine1 ,st41 #cb1 #gc1 #gd1 #ge4 ,bach1 ,alexis1 #ade1 #adf4 ,bacon1 ,francis1 #hf1 #hg4 ,bagg1 ,h4 ,j41 #bff4 ,balfour1 ,arthur ,james1 #ceh4 ,ballou1 ,w4 ,h41 #cah4 ,bardon1 ,l41 #ccj4 ,bastian1 ,charlton1 #afe4 ,bateson1 ,wm41 #a1 #e1 #ab1 #ac1 #af1 #ag1 #ah1 #bj1 #ba1 #be1 #bh1 #cj1 #dc1 #dd1 #gc1 #hd1 #he1 #hh1 #ade1 #adf1 #ccd4 ,bather1 ,f4 ,a41 #c1 #dj1 #gf1 #gg1 #hf1 #hg1 #ij1 #ia1 #ib1 #ic4 ,baudlisch1 ,oscar1 #adh4 ,baur1 ,e41 #hh4 ,beddoe1 #ccc4 ,bergson1 ,henri1 #bfb4 ,bernouilli1 ,jacques1 #bdh4 ,bey1 ,pruner-1 #cbd4 ,binet1 ,alfred1 #bbj4 ,biot1 ,jean ,baptiste1 #ace4 ,blackwelder1 ,eliot1 #aag4 ,blake1 ,c4 ,carter1 #cbd4 ,blakeslee1 ,albert ,f41 #ag1 #ba1 #bb1 #bc4 ,blanford1 ,wm4 ,thomas1 #ie4 ,boule1 ,marcellin1 #ccb4 ,bouvier1 ,e4 ,l41 #bci1 #bfj1 #bfa1 #bfe4 ,bouyssonie1 ,a4 ,j4 ,p41 #ccj4 ,boveri1 ,th41 #aci4 ,branco1 ,w41 #cdd4 ,breuil1 ,abb ,henri1 #bij1 #cdb4 ,brown1 ,barnum1 #bgj1 #caj4 ,bryan1 ,wm4 ,jennings1 #a1 #cdc4 ,buffon1 ,c4 ,l41 #cje4 ,bhler1 ,karl1 #bah1 #bbj4 ,bumller1 ,j41 #bgc1 #bgd4 ,burroughs1 ,john1 #bdd4 ,burton-,opitz1 ,russel1 #bii4 ,calkins1 ,gary ,n41 #ci1 #dj1 #afa4 ,campbell1 ,marius ,robinson1 #ajg note ,carazzi1 ,d41 #cjd4 ,castle1 ,w4 ,e41 #dc4 ,caullery1 ,maurice1 #ab1 #bh1 #bi1 #bgg4 ,chamberlain1 ,t4 ,c41 #abe4 ,chetverikov1 ,s4 ,s41 #aae1 #aaf4 ,chiesa1 ,luigi1 #baj4 ,clausen1 ,roy ,elwood1 #bf4 ,clemont1 #cbd4 ,clifford1 ,wm4 ,kingdon1 #bcg4 ,cohn1 ,ferd4 ,jul41 #ahb4 ,coleman1 ,arthur ,p41 #aac1 #aad1 #aae4 ,comte1 7,isidore7 ,auguste1 #bbe1 #bbf4 ,conklin1 ,e4 ,g41 #bgj4 ,copernicus1 ,nicholas1 ,,xii1 ,,xiii4 ,coulter1 ,john ,merle1 #bd4 ,creighton1 ,j4 ,e41 #bch4 ,croll1 ,james1 #bij4 ,crookes1 ,sir ,wm41 #ahc4 ,cuvier1 ,georges1 #fg1 #gb1 #gf1 #ij1 #ia1 #ajb4 ,dana1 ,james ,dwight1 #aaa1 #aad1 #aag1 #bgj4 ,darwin1 ,charles1 #i1 #aj1 #aa1 #ab1 #af1 #bd1 #cj1 #cb1 #fe1 #fh1 #ge1 #ha1 #aeb1 #aia1 #aid1 #bcf1 #bch1 #bde1 #bdf1 #bfi1 #bgg1 #bhf1 #bhg1 #bhh1 #bij1 #bie1 #bif1 #big1 #bih1 #cjb1 #cje1 #cjg1 #cch1 #cdi1 #ceb1 #cec1 #cfj4 ,da ,vinci1 ,leonardo1 #beg4 ,davis1 ,bradley ,moore1 #be1 #bf1 #bg1 #bh4 ,davis1 ,j4 ,barnard1 #cbd4 ,dawson1 ,sir ,john ,william1 #cde4 ,dawson1 ,charles1 #cbj4 ,deaver1 ,j4 ,b41 #bie4 ,de ,chardin1 ,teilhard1 #cbj4 ,de ,geer1 ,gerard1 #bhi4 ,delage1 ,yves1 #abg1 #aej1 #aea4 ,de ,mattos1 ,alexander ,teixeira1 #bdg note4 ,de ,puydt1 ,marcel1 #cbf4 ,descartes1 ,ren1 #agb1 #aig1 #aih1 #bjb1 #bca1 #bdi4 ,de ,vires1 ,hugo1 #af1 #ag1 #bj4 ,dewey1 ,john1 #cej4 ,dorlodot1 ,canon ,henri de1 ,,xii1 #ca1 #cd1 #dg1 #gj1 #gd4 ,dreisch1 ,hans1 #ab1 #gj1 #agb1 #agd1 #aij1 #bjb1 #bdd1 #beb4 ,dubois1 ,eugne1 #cac1 #cad1 #caf1 #cah4 ,du ,bois-,reymond1 ,emil1 #aa1 #bfh1 #bgg1 #ceb4 ,dumas1 ,jean ,baptiste1 #ace4 ,duponceau1 ,pierre tienne1 #cch4 ,dupont1 ,andr ,hubert1 #cbf4 ,dwight1 ,thomas1 #cf1 #ea1 #ei1 #bgd1 #bge1 #bgh1 #bhe1 #cjc1 #cjd1 #cji1 #cai1 #cbj1 #cbh1 #ccf1 #ccg4 ,ecclesiastes1 #aib4 ,ehrlich1 ,paul1 #eg4 ,eimer1 ,th41 #g4 ,eliot1 ,charles ,w41 #ceh4 ,evans1 ,sir ,arthur1 #cci4 ,ezekiel1 #hi4 ,fabre1 ,j4 ,h41 #bdj1 #bdg note1 #bdi1 #bea1 #beb1 #bed1 #beh1 #bfj1 #bfc1 #bfd1 #bfe1 #bff4 ,fechner1 ,gustav ,theodor1 #adi4 ,fenton1 ,henry ,john ,h41 #adf4 ,fischer1 ,emil1 #ade4 ,fleischmann1 ,albert1 #ab4 ,flemming1 ,w41 #acg4 ,fontaine1 ,t41 #bjh4 ,fraipont1 ,julien1 #cbg4 ,fuhlrott1 ,c41 #cbc4 ,galiani1 #aa4 ,galilei1 ,galileo1 ,,xii1 ,,xiii4 ,garbowski1 ,thad41 #bhd4 ,gaskell1 ,walter ,holbrook1 #bic1 #bid4 ,gatenby1 ,j4 ,b41 #adj4 ,geikie1 ,sir ,archibald1 #if1 #ig1 #ajg note4 ,gerard1 ,john1 ,s4,j41 #hb4 ,goodrich1 ,edwin ,s41 #ae1 #fb4 ,goodspeed1 ,t4 ,h41 #bf4 ,grabau1 ,amadeus1 ,wm41 #cce4 ,grassi1 ,b41 #ff4 ,gray1 ,henry1 #bii4 ,gregory1 ,w4 ,k41 #bgj1 #cji1 #caj1 #caa1 #cah1 #cdh4 ,grignard1 ,victor1 #bji4 ,gruender1 ,hubert1 #bcc note4 ,gummersbach1 ,joseph1 #bdg note4 ,guyer1 ,m4 ,f41 #ae1 #bff4 ,haacke1 ,joh4 ,wilh41 #bge1 #cag4 ,haeckel1 ,ernest1 #cc1 #dh1 #hi1 #ach1 #ahf1 #bcg1 #bge1 #bgg1 #bgh1 #cde4 ,hamann1 ,joh4 ,georg1 #adi4 ,handlirsch1 ,anton1 #aae4 ,hartmann1 ,karl ,robert ,eduard von1 #ceh4 ,harvey1 ,william1 #aee4 ,haswell1 ,wm4 ,a41 #caf1 #cag4 ,hauser1 ,o41 #cbi4 ,hayes1 ,charles ,willard1 #ajg note4 ,heilprin1 ,angelo1 #abj1 #aba4 ,heim1 ,albert1 #ajg note4 ,helmholtz1 ,herman von1 #ahb1 #bih4 ,henderson1 ,lawrence ,j41 #f1 #aec1 #age1 #agf1 #agi4 ,hertwig1 ,oskar1 #bhd4 ,hertwig1 ,richard1 #cae4 ,holmes1 ,oliver ,wendell1 #abg4 ,holworth1 ,sir ,henry1 #ih4 ,horace1 #ed1 #aji4 ,howe1 ,john ,allen1 #ajd1 #aje4 ,howell1 ,wm4 ,h4 #bii4 ,hrdlika1 ,a41 #caf1 #cah1 #cai1 #cbb1 #cbc1 #cbe1 #cbh1 #cbi1 #cca1 #ccb4 ,hubrecht1 ,ambrosius ,arnold ,william1 #cji1 #cag4 ,hume1 ,david1 #aih4 ,huxley1 ,thomas ,h41 #bj1 #fg1 #gf1 #ih1 #aaa note1 #bcf1 #bcg1 #cad1 #cbe1 #ccc4 ,jaggar1 ,t4 ,a41 ,jr41 #cdf1 #cdg1 #cdh4 ,james1 ,william1 #bje1 #bjf1 #bab1 #bdi4 ,jennings1 ,h4 ,s41 #bej4 ,johnson1 ,dr4 ,george1 ,,xvi4 ,jordan1 ,david ,starr1 #d1 #ah1 #bh4 ,jrgensen1 ,j41 #adf1 #adg4 ,judd1 ,j4 ,w41 #id4 ,kammerer1 ,paul1 #ad1 #bff4 ,kant1 ,immanuel1 #aih4 ,keen1 ,w4 ,w41 #dh4 ,keith1 ,arthur1 #cai1 #cbb1 #cbh1 #ccb1 #ccf1 #ccg4 ,kellogg1 ,vernon ,i41 #df note1 #ec note1 #cej1 #cea4 ,kerr1 ,j4 ,graham1 #bhj1 #bhb1 #bhd4 ,keyser1 ,c4 ,j41 #bjd4 ,kidd1 ,f41 #adf4 ,klaatsch1 ,a41 #cjh1 #cji1 #cab1 #cag1 #cbf1 #cbh1 #ccj4 ,koenen1 ,c41 #cbf4 ,kofoid1 ,charles ,a41 #aah1 #afb4 ,kohlbrugge1 ,j4 ,h4 ,f41 #bgd1 #bge1 #bgg1 #bhe1 #cjh4 ,klliker1 ,rudolph ,albert1 #g4 ,kollman1 ,julius1 #bhe1 #bhf1 #cag4 ,kramberger1 ,k4 ,gorjanovi1 #cbj1 #ccc4 ,lamarck1 ,jean ,baptiste1 #h1 #i1 #af1 #cj1 #cb1 #fe1 #bhf1 #bij4 ,lankester1 ,e4 ,ray1 #ahf4 ,laplace1 ,pierre ,simon1 #aha4 ,lebedeff1 #ahc4 ,le ,conte1 ,joseph ,n41 #cde4 ,lee1 #ccc4 ,leydig1 ,franz1 #acg4 ,linn1 ,carl von1 #d4 ,loeb1 ,jacques1 #aei1 #bdi1 #bej1 #beb1 #bfd4 ,lohest1 ,maximin1 #cbf4 ,lotsy1 ,j4 ,p41 #be4 ,lucretius1 #cj4 ,lull1 ,richard ,s41 #aae4 ,macalister1 ,r4 ,a4 ,s41 #cdb4 ,mac,curdy1 ,george ,grant1 #cag1 #cbf1 #cbi1 #cca1 #ccb4 ,mac,dowell1 ,e4 ,c41 #bff4 ,mac,manus1 ,t41 #cei4 ,macnamara1 ,n4 ,c41 #cad1 #cbe4 ,manouvrier1 ,l41 #caf1 #ccc4 ,marx1 ,karl1 #cfj4 ,mathews1 ,albert1 #bic1 #bid1 #cjb4 ,maxwell1 ,j4 ,clerk1 #ahc4 ,mc,cann1 ,alfred ,w41 #ca1 #cb1 #cc1 #cd1 #dg1 #ej1 #ea4 ,mc,connell1 ,r4 ,g41 #ajg1 note1 #aji4 ,mc,gregor1 ,j4 ,h41 #cae1 #caf1 #cag1 #cbj1 #cbb4 ,melanchthon1 ,phillip1 #aig4 ,mendel1 ,gregor ,johann1 #c1 #bd1 #bg1 #bh1 #cb4 ,mendelef1 ,dimitri ,ivanovitch1 #ef4 ,mercier1 ,dsir ,cardinal1 #bjd1 #bje1 #bjh4 ,meyer1 ,ludwig1 #cjb1 #cbd4 ,michael ,angelo1 #beg4 ,miller1 ,arthur ,m41 #ig1 #ih4 ,miller1 ,gerrit1 #cba4 ,minchin1 ,e4 ,a41 #e4 ,moore1 ,benjamin ,f41 #aej1 #afe1 #aff1 #afg1 #afh1 #agj4 ,morgan1 ,c4 ,lloyd1 #bcc note1 #bcd note1 #bcg4 ,morgan1 ,thomas ,hunt1 #ab1 #af1 #cf1 #dd1 #fd1 #he1 #hf1 #hh1 #hi1 #bgf1 #bgh1 #cjf1 #ccd4 ,morton1 ,dudley ,j41 #bgj4 ,muckermann1 ,h41 ,s4,j41 #cbe4 ,mller1 ,fritz1 #dh1 #bge1 #bgh4 ,mller1 ,max1 #cch4 ,ngeli1 ,karl ,wilhelm1 #g1 #ahf4 ,newman1 ,john ,henry1 #ced4 ,newell1 ,bro4 ,matthias1 #cdg4 ,newton1 ,sir ,isaac1 ,,xiii4 ,nicholson1 ,henry ,alleyne1 #ig1 #bgb4 ,nicomachus1 #aif4 ,obermaier1 ,hugues1 #bhi1 #bij1 #cbd1 #cbg1 #cbi1 #cdb4 ,occam1 ,william of1 #fg1 #cdi4 ,osborn1 ,henry ,fairfield1 #b1 #cc1 #fe1 #gj1 #gf1 #hh1 #hi1 #ij1 #agj1 #bhi1 #bij1 #cji1 #cah1 #cdb4 ,paley1 ,william1 #aa4 ,parker1 ,g4 ,h41 #i1 #bcc note1 #bie4 ,parker1 ,t4 ,jeffery1 #caf1 #cag4 ,pasteur1 ,louis1 #ace1 #aha4 ,paulsen1 ,friederich1 #bjf4 ,pawlow1 ,ivan1 #bdb1 #bdi1 #bff4 ,pearson1 ,karl1 #caj4 ,peckham1 ,geo4 ,w4 and ,eliz4 ,g41 #bfe4 ,perrier1 ,remy1 #bif4 ,pfizenmayer1 ,e41 #ia1 #ib4 ,pictet1 ,am1 #adc4 ,pirrson1 ,l4 ,v41 #ajg note1 #aji4 ,plato1 #agb1 #aig4 ,poulton1 ,edward ,b41 #ahf4 ,price1 ,george ,mc,cready1 #ig1 #ih1 #ii1 #ajj1 #ajd1 #aje1 #ajg1 #aji1 #aaj1 #abj4 ,price1 ,t4 ,s41 #afg4 ,quatrefages ,de ,breau1 ,jean ,louis ,armand de1 #bgf4 ,ranke1 ,j41 #bga1 #bgb1 #bgc1 #bgd1 #cbd4 ,rautert1 #cbf4 ,ray1 ,john1 #e1 #bj4 ,redi1 ,francesco1 #acd1 #acf1 #acg4 ,reinke1 ,j41 #cde1 #cdf4 ,renner1 ,o41 #af4 ,richter1 ,herm4 ,eberh41 #ahb4 ,riddle1 ,oscar1 #cjj4 ,robinson1 ,james ,harvey1 #aij1 #aid1 #aie1 #bcf4 ,rsch1 ,joseph1 #cah4 ,rothpletz1 ,aug41 #ajg note4 ,russell1 ,bertrand1 #bjd4 ,santayana1 ,george1 #cej4 ,sapir1 ,edward1 #cch4 ,schaaffhausen1 ,d41 #aej1 #cbe1 #ccc4 ,schfer1 ,e4 ,a41 #eh1 #afe1 #agi1 #ahd1 #ahe4 ,schleiden1 ,matthias ,j41 #acf4 ,schmidt1 ,h4 ,d41 #bfj4 ,schoetensack1 ,otto1 #cah1 #cai4 ,schroeder1 ,ch4 ,f41 #bea4 ,schuchert1 ,charles1 #ig1 #ih1 #ajd note1 #ajf1 #aji1 #aaj4 ,schultze1 ,f4 ,e41 #bah4 ,schultze1 ,max1 #acg1 #ach4 ,schwalbe1 ,gust4 ,alb41 #bhf1 #cag1 #cbd1 #cbe1 #ccc4 ,schwann1 ,theodor1 #acf4 ,scott1 ,wm4 ,b41 #gh1 #if1 #ajc1 #aai1 #abj4 ,sedgwick1 ,a41 #ie4 ,sellars1 ,r4 ,w41 #bcc note4 ,sewall1 ,anna1 #bcf4 ,smith1 ,g4 ,elliot1 #bhi1 #cda4 ,smith1 ,john ,talbot1 #cee4 ,smith1 ,william1 #ajb4 ,snell1 ,karl1 #cjh4 ,sollas1 ,w4 ,j41 #bhi4 ,spallanzani1 ,lazzaro1 #acd1 #acf4 ,spencer1 ,herbert1 #aj1 #ab1 #ih1 #ajb1 #ajc1 #adh1 #aff1 #agi1 #cfj4 ,starling1 ,ernest ,h41 #eg1 #bii1 #cja4 ,stockard1 ,charles ,r41 #fb4 ,stoll1 ,a41 #adf4 ,taylor1 ,j41 #cdj4 ,tertullian1 #cdf4 ,thayer1 ,wm4 ,sydney1 #ace4 ,tholuck1 ,fried4 ,aug41 #cch4 ,thompson1 ,sir ,wm41 #ahb4 ,thorndyke1 ,edward ,l41 #bcg4 ,tilden1 ,sir ,wm41 #aea1 #aib4 ,titchener1 ,edward ,bradford1 #bje1 #bji1 #bgd4 ,tredgold1 ,a4 ,f41 #ae note4 ,tuccimei1 ,giuseppe1 ,,xiii1 #cfj1 #cfa4 ,tyndall1 ,john1 #adi4 ,vallisnieri1 ,antonio1 #acd4 ,van ,loon1 ,hendrick ,willem1 #aij4 ,vegard1 ,lars1 #ahc note4 ,vicari1 ,e4 ,m41 #bff1 #bfg4 ,virchow1 ,rudolph1 #acg1 #bgc1 #caf1 #cag1 #cbd1 #cdf4 ,vogt1 ,carl1 #bgf1 #cbd4 ,waagen1 ,w41 #af note4 ,warner1 ,h41 #bgd4 ,walkhoff1 ,o41 #cag4 ,walsh1 ,james ,j41 #ccf4 ,ward1 ,james1 #afc4 ,wasmann1 ,erich1 ,s4,j41 ,,xii1 #aa1 #cc1 #df1 #dg1 #dh1 #di1 #di note1 #fg1 #gj1 #acd1 #bdg note1 #bfa1 #bfb1 #bgg1 #cab1 #cac1 #cbe1 #ccc4 ,waterston1 ,david1 #cbb4 ,watson1 ,john ,b41 #aih1 #bjd1 #bej4 ,wayland1 ,john ,walter1 #ceg4 ,weismann1 ,august1 #aj1 #ac1 #af1 #be1 #fe1 #ahf1 #bfg4 ,weber1 ,ernest ,heinrich1 #bbg4 ,weld1 ,h4 ,p41 #bec1 #bee4 ,welday1 ,j4 ,o41 #ceg4 ,wells1 ,h4 ,g41 #a1 #cc1 #aij4 ,wenstrup1 ,edward1 ,o4,s4,b41 ,,xvi4 ,werner1 ,abraham ,gottlob1 #ii1 #ajb1 #ajc4 ,wheeler1 ,geo4 ,c4 and ,esther ,h41 #bfa4 ,wiedersheim1 ,robert1 #bib4 ,wilder1 ,harris ,hawthorne1 #cjj1 #cja4 ,williams1 ,h4 ,s41 #if4 ,willis1 ,bailey1 #ajg note4 ,willsttter1 ,r41 #adf1 #adg4 ,wilson1 ,edmund ,b41 #f1 #ab1 #ac1 #adj1 #ada1 #adc1 #afj1 #afd1 #afh1 #agj1 #bjj1 #bja1 #baa4 ,windle1 ,bertram ,c4 ,a41 #acd1 #cda4 ,wirth1 ,edmund ,j41 #bje4 ,wissler1 ,clark1 #cdd4 ,woodruff1 ,lorande ,loss1 #ci1 #aae4 ,woods1 ,henry1 #gg1 #gh1 #gi1 #hj1 #hf1 #aah1 #aai4 ,woodward1 ,a4 ,smith1 #cba1 #cbb1 #cdj1 #cda4 ,woodworth1 ,robert ,s41 #aih4 ,wright1 ,c4 ,f41 #bhi4 ,wundt1 ,wilhelm1 #aig1 #bje1 #bjf1 #bji1 #bab1 #bcf1 #bcg1 #bch4 ,zahm1 ,j4 ,a41 #bfh4 ,zeno1 #bbf4 ,zittel1 ,karl ,a4 von1 #cac1 #cde4 ,,index ,,of ,,subjects ,abiogenesis1 #aca1 #ace1 #acf1 #adb1 #afj1 #afe1 #afg1 #agi1 #ahc1 #ahf2 8new theory0 of1 #afe2 8old theory0 of1 #afe2 8philosophical0 proof of1 #ahf ,absence of function1 real1 #bia2 apparent1 #bia ,abstract concept1 #bai ,abstraction1 #bba1 #bbd1 #bed1 #bfa1 #bfb2 of active intellect predispositive1 #bba2 of intellect1 potential1 cognitive1 #bba2 power of1 #bfa1 #bfb2 process of1 #bba1 #bbd ,abstract thought1 #bae1 #bfg2 has soul as its exclusive agent and subject1 #bae2 not same as imagery1 #bae2 unique prerogative of man1 #bfg ,acids1 butyric1 #aei2 carbonic1 #ade2 fatty1 #ade2 formic1 #ade ,acromegaly1 #bid ,acromikria1 #bid ,act1 #aii ,action1 #agd1 #age1 #agf1 #agg1 #bae1 #baf2 agent of1 #agf2 an expression of entity1 #abe1 #baf2 chemical1 #age2 effect of1 #agf1 #agg2 electrical1 #agf2 energy-content of1 #agd2 immanent1 defined1 #agg2 mechanical1 #age2 physical1 #age2 reflexive1 #agg2 subject of1 #agf2 transitive1 #agd1 #agg2 defined1 #agg2 vital1 #age ,active intellect1 #bbj1 #bba ,activity1 organic cannot escape physical determinism1 #bcb ,adaptation1 #g1 #h1 #i1 #af1 #de1 #df1 #dg1 #eb1 #ec1 #fc1 #abd1 #bej1 #bij1 #bia1 #cbh2 acquired1 #h1 #i1 #af1 #de1 #bij1 #cbh1 #ccc --not inheritable1 #i2 innate 7inherited71 #de1 #df1 #dg1 #eb1 #ec1 #fc1 #abd2 of instinctive behavior to emergencies1 #bej2 structural1 #bia ,additive properties1 #bcc note ,adjustments1 #bjd ,adolescence1 #aee ,adrenal bodies1 #bib1 #bie ,adults1 #bgf ,aeschna grandis ,l41 #aae ,aftermath of evolutionary propaganda1 #cfj ,agametes1 #aef ,agamic1 #aef ,agent1 #aga1 #agg ,age of ,man1 #bhi1 #bij ,agnosticism1 #ceb1 #cee1 #ceh2 parasitic1 #ceh ,agulhas1 ,lost ,land of1 #aad ,alberta1 #ajh ,albumen1 living and dead1 #add ,alcohol1 methyl1 #adg2 phytyl1 #adg ,aldehyde1 #ade1 #adh ,aldol condensation1 #ade ,allelomorphic1 #db ,allocation1 taxonomic1 #cbj ,alluvial epoch1 #cac2 loam1 #cbd ,alpha ,centauri1 #ahd ,alps1 #aji ,altamira1 caves of1 #cci1 #cdj1 #cdc ,alternating personalities1 #baa2 psychopathic condition1 #baa ,altruism1 #cee1 #cef2 without adequate motivation1 #cef ,amboceptors1 #eg ,american ,association for ,advancement of ,science1 #cdc1 #cdd2 ,edict of1 #cdc ,ammonites1 #hd1 #hf1 #bdi2 intergradence in1 #hd ,ammonium cyanate1 #agc ,ammophila1 #bfd ,ammophila gryphus1 #bfa ,ammophila urnaria1 #bfa ,amnion1 #bgf ,amba albida1 #aei ,amphibia1 #fa1 #bha1 #bif ,amphioxus1 #fj1 #afa ,analogous organs1 #ce1 #cf1 #fa ,analogy1 #ce1 #ei1 #fj2 convergent1 #fa ,analysis1 #add2 chemical1 #add2 physical1 #add ,anarchy1 #cee1 #cfj ,anatomists1 #bif ,anatomy1 #aif1 #bjh1 #bgf1 #bgg1 #cjc1 #cjh2 comparative1 #bgf1 #bgg1 #cjh2 of consciousness1 attempted by ,associationists1 #bjh ,ancestors1 #ee1 #ei1 #gf1 #hb1 #hc1 #ib1 #ie1 #aae1 #bgj1 #bhj1 #bif1 #cjd1 #cjh1 #cji1 #cag1 #cdi2 collateral1 #gf2 common1 #ee1 #ei1 #hc1 #ib1 #bfi1 #bgj1 #bgh1 #cjh2 direct1 #gf2 hypothetical1 #cjh1 #cji1 #cag2 necessary priority of1 #hb1 #hc2 of man1 #bih --alleged to be fish-like1 #bhj2 tertiary1 #bgj ,ancestry1 #ib1 #bhj2 entails antecedence in time1 #ib2 of man1 #bhj ,ancitherium1 #gf ,angiosperms1 #gb1 #gc ,animal1 #bdb1 #bdi1 #cjg2 appetite1 gratification of1 #bdb2 as 8reflex machines10 #bdi2 cave1 #cjg ,animalism1 #cfe ,animalistic man1 #cej1 #ceb ,animality of man1 not a modern discovery1 #aia1 #aib ,animism1 #aig1 #aih ,anisogametes1 #aeg1 #aeh ,anisogamy1 #aeg1 #aeh ,annelida1 #aag1 #bgh1 #bhj ,anomalies1 #aab1 #cjc1 #cje1 #cai1 #cbj2 anatomical1 fluctuational1 #cjc2 mutational1 #cjc2 of spatial distributions1 #aab ,antagonism1 #ceh2 between modern progress and ,christian ideal1 #ceh ,anthropomorphism1 #bcf1 #bdf1 #bej1 #bfb2 ,darwinian1 #bcf1 #bej ,anthropologists1 #cah1 #cdd2 foremost ones confess their ignorance regarding origin of man1 #cdd ,antibodies1 #ad1 #ae ,antigen1 #ae ,antirrhinum1 majus and molle1 #hh ,anti-vivisectionists1 #bcf ,ants1 #bfa1 #bfb2 leaf-cutting1 #bfa ,ape1 #bde1 #bgj1 #bgb1 #bge1 #bhe1 #cjh1 #cji1 #caa1 #cad1 #cae1 #caf1 #cag1 #cde2 anthropoid1 #bgj1 #bga1 #bgb1 #bge1 #cji1 #cae1 #cag2 cranial capacity1 #cad2 descended from man-like ancestor1 #bhe2 descent from1 not a doctrine of science1 #cde2 embryonic skull of1 #bhe2 foot of1 #ej1 #ea --a hand functionally but not structurally1 #ej1 #ea2 fossil1 #cjh1 #cac2 giant1 geneological tree of1 #cae2 higher1 #caa2 its cranium1 #bga2 large1 #cae2 living1 #cjh ,ape-like features1 acquired adaptation1 #ccj ,appalachians1 #ajg ,appetite1 #bba1 #bce1 #bda2 rational1 #bba2 sensual1 #bce1 #bda ,appendicitis1 #bie ,appendix1 vermiform1 #bie1 #bif2 useful1 #bif ,apple-tree1 #f1 #hh1 #afa ,apterix1 #cje ,arbacia punctulata1 #aei ,arboreal life1 #bga1 #cjh ,arca1 #aah ,archan1 #ajd1 #aag2 record1 damaged condition of1 #aag ,archology1 prehistoric1 #cci ,archopteryx1 #hf ,archozoic1 #ajd1 #adh2 times alleged to have been more favorable to origin of life1 #adh ,argument1 #bbf2 no avail against fact1 #bbf ,art1 palolithic1 #cdj ,artefacts1 #aed ,artemia salina1 #aei ,artemisia absynthium1 #bdh ,arthropoda1 #fa1 #aai1 #bfa1 #bhd ,artificial illumination1 #cdj ,artistic attainment1 high level of1 #cdj ,artists1 palolithic1 #cce ,asia1 #cce ,ass1 #e1 #ha1 #cjd ,assimilation1 #adc ,association1 #bjh1 #bce1 #bda1 #bdb ,associationists1 #bjh1 #bcf ,astarte1 #aah ,asteroidea1 #aba1 #abb ,atavism1 #cjc1 #cjd ,atlantis1 #aad ,atmosphere1 #adh1 #aha1 #ahc2 coronal of sun1 #ahc2 formerly richer in carbon dioxide1 #adh2 of earth1 #ahc ,atoms1 #eh1 #add1 #afb1 #afe1 #afg1 #agj1 #bjb2 structure of1 #eh ,atrophy1 #bhe1 #bhf1 #bhh1 #bid1 #bii1 #cja1 #cjb1 #cjg2 due to misuse1 #bhh2 somatic1 #cjg ,attention1 #bjh ,audist1 #bai ,aurignacian ,man1 #ccb ,aurora borealis1 #ahc1 #ahc note1 #ahd note ,australian1 #cba1 #cbe1 #cbh1 #ccj1 #ccc2 blacks1 #cbe1 #ccc --modern1 have brow ridges1 #cbh2 modern1 #cbe1 #ccj2 skull of1 #cba ,author of ,nature1 #aic ,autogamy1 #aeh1 #aei1 #afa ,automatisms1 #bch1 #bdj1 #bfb2 teleological1 #bdj ,automixis1 #afa ,autonomy1 #agd1 #bjb2 dynamic1 #agd2 vital1 #bjb ,axiom1 #bbc1 #bbd2 of reception1 #bbc1 #bbd ,axon1 #bac ,azoic bottom1 #abe ,babylonia1 #ccg ,bacteria1 #ace1 #ach1 #ahc1 #ahc note ,barbarism1 #ccg2 historically a state of degeneration and stagnation1 #ccg2 not a primitive condition1 #ccg2 no instance of spontaneous emergence from1 #ccg ,bacteriologists1 #ahc ,baltic ,sea1 #ajd1 #aje ,banana1 #afb ,basichromatin1 #aci ,bear ,grass quarries1 #ajf ,beaver1 #bdg1 #beg ,bedding plane1 #ajf ,bees1 #beg ,beetles1 wingless1 #cjf ,behavior1 #bdi1 #bed1 #bee1 #bfj1 #bfa1 #bfb1 #bfc2 instinctive1 #bdi1 #bed1 #bee1 #bfj --objectively useful1 #bed1 #bee --subjectively agreeable1 #bed1 #bee2 concursively telic1 #bfj-bfb2 consciously telic1 i4 e41 intelligent #bfb2 unconcursively telic1 #bfb2 must be perfect from outstart1 #bfc ,behaviorism1 degeneration of psychology into1 #aih ,behaviorists1 #bjd1 #bej ,bestial man1 #cdj1 #cdb2 impossible1 #cdj2 no traces of1 #cdb ,bestial origin1 #cde1 #ceb2 of man1 #ceb2 of man1 theory of1 #cde ,bestial soul1 #aad1 #aid1 #bac1 #bad1 #bcd2 an emergent of matter1 #aid1 #bcd note --not a product of physicochemical action1 #aid2 exists in the interest of the organism1 #bad2 incomplete complement of matter1 #bac2 material but not corporeal1 #aid1 #bad2 operates only in conjunction with organism1 #bac2 perishes with dissolution of organism1 #bac ,bible1 #abg ,biochemists1 #agi ,biogenetic ,law1 #dh1 #bge1 #bgf1 #bgg1 #bgh1 #bhc1 #bhe ,biologists1 #b1 #c1 #aa1 #ai1 #bi1 #ec note1 #aij1 #bjj1 #beg ,biology1 xiv1 #bd1 #aif1 #aig1 #bje ,bion1 #agj1 #aga ,biophysicists1 #agi ,bipinnaria1 #bhc 8,biotic energy10 #agj ,bird of ,paradise1 #aed1 #cec ,birds1 #bhb1 #bif1 #big ,bison1 #cca1 #ccb 8,black ,beauty10 #bcf ,blackberries1 #be ,blindness1 germinal and somatic1 #cjf ,blue-green ,alg1 #ach1 #adi1 #aha ,body1 #aih ,bone cave1 #cdj ,bone fibres1 #cag ,bos primigenius1 #cbi ,botany1 #ca1 #ee ,brachiopoda1 #aag1 #aah1 #abj ,bradypus1 #eb ,brain1 #bgd1 #cae1 #caf2 human1 #bgd --convolutions of1 #bgd2 relative and absolute size of1 #cae2 relative size of1 #caf2 simian1 #bgd ,brain case1 #bgb ,brain cavities1 below modern average1 #cbi ,brain-fag1 due to imaginative1 not to intellectual activity1 #bbh1 #bbi1 #bcj2 follows mere memorizing1 #bbi ,branchial arches and clefts1 #bgh1 #bgi ,branchial lamell1 #bgi ,breasts1 supernumerary1 #cjd ,broken ,hill ,mine1 #cdj ,bronze ,age1 historic1 #ccg ,brow ridges1 #cbh1 #ccj1 #ccc1 #cda2 most pronounced of any human specimen1 #cda ,brute1 #bac1 #bcc1 #bce1 #bcf1 #cfj2 destitute of freedom1 morality1 responsibility1 #bcc2 its psychic functions1 all organic1 #bac2 lumination of1 #bcf2 our common origin with1 #cfj ,budding1 #aef ,burial1 #ccj1 #cce2 deep1 #cce2 makes age of bones uncertain1 #cce2 solemn1 indicates belief in immortality1 #ccj ,butyric acid1 #aei ,ccum1 #bie ,cnogenesis1 #bgg1 #bhh ,cnozoic1 #aah1 #aai1 #cce ,calcium hydroxide1 #ade ,calicurgus1 #bfc ,cambrian1 #ii1 #ajj1 #ajd1 #aje1 #aaj1 #aaf1 #aag1 #aah1 #abe2 ,lower1 #aag2 terranes below1 #abe2 youthful appearance of1 #ajd1 #aje ,canadian ,shield1 #ajd note ,canadian survey1 #ajh ,canal1 alimentary1 #bic1 #bie1 #cja2 neural1 #bic ,canalization1 #bfe ,carbohydrates1 #ade1 #adh2 production of1 by plants1 #ade-adh--not a synthesis1 #adf-adh--;analogous to process in animals1 #adf1 #adg ,carbon dioxide1 #ade-adg ,carboniferous1 #gc1 #ib1 #aae1 #aah2 ,lower1 #ib2 ,upper1 #aae ,carnivora1 #bga ,catarrhine monkeys1 #bhg ,catastrophes1 #gb1 #ahb2 cosmic1 #ahb ,catastophism1 #fg1 #fh1 #ih1 #cab2 new1 #ih ,caterpillar1 #bfj1 #bfd ,cats1 #bhd ,causation1 active and efficient1 #aga1 #agb ,cave rat1 #cjg ,caves1 #cce1 #ccf2 of ,france and ,spain1 #cce1 #ccf2 of ,spain1 #ccf ,cell-division1 #ei1 #acg1 #ach1 #aci1 #aee1 #afb1 #afc ,cell1 #acf1 #acg1 #ach1 #ada1 #adb1 #aee1 #afe1 #afh1 #bjb1 #cja2 definition of1 #acg2 a multimolecule1 #afe2 cannot originate through exclusive agency of physicochemical energies1 #adb2 fundamental unit of organization1 #acf2 germ1 #aef2 simplest of organic units capable of independent existence1 #ach2 simplest of organisms1 #adg2 somatic1 #aef2 submicroscopical components of1 #ada2 simplest form of organic life1 #adb2 vital1 #adb2 sperm1 #acg ,cell ,theory1 #acf ,cellular continuity1 #acg1 #ada2 ,fifth article of1 #ada2 ,law of1 #ada ,centaur1 constellation of1 #ahd ,centers1 sensory and motor1 #bea ,central neurones1 #bac1 #bbb2 purpose of1 #bbb ,centrioles1 #adj ,cephalic index1 #cbi ,ceratites1 #hf ,ceratodus1 #aai ,cerebral cortex1 #bjf1 #bac1 #bba1 #bbb ,cerebral neurones1 #bbb2 an extended receptor not proportioned to dematerialized abstract objects1 #bbb ,cerebrospinal system1 #bac ,certainty1 #abd1 #abe2 based on objective necessity1 #abd2 scientific1 #abe ,ceylon1 #cae ,chain-reflex1 #bej1 #beb ,chaldea1 #ccg1 #cdj ,chalk1 #gi1 #hf ,chance1 #aa1 #aea-aed2 impotent to produce effect so complicatedly telic as an organism1 #aea2 its efficacy and impotence1 #aea-aed ,change1 adaptive1 #ec note2 germinal1 #db1 #dc1 #fh1 #cjg2 kinds of1 #db2 somatic1 #fh2 specific1 #g1 #bc1 #fh1 #hh1 #hi1 #cjg2 varietal1 #g1 #fh1 #hh ,characters 7somatic or external71 #e1 #f1 #ag1 #ah1 #da1 #fb1 #fc1 #hg1 #hh1 #aba1 #abb1 #bgh1 #cjf1 #ccd2 definition of1 #da2 duplication and suppression of1 #cjf2 embryonic not derived from adult1 #bgh2 homologous and adaptational1 #fb1 #fc1 #aba --distinction has no experimental basis1 #fb2 8inherited0 and 8acquired10 #da ,chapelle-aux-,saintes1 #bhh1 #cca2 ,cave of1 remains1 #cca2 remains1 #bbh ,chela1 #fa1 #bfa2 of lobster and ,african scorpion1 #fa ,chemical analysis1 #adc1 #add1 #baf2 destroys life1 #adc1 #add ,chemical synthesis of living matter possible1 #adb1 #add ,chemist1 #aea2 guiding intelligence of need in synthesis of organic compounds1 #aea2 necessity of regulation1 #aea ,chemistry1 #adb1 #cej2 physical1 #adb ,chemotaxis1 #bfd ,chick1 #bee ,chimaeroids1 #aai ,chimpanzee1 #cc1 #bgj1 #cad1 #cbc ,chin1 #cai1 #cbj1 #cbh2 may be accentuated by a mutation1 #cbj2 prominence in ,spy ,no4 #a1 #cbh2 recessive1 #cbj2 recessiveness of the1 #cai2 recessiveness and protuberance of1 #cbj2 recessiveness1 an acquired adaptation1 #cbj2 receding1 acquired1 #cbh ,china1 #aaj1 #ccg ,chinless mandible1 not sloping backward1 #ccb ,chlorophyll1 #fb1 #ade1 #adg1 #adh1 #adi1 #aea1 #aed2 chromogen group of1 #adh2 chromogen complex1 #adh2 colloidal solution of1 #ade2 not a 8sensitizer0 like ,eosin1 #adg1 #adh2 regenerated from ,h,o and ,,co1 #adg1 #adh2 8sensitizer10 #ade ,chondriosomes1 #adj ,christianity1 #cei ,chromatin1 #ach1 #aci ,chromiole1 #ach ,chromosomes1 #ag1 #ba1 #bg1 #dd1 #de1 #aci1 #ada1 #aeg1 #aeh1 #aei2 diploid number normal1 #aei2 diploid number of1 #aeg1 #aeh1 #aei2 duplication of1 #ag1 #ba1 #dd1 #de2 haploid number of1 #aeg1 #aeh1 #aei2 homologous1 #ag1 #ba2 random assortment of1 #bg ,chronology1 #ih2 lithic1 #ih2 principles of1 #ih ,chronometer1 palontological1 #ace ,chrysothrix1 #bgd ,cidaris1 #aai ,ciliate1 #afc ,circumstances1 environmental1 #bej-beb ,civilization1 old1 destruction of1 #ccf ,classes1 #cg ,classification1 taxonomic1 not historical1 #aab ,clays1 ,pleistocene1 #bhi ,cleavage1 #aed1 #aei ,cloaca1 #bha ,coccyx1 alleged rudiment of former tail1 #big2 serves purpose1 #bih ,cockroaches1 #aae ,coelenterates1 #gh1 #aah ,coexistence of impressions1 not a companion of them1 #bjh ,cognitive intellect1 #bbj1 #bba ,colloid systems1 aggregates1 not units1 #afh ,colloidal1 #ada1 #agj2 substances1 #ada2 systems not analogous to organisms1 #agj ,colloids1 #aff-afi2 hydrophilic1 #afh1 #afi ,columns1 continental and submarine1 #aad ,commanchian period1 #gb ,commensal1 #df ,commensalism1 #eb ,common stock1 #ci ,comparative anatomy1 #bgi1 #cjd ,complexity1 8,law0 of1 #aff1 #afg ,components1 #ach1 #aci1 #ada1 #adb1 #afh2 cytoplasmic and nuclear1 #ach1 #aci2 of cell1 #ada --self-perpetuating1 #afh2 of protoplasmic system1 #ada ,compounds1 organic1 #adb ,concepts1 #bai1 #bbj1 #bba1 #bdg2 abstract and general1 #bbj1 #bdg2 rational1 #bdg ,conceptual thought1 #bai1 #bbb1 #bbc2 concerned with the reality of essence1 #bai2 excludes materiality from its specific agent and receptive subject1 #bbb2 not communicated to organism1 #bbc2 subject in soul alone1 #bbc ,conduction path1 #bfe ,condyles1 occipital1 #bgb ,conformity1 #aje1 #ajg1 #aaj2 8deceptive10 #aje1 #aaj2 normal significance of1 #aje2 8upside-down10 #ajg ,conjugation1 #aeg1 #afa ,consciousness1 #aih1 #bjc1 #bjd1 #bje1 #bjf1 #bjh1 #baa1 #bce1 #bch1 #bdj1 #bdh1 #bfb2 and unconsciousness1 #aih2 attests existence superficially variable but radically unchangeable subject of mental life1 #bjf2 attests persistence of our personal identity1 #baa2 dependence of all science upon1 #bjd2 etymology of1 #bje1 #bjf2 its testimony to the reality of the ego1 #bje2 organic and spiritual1 #aii2 phenomenal1 #aih2 sentient1 #bce1 #bch1 #bdj1 #bdh2 testimony of1 #bjh ,constructions1 complex and systematic1 not producible by accident1 #ec1 #aed ,consolation1 #ceh1 #cfa2 destroyed1 #cfa2 eliminated1 #ceh ,contamination of media1 #ace ,contiguity1 #bda1 #bdb2 association of1 #bda2 law of1 #bda1 #bdb ,continents1 #aac1 #aad2 permanence of1 #aad ,continuity1 #cej2 destructive as metaphysics1 #cej2 leads to materialistic monism1 #cej2 principles of1 #cej2 nuclear1 #acg ,control1 #bcf1 #bea-bec2 intelligent1 #bec2 psychic1 #bea2 rational and moral1 #bcf2 sensory1 #bea-bec ,consequences--socialism1 anarchy1 despair1 #cfj ,convergence1 #aj1 #cf1 #eh1 #ei1 #fa1 #fc1 #gg1 #gh1 #gi1 #hj1 #bgg1 #bhc1 #bhd1 #bhg2 kinds of #gg ,corpuscular1 #agd ,correlation1 #ij1 #ia1 #ic1 #ii1 #aja1 #aaa2 ,cuvier's ,law of1 #ij1 #ia2 stratigraphic1 #ic1 #if1 #ii1 #aja1 #aaa ,cortical1 #bid1 #cae2 area1 #bgd2 surface1 #cae ,cosmic scale1 #cej2 ,cosmogony1 #aha1 #ahe ,cosmopolitan species1 #gc ,cosmozoa1 #ahb ,cranial box1 #bgb ,cranial capacity1 #bgd1 #cae1 #cag1 #cbb1 #cbe1 #ccb1 #cda2 absolute1 #ccb2 human1 #cda2 large1 #cda2 of man and ape compared1 #bgd2 relative1 #cag1 #ccb ,cranial vault1 more spacious in ,spy ,no4 #b1 #cbg ,cranium1 #aah1 #bga1 #cba1 #cbe1 #cbh1 #cbi1 #cca1 #ccc1 #ccg1 #cda2 dolichocephalic1 #cbe1 #cca2 flat on top1 broad in back1 #cda2 modern1 #ccc2 human1 #cbh2 of ape1 #bga2 of man1 #bga2 not subsequent to barbarism1 #ccg2 ,spy1 #cca ,creation1 #fg1 #gb1 #ahf1 #ahg2 defined1 #ahg2 new1 #fg1 #gb2 simultaneous or recessive1 #gb ,creationism1 #ee ,creator1 #gb1 #bdi1 #bih1 #cej ,credulous persons misled1 #cec ,cretaceous1 #ajj1 #ajd1 #ajh1 #aji1 #aaa1 #aah2 shales1 #aji ,crete1 #ccg ,cretinism1 #bid ,cries1 #bdf2 emotional1 #bdf2 instinctive1 #bdf ,crinoids1 #aai ,crossing1 #d1 #e1 #ai-ba1 #be-bh1 #hh2 interspecific1 #ai-ba1 #bf1 #bg2 intervarietal1 #ai1 #bj1 #bg1 #bh2 does not produce 8new species10 #be-bh ,crossover1 #ag1 #bf1 #db ,crust1 terrestrial1 #aac ,crustaceans1 #aag ,cryptorhetic system1 #bib-bid ,crystalloids1 #add ,crystals1 #aec ,crystal units1 #add1 #afe ,ctenomys1 #cje ,cultures1 #ace1 #cji1 #cag2 sterilized and arated1 #ace ,curved femur1 acquired adaptation1 #cbh ,cycads1 #aah ,cycas1 #aah ,cysts1 #acd ,cytodes1 #ach1 #agi1 #bjg ,cytologist1 #acf1 #ada ,cytology1 #acg ,cytoplasm1 #acg-aci1 #ada2 of eggs differentiated1 #ada ,cytoplasmic components self-perpetuating1 #aci ,cytosome1 #adj ,darwinism1 #a1 #e1 #f1 #af1 #bd1 #bi1 #cj1 #cb1 #gh1 #gi1 #he1 #bfc1 #bfe1 #bhe1 #bia1 #cbe2 contradicted by history1 #ccg2 obsolete theory1 #bi1 #cj1 #cdi ,datura stramonium1 #ba1 #bb1 #bc ,death1 #aef ,deceptive conformities1 #ih ,deep sea bottoms1 #aac ,degeneracy1 #ae1 #ae note1 #ah1 #ccf ,degradation of energy1 #afb1 #afc1 #ahj2 implies beginning of life1 #ahj2 law of1 #afb1 #afc ,delitzch1 #aah ,dependence1 #bag1 #bah1 #bba1 #bca2 direct1 of psycho-organic functions on organism1 #bca2 incompatible with spirituality1 #bah2 intrinsic on matter1 #bah2 objective1 not subjective1 #bba ,descent1 #fg1 #hj1 #hg1 #hh1 #bfg1 #bfi1 #bgd1 #bgg1 #bhd1 #cje1 #cjh1 #caj1 #cab1 #cae1 #cag1 #cde2 collateral1 #bfi1 #cjh1 #cab1 #cag --of man1 #cjh1 #cag --theory of1 #bfi1 #cab2 common1 #bfi1 #cae --reference of1 #bfi2 direct1 ,darwin's theory of1 #bgd2 from ape1 theory of1 #bgd2 human1 #cag1 #cde --from pithecoid primates1 not a historical fact1 #cde --theory of1 #bfi2 lineal1 #bfi1 #cje1 #cjh1 #cji1 #cag --a chain of creatures1 #cje --from ape1 theory of1 #bfi --upheld by ,darwin1 #bfi2 of man1 #cjh1 #caj2 theory of1 #hj1 #bgg ,deterioration of organism does not always involve deterioration of superorganic powers1 #bcj ,devonian1 #fb1 #ii1 #ajc1 #ajf2 ,middle1 #ajf ,de-,vriesianism1 #bc1 #bd1 #bi1 #bfc1 #bfe1 #bff1 #cdi ,diester1 phytyl-methyl1 #adg ,differences1 #i1 #ab1 #ac1 #af1 #bh1 #cg1 #df1 #ha1 #hb1 #hd1 #hf1 #hi1 #aba1 #aga1 #bcf1 #bcg1 #bga1 #bgb1 #bgc1 #cbj1 #cca1 #ccc1 #ccd1 #cei2 anatomical1 between ,homo primigenius and ,homo sapiens1 #cca1 #ccd --between man and ape1 #bga-bgc2 between living and lifeless1 #aga2 fluctuational1 #aba2 generic1 #cg1 #df1 #hb1 #hd1 #hf2 individual1 #af --alleged summation of1 #i1 #bj1 #bi2 major1 #i1 #cg1 #df1 #cbj --relative and absolute1 #cg2 minor1 #i1 #cg1 #df1 #cbj2 mutational1 #aba1 #ccd2 ordinal1 #df2 psychological1 between man and brute1 #bcf1 #bcg1 #cei1 #cfj --amount to a distinction of kind1 #bcf1 #bcg1 #cei1 #cfj2 specific1 #ab1 #ac1 #bh1 #cg1 #df1 #ha1 #hd1 #hf1 #ccc1 #ccd2 varietal1 #df ,differential threshold1 law of1 #bbg ,differentiation1 #bhd ,diffusion of venom1 #bfd1 #bfe ,digestion1 stimulates lymphatic glands1 #cja ,dileptus gigas1 #ach1 #agd ,diluvium1 ,european1 #cde ,dinoflagellata1 #aah ,dinosaurs1 #ajj1 #bga ,diphasic1 #acd ,diploid forms1 #dd1 #de1 #dg ,dipnoan1 #aai ,diptera1 #dh1 #di ,discernment1 #bdj ,discina1 #aah ,disconformity1 non-evident1 #aje ,discrimination1 #bjh ,discursive analysis1 #bdc1 #bdd ,disease germs1 #ada1 #afi1 #agj1 #baf2 invisible1 identified by the pathological effects1 #baf2 submicroscopic1 #ada1 #afi1 #agj ,disintegration1 atomic1 #afc ,dispersing medium1 #afh ,dissociation1 #bce1 #bdb ,distributed nucleus1 #ach ,distribution1 #ib1 #ii1 #ajj1 #aab1 #aac1 #aae2 chronological1 #ib2 geographical1 hard to distinguish from chronological1 #ii1 #ajj2 of plants and animals1 #aae2 spatial1 anomalies of1 #aab1 #aac ,disuse1 #bhf1 #bhh1 #bij1 #cje1 #cjf2 effects1 alleged of1 #bhh ,divergence1 #i1 #cf1 #ci1 #eg ,divine action1 vivifying matter1 not a miracle1 #ahg1 #ahh ,dog1 #bdh1 #bee1 #bhg ,dogmatism1 evolutionary1 #cfj ,dolphins1 #hj ,domination of intellect and will over organic powers1 #bce ,doubt1 8scientific10 #aih ,dragonflies1 #aae ,drone1 #aeh ,drosophila1 #ag1 #ah1 #ai1 #bg1 #he1 #hf2 melanogaster1 #he1 #hf --gradations in eye-color1 wing-length and pigmentation of1 #he1 #hf ,dryopithecus1 #bgj1 #caj1 #caa1 #cbc1 #cde2 dentition of1 #caa1 rhenanus1 teeth1 human-like1 #cbc ,dualism1 #agd1 #aih1 #aii1 #bca1 #bcc1 #bcd1 #cea2 conscious and unconscious1 of ,descartes1 #aih2 hylomorphic1 #agd1 #aih1 #bca2 of emergence and resistance1 #bcc1 #bcd note2 of potency and act1 #aii2 psychic and physical1 of ,descartes1 #aih2 psychophysical1 #aih1 #bca ,duckbill1 #bhg ,duplication1 #dd1 #de1 #cje2 chromosomal1 #dd1 #de2 of organs1 #cje ,dynamic1 #bjf ,ear1 #cjb1 #cjd2 helix of1 #cjd ,earth columns1 #aac ,earthworm1 #bej1 #bhj ,east ,indies1 #aah ,echinodermata1 #aai1 #aba1 #abb ,education1 #bde1 #bef1 #cfj2 responsible1 #cfj ,educator1 modern1 #cfj ,effect1 #agf1 #agg ,eggs1 #acd1 #aef1 #aeh1 #aei1 #afj1 #bee1 #bei1 #bgh1 #bhc2 of sea urchin1 #aei1 #afj2 unfertilized1 #aeh2 reduced1 #aeh2 unreduced1 #aeh ,ego1 #bji1 #baj1 #bbd2 the1 #bji1 #baj2 the thinking1 #bbd ,egoism1 #bef ,egypt1 #aae1 #ccg1 #cdj ,electrolytes1 #afh ,electronic theory1 #ef ,electrons1 #afc1 #agd ,elements1 radioactive1 #ahj ,elephants1 #aaa1 #aae1 #cae2 brain of1 #cae2 ,siberian1 sudden extinction of1 #aaa ,elephas3 antiquus1 #cag2 primigenius1 #cbf ,embryologists1 #acf ,embryology1 #ada1 #bge1 #bgf1 #cjh2 comparative1 #bgf2 experimental1 #ada ,embryonic additions1 #bgf ,embryos1 #bgf1 #bgh1 #bgi1 #bhj1 #bha2 alleged fish-like stage of1 #bgi1 #bhj2 human1 #bgh1 #bhj1 #bhc2 mammalian1 #bha1 #bhc2 vertebrate1 #bha ,emergents1 #bcc note1 #bcd note ,energy-content1 #agd ,emotion1 #bad1 #bca1 #bdf1 #bdg2 functions of sensual appetite1 #bdg2 a psycho-organic function1 #bad2 organic function1 #bca ,emperor moth1 #bfg ,emulsifier1 #afi ,emulsion1 #aci1 #afh ,encasement1 #c1 #d ,encystment1 #afb ,end1 #bed1 #bei ,endocrine glands1 #bib-bie1 #bih2 not functionless1 #bie ,endomixis1 #afa1 #afb1 #afc1 #agh ,endoskeletal1 #cf ,energy1 #agb1 #agd2 content1 #agd2 defined1 #agb2 kinetic and potential1 #agb ,energy-environment1 #afh ,enlightenment1 #bdd1 #bde ,entelechy1 #agb-age1 #aii1 #bjj1 #bjb1 #baj2 definition of1 #bjj2 ,aristotelian sense perverted by ,driesch1 #agb2 a constant in living units1 a variant in inorganic units1 #age1 #bjj1 #bjb1 #baj2 common to inorganic units and living organisms1 #agc1 #agd2 consubstantial with matter1 #bjb2 entitive1 not dynamic1 #agb1 #bja2 equivalent to static affinity or structural valence1 #agc2 inorganic1 #agd2 not an agent but a specifying type1 #bja ,entitive1 #bjf ,environment1 #f-i1 #ab-ae1 #db1 #df1 #aeb1 #aec1 #agd1 #ahj-ahb1 #bfa1 #cjg2 cosmic1 of life1 #ahj1 #aha2 internal1 #ad1 #ae2 not a mechanism for molding organisms1 #aeb1 #aec ,environmental conditions1 #ae1 #af1 #fh1 #abc1 #bhd ,environmental stimulus1 #bee ,enzymes1 #adc ,eoanthropus1 #cbj1 #cbb1 #cbc1 #cdb2 a combination of simian and human remains1 #cdb2 ,dawsoni1 #cbj-cbc1 #cdb2 jaw older than cranium1 #cbb ,eocene1 #aae1 #cji1 #cac1 #cag2 ,lower1 #cac2 ,middle1 #aae ,eoliths1 #aed1 #cba ,eosin1 a sensitizer1 #adg ,epeira1 #bdh1 #bdi ,epicyclic subterfuges1 #aaj ,epigenesis1 #c1 #d ,epiphysis1 #bib ,equus1 #e1 #ie1 #aac2 ,american and ,european1 #aac2 asinus1 #e2 caballus1 #e ,erosion1 #aje1 #aji ,eskimo1 #ccj1 #cch2 language more complex than ,english1 #cch ,euphemisms1 #cea ,europe1 #aab1 #aac1 #cce ,eurypterids1 #aag ,events1 #bjh ,evolution 7active and passive7 of life from inorganic matter1 #acb1 #acc ,evolution 7alleged7 of human soul1 #aid1 #aie1 #bfh1 #ceb ,evolution 7alleged7 of human body1 #bfh1 #cji1 #cdc ,evolution1 xi-xiv1 #b1 #c1 #f1 #g1 #h1 #ag1 #ai1 #bj1 #ba1 #bh1 #bi1 #ca1 #cb1 #cd1 #dc1 #dd1 #de1 #fc1 #ff1 #gj1 #gd1 #ge1 #gf1 #gh1 #gi1 #hj1 #hc1 #hf1 #ij1 #ib1 #ig1 #aje1 #aaf1 #aag1 #abc1 #abd1 #abe1 #aca1 #aic1 #aid1 #bfg1 #bfh1 #bia1 #big1 #cjd1 #cji1 #cbe1 #cce1 #cci1 #cdi-cfa2 aspects1 moral and social1 of1 #cec-cfa2 causes of1 #b1 #f2 evidence for1 experimental1 #c1 #g1 #h1 #ag1 #bh --inferential or circumstantial1 #c1 #h1 #abe --genetical1 #h1 #ah1 #bh1 #bi --zoological1 #h1 #cd1 #ff1 #gf --palontological1 #c1 #h1 #ff1 #gd-gf1 #gh1 #gi1 #hj1 #hc1 #ib1 #ig1 #aje1 #abf2 fact of1 #b1 #hf1 #abd1 #abf2 heliocentric theory not on a par with1 xii1 xiii1 law of1 #a1 #abc2 monistic basis of1 #cdi-cec2 necessary as hypothesis1 not as dogma1 xi2 senses of1 #b1 #gd1 #ge1 #aca2 spirit not a product of1 #aic1 #aid1 #bfh2 systems of1 #a1 #bi1 #ca1 #cdi2 ,augustinian1 #cb1 #gd1 #ge2 ,batesonian1 #ah-ba1 #dc1 #dd1 #gi2 monophyletic1 #fi1 #gj1 #aaf1 #aag2 polyphyletic1 #gj2 progressive1 #dd1 #de1 #aaf ,evolutionary thought1 crisis in1 #c1 #bi ,evolutionists1 #bgi ,exoskeletal1 #cf ,expediency1 #bia ,experience1 #bch1 #bda1 #bec1 #bef2 learning by1 #bda2 sensory1 #bch1 #bec ,experimentation1 #aig ,eye1 #fj1 #bje1 #bag1 #bhc1 #bih2 a corporal element intrinsic to the visual sense1 #bag2 an example of convergence1 #fj2 constituent part of agent and subject of vision1 #bag2 human1 defective1 #bih2 not replaced by telescope1 #bje2 vertebrate type of1 #bhc ,factorial1 complex1 #de ,factors1 germinal 7genetic1 hereditary71 #e1 #f1 #ae1 #ag1 #ah1 #ai1 #da1 #db1 #dd1 #de1 #fh1 #abb1 #aea1 #aeb1 #agd1 #bjg1 #bia --diagnosis of1 #abb --fractionation of1 #ai --positive and inhibitive1 #ai2 environmental1 #f1 #da1 #db1 #fh1 #aea1 #aeb1 #agd1 #bjg1 #bia --blind1 #aea1 #aeb --of disuse and selection1 #bjg ,facts1 #bje2 former cannot be formulated except with reference to ego1 #bje2 in terms denoting or connoting ego1 #bje2 intramental and extramental1 #bje 8,falsifications0 of ancestral records1 #bgf ,families1 #cg1 #eh2 chemical1 #eh ,family-tree1 evolutionary1 #eh ,fats1 #ade ,faulting1 #ajg1 #ajh2 horizontal and vertical1 #ajh2 8,low angle10 #ajg1 #ajh2 normal1 #ajh ,faym1 the1 #aae ,feldhofer ,grotte1 #cbc1 #cbd1 #cbf ,felis leo fossilis1 #cai ,femur1 #cac1 #caf1 #cag1 #cbd1 #cbg1 #ccj1 #cda2 not curved as in ,neanderthal type1 #cda2 shows curvature1 #cbg1 #ccj ,ferns1 #aah ,fertilization1 #db1 #aeg1 #aei1 #afj ,filiation1 #ge ,finality1 immanent law of1 #agd ,first causes1 #eb1 #ga1 #bdi ,fishes1 #fa1 #bgj1 #bgf1 #bgi1 #bhc1 #bif2 adult1 #bgi1 #bhc2 embryo of1 #bgi ,fish-kidney1 #cjb ,fission1 binary1 #aef1 #afa2 unequal1 #aef2 multiple1 #aef ,fixism1 #d1 #cb1 #eb1 #fi1 #gj1 #gb1 #ge1 #aai1 #abd1 #bfh2 unable to furnish 8natural0 explanation of homology1 #eb2 uniformitarian1 #fi ,flat worms1 #bgh ,flies1 #acd ,fluctuants1 #hg ,fluctuations1 #aj1 #af1 #bi1 #cjb1 #ccc2 cause of1 #aj1 #af2 instance of1 #af2 non-inheritable1 #aj1 #af ,ftal life1 special conditions of1 #bii ,ftus1 #cja ,fonte de ,gaume1 #cci ,foot-and-mouth disease1 germ of1 #ahc note ,foramnifera1 #aah ,force1 #agb1 #agf2 defined1 #agb2 no special vital1 #agf ,forehead1 #cbh1 #ccj1 #cda2 higher1 #cbh2 low1 #cda2 retreating1 #ccj ,formaldehyde1 #ade-adh2 not first step in origin of life nor in photosynthesis1 #ade-adg ,formaldehyde-hypothesis1 #ade-adh ,formaldoxime1 #adh ,formations1 fossiliferous1 #aje ,formations1 geological1 #ge1 #hd1 #ic1 #ie1 #ii1 #ajj1 #ajc1 #aje1 #ajh1 #aah1 #aai1 #abf2 time-value of1 #hd ,formed bodies of cell1 self-perpetuating1 #afh ,formose1 #ade ,forms1 #bdf1 #bge1 #bgf1 #cab2 fossil1 sequence of1 #bgf --intermediate1 #cab2 grammatical1 #bdf2 intermediate1 none between man and apes1 #bge ,fortuitous result1 #bdi ,fossil bones1 #cai ,fossil facts1 #caa ,fossiliferous stratification1 universality of1 #ajb ,fossil remains1 human1 #bac ,fossils1 #c1 #ha1 #hg1 #hh1 #id1 #ie1 #if1 #ii1 #ajj1 #aja1 #ajb1 #ajd1 #ajg1 #aaj1 #aaa1 #aab1 #aah1 #cji1 #cag1 #ccd1 #cce2 dated by theory of descent1 #ccd2 evade experimental breeding tests1 #hg1 #hh1 #ccd2 no invariable sequence of1 #ii1 #ajb2 reconstructed1 #hh2 still 8medals of ,creation10 #id2 time-value problematic1 #ih1 #ajj1 #aja1 #ajg1 #aaj1 #aaa1 #aab1 #cce ,foxhall ,man1 #cji1 #cda1 #cdb2 alleged to be ,tertiary1 #cji1 #cda1 #cdb2 flint implements prove intelligence of1 #cdb2 no fossils of1 #cdb ,freedom1 human1 #bcb2 of will1 #bcb ,free will1 a myth1 #cfj1 #cfa ,frescoes1 #cci1 #cdj2 polychrome1 #cdj2 primeval1 #cci1 #cdj ,frog1 #fd1 #bha2 tadpole1 #bha ,fruit-flies1 eyeless1 #cjf2 vestigial1 #cjf2 wingless1 #cjf ,functions1 #bae1 #baf1 #bda1 #bgf2 extrinsically dependent on organism1 #bae1 #baf2 sensitivo-nervous1 #bda2 superorganic1 #bae ,fundulus1 #fb ,future life1 #ced1 #cfa2 a myth1 #cfa2 of retribution1 #ced ,gametes1 #ac1 #ad1 #be1 #aef1 #aeg1 #aeh1 #aei2 production of1 #be2 specialization of1 for kinetic and trophic functions1 #aeg1 #aeh ,ganoids1 #aai1 #abj ,gar pike1 #aai ,gastrula1 #aei ,gelation1 #afh ,gemmation1 #aef ,geneology1 #ie1 #aac1 #cdh2 hypothetical1 #aac2 of horse1 #ie2 of man1 #cdh ,geneological tree of man1 #cdh ,genera1 #c1 #d1 #cg1 #gh1 #hj1 #ha1 #hf1 #ib1 #aai1 #cab1 #cac2 fossil1 #c1 #d1 #gh1 #hj1 #ha1 #hf1 #cab1 #cac ,generalization1 power of1 #bfa ,generation1 univocal and equivocal1 #fh1 #fi ,genes1 #ag1 #ah1 #ai1 #be1 #bg1 #db1 #dc1 #dd1 #de1 #gi1 #ada1 #afb2 inhibitive1 #ah1 #ai1 #db1 #gi1 #afb ,genetic cellular continuity1 law of1 no exception to1 #afc1 #afd ,genetic continuity1 #adb1 #afj1 #afe1 #caa2 fivefold law of1 #adb2 law of1 #acf1 #afj --may not prevail in submicroscopic world1 #afe ,geneticists1 #hi1 #ccd ,genetics1 #b1 #c1 #bd1 #cf1 #df note1 #ef1 #hb1 #hh1 #hi1 #aba1 #abf1 #ada1 #cjb1 #cje1 #ccd ,genital distrophy1 #bid ,genotype1 #e1 #da1 #dc1 #abc ,geodesists1 #aad ,geological column1 #ajf1 #aag1 #abe1 #abf ,geological record1 #gb1 #hj-hd1 #ib1 #ajf1 #aaa1 #abj1 #abe1 #abf1 #abg1 #big2 damaged1 #ib2 enigmatic1 #abf1 #abg2 incomplete1 #gb1 #hj1 #ajf2 incompleteness assumed to explain absence of intermediates1 #hc2 time-value presupposes its completeness1 #hb1 #hc1 #aaa ,geologists1 #ajj1 #ajb1 #aac1 #aad1 #aag1 #abe1 #aha ,geology1 xiv1 #ih1 #ajg1 #aaa1 #aag2 can only prove local order of succession1 #aaa ,germ1 #ac1 #aee1 #aef1 #ahb2 multicellular and unicellular1 #aee1 #aef ,germ cells1 #ac1 #ad1 #af1 #aef1 #aeg1 #afc ,germ plasm1 #ad1 #be1 #bf1 #da1 #db1 #de1 #bfe1 #cjc ,germ tract1 #ad ,germinal constitution1 #hg1 #abc ,gerrymandering1 geological1 #aaf ,giantism1 #dd1 #bid ,gibbon1 #bga1 #bgd1 #caj1 #cad1 #caf ,gibraltar skull1 #cbb ,gill arches and clefts1 #bgh1 #bgi ,gills1 #gj1 #bgi2 permanent1 #bgi ,glacial1 #ajd note1 #bhi1 #cbj1 #cbg1 #cbi1 #ccj1 #cca1 #ccb1 #ccd2 deposits1 #ajd note2 epoch1 #cbj1 #ccb1 #ccd --middle of1 #ccb --close of1 #ccb2 period1 #bhi1 #cbg1 #cbi1 #ccj1 #cca --fourth or last1 #cbg1 #cbi --close of1 #cca ,glaciation1 #bij ,glacier1 continental1 #bhg1 #bhi ,glacier ,national ,park1 #ajh ,glaciologists1 #bhi ,glands1 #bif1 #cjd2 muciparous1 #bif2 supernumerary mammary1 #cjd ,glaurus overthrust1 #ajg ,globigerina1 #aah ,glucose1 #ade ,gluteal region1 #bgc ,glyceraldehyde1 #ade ,god1 #ahj1 #cea2 admitted as hypothetical1 #cea2 ,author of ,life1 #ahj2 impossible to prove existence of1 #cea ,golgi bodies1 #adj ,gonads1 interstitial cells of1 #bib ,gondwana ,land1 #aad1 #aae ,gorilla1 #ea1 #bgj1 #bga1 #bgb1 #bgc1 #cad2 face of1 #bga2 skull of1 #bga ,gradation1 #hb1 #hg1 #cae2 morphological1 #hb2 of forms1 #hg2 series1 #cae2 temporal succession1 #hb ,gradual approximation1 dogma of1 #aaj ,grammar1 8scientific0 revision of1 #bje ,graptolites1 #gh1 #ajj ,great ,peacock ,moth1 #bfj ,grey ,worm1 #bdf ,grignard reaction1 #bji ,groups1 #cce ,gryphaea1 #gi ,guest1 #di1 #ec ,habit1 #h1 #bfe1 #bff1 #bfg1 #bia1 #cbh1 #ccc1 #ccd2 automatisms of1 alleged to be source of instinct1 #bfg2 body-modifying1 #ccc --of squatting1 #cbh2 modern1 #ccd ,habitat1 #ii1 #aab1 #ahb ,hmoglobin1 #adh ,hallucinations1 #bce ,hallux1 human1 #ej2 simian1 #ej ,halogens1 #eh ,haptophores1 #eg ,heidelberg ,man1 #cah1 #cai1 #cbj2 jaw anomalous1 #cai1 #cbj ,hen1 #bei1 #bfj ,heredity1 #e1 #ci1 #ed1 #hh2 alleged cause of homology1 #ci2 biparental1 #e ,heterogametes1 #aeh ,hererogamy1 #aeh ,hererozygous1 #be1 #bf1 #bg ,histogenesis1 #ei ,history1 #ccg1 #cch1 #cci2 contradicts evolutionary assumption1 #ccg1 #cch2 dawn of1 #ccg2 proves primitive man to have been civilized1 not barbaric1 #cci ,homomorphy1 heterogenetic1 #gi ,homology1 #h1 #cd1 #ce1 #cf1 #ci1 #dj1 #df1 #dg1 #dh1 #ea1 #ed1 #ei1 #fj1 #fa1 #fc1 #fd1 #fe1 #gg1 #bfh1 #bgf1 #bgg1 #bgh1 #bgi1 #bhd1 #bhg1 #bib1 #bih1 #cjh2 definition of1 #ce2 anatomical1 #bgf1 #bgi1 #bhd1 #cjh2 application to man1 #cd1 #ea1 #bfh2 disguised by external diversity1 #dh2 embryological1 #dh1 #bgh1 #bgi1 #bhd1 #cjh2 evolutionary argument from1 #cd1 #dg note1 #dh1 #ed1 #fc1 #fd1 #fe1 #bfh1 #bib2 genetic explanation of1 #ci1 #dj1 #dg ,homologous organs1 #ce1 #fa ,homo neanderthalensis1 #ccc ,homo primigenius1 #cbc1 #ccj1 #ccc1 #ccd1 #cda1 #cdb2 a variety1 not a distinct species1 #cdb2 same as ,homo ,mousteriensis1 #ccj2 type1 fluctional nature of1 #cda ,homo sapiens1 #cbe1 #ccj1 #ccb1 #ccc1 #cdj1 #cdb1 #cde2 only human species1 #cdb ,homozygous1 #be1 #bg ,horizon1 #ic1 #id1 #abe1 #caj1 #cce2 level1 #cce2 stratigraphical1 #ic1 #id2 stratigraphic1 #abe1 #caj1 #cce ,hormones #ad1 #bib1 #bid1 #bie ,horse1 #e1 #gh1 #ha1 #hb1 #cjd1 #ccb ,host1 #di1 #ec ,hottentots1 #cbe ,human1 #bbd1 #bbg1 #bef1 #cce1 #cda1 #cdb1 #cde1 #ceb2 fossils all belong to the species1 ,homo sapiens1 #cde2 mind --alleged to be of animal extraction1 #ceb --reflects1 #bbd --spiritual1 #bbg2 reason1 #bef2 remains more ancient than formations in which they are found1 #cce ,human body1 #bfg1 #cjd1 #cde2 evolution of1 #bfg2 ignorance and uncertainty regarding origin1 #cde2 not a mosaic of heterogenetic organs1 #cjd2 origin of1 #cde ,humanization of brute1 subjective1 #bch ,humanizers of brute1 ,darwinian1 #bfc ,human language attests reality of ego1 #bje ,human nature1 #cfj2 ,darwinian conception of1 #cfj --evils of popularizing it1 #cfj ,human ,soul1 #aic1 #aid1 #bjb1 #bjc1 #baj1 #bac1 #bad1 #bae1 #baf1 #bbe1 #bca1 #bcb1 #bcc1 #bfg1 #bfh2 could only originate by creation1 #bfg2 creation of1 #aic1 #bfg2 discarnate1 #bjb1 #bad --not a complete person or nature1 #bjb2 exists for its own sake1 #bae2 immortal1 #aic2 intrinsically independent of organism1 #bjb1 #bae1 #bbe2 not an emergent of matter1 #aid --alone active in superorganic functions1 #bjb1 #bad1 #baf2 same as mind1 #bjc2 simplicity of1 #baj --not to be confounded with spirituality of1 #baj2 spirituality of1 #aic1 #bjc1 #bad1 #bae1 #baf1 #bca1 #bcb1 #bcc1 #bcc note1 #bfh --proofs of1 #bad1 #bae1 #baf1 #bca --from rational thought and volition1 #bca1 #bcb1 #bcc1 #bcc note2 substantiality of1 #baj2 underivable from matter1 #bfh ,hunter1 life of1 #cbh1 #ccj ,hyaloplasm1 #aci1 #ada ,hybridism1 constant1 #be ,hybridization1 #af1 #bf1 #hh2 interspecific and intervarietal1 #bf ,hybrids1 #d1 #e1 #ag1 #be1 #bf1 #bg1 #bh1 #hd1 #he1 #hg2 interspecific1 sterile1 #d1 #e1 #bf1 #bg2 invarietal1 #ai1 #bj1 #bg1 #bh2 as intermediates1 #hd1 #he ,hydrang1 #dd ,hydrogen1 #age2 liquid1 #ahd note ,hydroglissia1 #bdh ,hydrosol1 #afi ,hydrosphere1 #aac1 #aha ,hydrotheca1 #gh ,hydroxylamine1 #adh ,hyrozoa erroneously classified1 #abb ,hylobatic1 #cad1 #caf1 #cag1 #cah2 type1 #cah ,hylomorphic dualism1 #aih ,hylomorphic vitalism1 does not discourage experimental analysis of life1 #bja ,hylomorphism1 #agd ,hypogamete1 #aeh ,hypertrophy1 #bhi1 #bij1 #bid2 due to use1 #bhi ,hypophysis1 #bib1 #bic1 #bid1 #bie2 not functionless1 #bid ,ice ,age1 #ih ,ichthyosaurs1 #hj ,igneous masses1 not basal1 #abe ,illusions1 #bce ,imageless thought1 sense of term1 #bai ,imagery1 #bad1 #bae1 #bah1 #bai1 #bbj1 #bba1 #bbh1 #bbi1 #bda1 #bdc2 a function of the living cerebral cortex1 #bba2 association of1 #bda2 cerebral1 #bah2 concrete1 #bbj1 #bba2 different in different persons1 #bai2 distributed by abnormal state of cortex1 #bba2 motor1 #bad2 neurographic1 #bdc2 represents only superficial and exterior properties1 #bai2 rigid1 correlated with metabolic process at work in cerebral cortex1 #bbh1 #bbi2 rigidly proportioned underlying neurogram1 #bae2 sensible1 presupposed by thought and volition1 #bba2 shows corresponding degrees of integrity and intensity1 #bbi2 sporadic and fragmentary1 #bbi2 tactile1 #bad ,imagination1 #bac1 #bba1 #bbb1 #bbh1 #bbi1 #bca2 cerebral sense1 #bbb1 #bbh1 #bbi2 its normal exercise depends on physiological normality of cerebral cortex1 #bba2 organic function1 #bca ,imaginative activity1 #bbi ,immortality1 considered an anodyne1 #ceh ,immunity1 #eg ,immutibility1 #ej1 #eb ,impenetrability1 #bbe2 of matter1 law of1 #bbe2 reflection opposed to1 #bbe ,improvised structures1 #bha note1 #bhc ,incubation1 purposeless1 #bei ,independent ,assortment1 ,law of1 #bg ,index fossils1 #ic1 #id1 #if1 #ig1 #ajj1 #ajd1 #ajg1 #ajh1 #aji1 #aaj1 #aaa1 #aab1 #cce1 #cci2 basis of stratigraphic correlation1 #ic1 #id2 an arbitrary and elastic criterion1 #id1 #ie2 final court of appeal1 #ic1 #if1 #ig1 #cce2 in conflict with physical and stratigraphic evidence1 #ajj1 #ajd-aab ,india1 #aad ,indian dialects1 work of philosophers1 #cch ,indian ,ocean1 #aad1 #aae ,individuation1 #bbj1 #bbd2 concrete1 #bbd ,indo-,europeans1 #ccd ,industry1 ,mousterian1 #cbf1 #cbg1 #cbi1 #ccj1 #cca2 ,acheulean1 #cca2 ,aurignacian1 #cca ,inertia1 defined1 #agd ,infusion1 #aic2 not supernatural1 #aic2 of spirit into matter1 not a miracle1 #aic ,infantilism1 #bid ,inference1 #bba1 #bdj2 mediate1 #bba ,infundibulum1 #bic ,infusoria1 supposed abiogenetic origin of1 #acd ,inheritance1 #b1 #h1 #i1 #bd1 #bg1 #ch1 #dj1 #da1 #db1 #de1 #ef1 #eg1 #fb1 #fc1 #fd1 #ge1 #afj1 #bid1 #cbj2 definition of1 #da2 biparental1 #afj2 chemical theory of1 #eg2 laws of1 #b1 #bd1 #bg1 #db2 similifying process1 #dj1 #de --not only one1 #ef --also said to diversify1 #fc1 #fd2 variable1 #ge ,inhibition1 #bdb1 #beb ,initial vivification1 #acc2 act1 #acc2 of matter required a formative1 #acc2 rather than creative1 #acc ,inquilines1 #df ,insectivora1 #bge ,insects1 #bbe1 #cjg2 evolutionary diminuendo of1 #aaf2 wingless1 #cjg ,instinct1 #bch1 #bdj1 #bdg1 #bdi1 #bej1 #bea1 #beb1 #bed1 #bef1 #beg1 #bei1 #bfc1 #bfd1 #bfe1 #bfg1 #bia1 #cdc1 #cfa2 defined1 #bee1 #bef2 ,james' definition of1 #bdi2 according to external circumstances1 #bej-beb2 according to physiological state of organism1 #bej2 adjustment of1 #bej1 #beb2 constructive1 #bea2 effective only under normal circumstances #beh2 evolutionary origin of1 #bfg --improbable1 #bfg2 fixity of1 #beh2 improbability of1 #bfg2 its regulatory principal sense1 #bed2 not gradually acquired1 #bfc1 #bfd2 not intelligence1 #bed2 only slightly undefiable1 #bef2 origin of1 #bfc2 psychic regulation of1 #bdi2 requires no apprenticeship1 #bef2 teleology of1 #bdi2 telic1 #bei2 variability of1 #bej ,instinctive acts1 #bef ,instruction1 #bdd1 #bde ,instrumentation1 #aig ,intellect1 #bbj1 #bba1 #bbd1 #bbf-bcj1 #cci2 active1 #bbj1 #bba2 activity of1 #bba2 cognitive1 #bbj1 #bba2 conscious of its own operations1 #bbf1 #bbg2 indirectly dependent on physiological condition of cortex1 #bba2 its immaterial nature1 #bbd2 objectively dependent on organic activity of imagination1 #bba2 not bound to material organ1 #bbf2 not debilitated by intense thinking1 #bbg1 #bbh2 not incapacitated but invigorated by intense thinking1 #bbh2 not regulated by physiological vicissitude1 #bbi2 not subject to metabolic laws1 #bcj2 rooted in a spiritual principle1 #bbg2 superorganic nature of1 #bbg ,intellectual1 #bbh1 #bbi1 #bcj2 activity may reach highest points of concentration and intensity without involving commensurate fatigue on part of organism1 #bbh ,intelligence1 #bci-bda1 #bdc1 #bde1 #bdg1 #bdh1 #bdi1 #bed1 #bef1 #beg1 #bei1 #bfb1 #bfc1 #bfg1 #cbi1 #ccj1 #cdj1 #cdc1 #cej2 definition of1 #bci2 autonomous1 #bei2 a generalizing and abstracting power1 #beg2 8bestial10 #bde1 #bdg1 #beg2 conscious1 #bdj2 deceptive semblance of1 #bdj1 #bda2 ,divine1 #bdi2 etymology of1 #bci2 finite1 #bdi2 genuine1 #bdj1 #bda2 infinite1 #bdh1 #bdi2 incapable of being evolved from matter1 #bfg2 inherent1 #bdi1 #bef1 #bei1 #bfg2 of worker bees1 #bfg2 subjective or inherent1 #bdh1 #bdi2 used to denote power of profiting by experience1 #bci1 #bdj ,intensity1 #bbg1 #bcj2 does not increase in same proportion as intensity of stimulus1 #bbg2 may reach maximum with involving corresponding fatigue1 #bcj2 of thought does not follow fluctuations of neural metabolism1 #bcj ,interactionism1 #bjf ,interaction1 three types of1 #age ,interglacial period1 #cbi2 last1 #cbi ,intergradation1 #hg ,intergradence1 #hd-hg2 may indicate hybridism1 #hd1 #he2 no argument for common ancestry1 #hd-hf2 of mutants genetically independent1 #he1 #hf ,intergradents1 #he1 #hf2 hybrid1 #he1 #hf2 mutational1 #he1 #hf2 specific1 #he1 #hf ,interjections1 negligible part of human language1 #bdg ,interpretation1 ontogenetic1 an alternative for phylogenetic1 #cjb ,intervals1 #aje2 lost1 unrepresented by deposition1 erosion or disturbance1 #aje ,intravitous staining1 #adc ,introspection1 #bjd1 #bje1 #bab1 #bbe2 does not create personality1 #bab2 impossible to a material organ1 #bbe ,intrusions1 igneous1 #abe ,invertebrate1 #bic1 #bid2 stage1 #bic1 #bid ,involution1 #afj ,iron1 #adh ,irrational man unknown either to history or prehistory1 #cdj ,islands1 #aec ,islets of ,langerhans1 #bib ,isobares1 #agb ,isogametes1 #aeg ,isogamy1 #aeg ,isomers1 #agc ,isostacy1 #aac1 #aad ,isostatic equilibrium1 #aad ,jacob's ,cavern1 in ,missouri1 #cdj ,java1 #cac ,jaw1 #cca1 #cdj2 lower1 #cca2 lower missing1 #cdj ,jimson ,weed1 #ba1 #bb ,judgment1 #bjg1 #bbj ,jupiter1 #ahd ,jura1 #ajc ,jura1 ,european1 #if1 #ajf ,jurassic1 #aag ,kena ,kakoe1 #cdf-cdh2 extinct volcano1 #cdf ,kidney1 #bhj-bhc2 adult1 #bhb2 embryonic1 #bhc2 fish1 #bhj1 #bhb2 mammalian1 #bhj2 permanent1 #bha1 #bhd ,kiluea1 observatory at volcano of1 #cdf ,kingdom1 animal1 #bdi ,kleistogamy1 #aei ,knowledge1 #aij1 #aia1 #bba1 #bef2 conceptional1 #bba2 experimental1 #bef2 technical1 absence of1 does not always disqualify1 #aij1 #aia ,krapina1 #ccj1 #ccb2 type of1 #ccj ,laboratory syntheses differ from those occurring in organism1 #aej ,la ,chapelle-aux-,saints remains1 #bcb1 #ccj-ccc ,lamarckism1 #f1 #g1 #ac1 #ae1 #af1 #bd1 #bi1 #df note1 #ec1 #fg1 #gh1 #gi1 #bfc1 #bfe1 #bff1 #bia2 recent revival of1 #bff ,lamps1 #cdj ,la ,naulette remains1 #cbf1 #ccb2 alleged to be distinct species1 #ccb2 absence of chin1 #cbf2 allied to ,neanderthal type1 #cbf ,land bridges1 #aab ,language1 #bde1 #bdf1 #bdg1 #ccj1 #cch1 #cci2 descriptive1 conceptual and articulate1 #bdf1 #bdg2 first step in formation of1 #bde2 formation of1 presupposes an artist as great as his works1 #cci2 human1 #bdf1 #bdg2 indicative1 emotional and articulate1 #bdg1 #bef2 of animals1 #bde1 #bdf1 #bdg2 of savage races point to former civilization1 #ccj ,la ,quina1 industry of1 #cca ,law1 definition of1 #aff1 #afg ,law of ,weber1 #bbg 8,learning0 of animals1 #bdc ,le ,moustier1 #cbi1 #ccb2 remains1 #cbb1 #cbf1 #cbi1 #ccj ,lemuroids1 #bge ,lemurs1 #cab ,lepontine ,alps1 #aji ,lethals1 balanced1 #be-bh ,lias1 #aai ,liberalism1 #beg ,life1 #acc1 #adb1 #add1 #ade1 #aed1 #afe1 #agf1 #agg1 #aha1 #ahb1 #ahf1 #ahg1 #ahh1 #bjc2 organic1 definition of1 #agf1 #agg2 active cause of extramundane1 #aha1 #ahb2 alleges submicroscopical units of1 #afe2 ,author of1 #ahf1 #ahg2 conscious1 #bjc2 initiation of1 not a creation1 #ahf1 #ahg --not a miracle1 #ahg1 #ahh --not supernatural1 #ahg1 #ahh2 integrating and formative principle of1 #add2 metabolic1 sentient and rational1 #bjc2 more than a chemical problem1 #adb2 origin of1 #acc chemical hypothesis1 #ade --not a problem of translation1 #ahb2 spontaneous origin of1 #aed ,life-cycle1 #fi1 #aab1 #ach1 #aee1 #aef1 #afj ,lima1 #aah ,limit of microscopic vision1 #adj ,limulus polyphemus1 #aai ,lingula1 #aah ,linin1 #aci ,links1 #hd1 #hf1 #cab1 #cac1 #cae1 #cbc1 #cda1 #cdb2 connecting1 #cae1 #cbc --between men and apes1 #cab2 connecting1 so called are 7a7 human1 7b7 simian1 7c7 mixed remains1 #cdb2 generic and ordinal1 insufficient1 #hf2 8missing10 #cda2 specific1 minimum1 #hf2 transitional1 #hd --none between man and apes1 #cac ,linkage groups1 #ag ,lithosphere1 #aac1 #aad1 #aha ,litopterna1 #gh ,living beings derive their matter from inorganic world1 #abc ,living matter1 #adc1 #aga2 its uniqueness1 a simple fact1 #aga2 maintains its specific type1 #adc ,lizards1 #bib ,loess1 #cbf1 #cbg ,logarithmic spiral1 #bdh ,locomotion1 mechanism of1 #bgj ,logic1 #aih1 #bbj1 #bde2 of scepticism1 #aih2 of thought1 escapes our imagery1 #bbj2 saltatory1 #bde ,loss1 #ceb1 #cec2 of artistic taste by ,darwin1 #ceb1 #cec ,lucina1 #aah ,lumpers1 #cg ,lumping1 #aba ,lychnis diurna and vespertina1 #hd ,lycosa1 #bdg1 #bfc ,lycosids1 #bdg1 #bfc-bfe ,lymphatic glands1 stimulated by digestive process1 #cja ,lymphatic system1 adjuncts of1 #cjj ,lymphatic vessels1 #cjj ,lymph nodules1 #cjj ,lymphocytes1 #cjj1 #cja ,lymphoid cells1 follicle1 #bii ,macrogamete1 #aeg1 #aeh ,macrosomes1 #aci ,madeira1 #cjf ,magalenians1 #ccb ,maggots1 #acd ,magnesium1 #adf1 #adg1 #adh ,mammal1 #df1 #ei1 #fj1 #gb1 #gc1 #ajj1 #aae1 #aaf1 #bge1 #bhj1 #bhb1 #bhc1 #bif1 #cjd1 #cbd1 #cdb2 age of1 #cdb2 early1 #cbd2 evolutionary 8crescendo0 of1 #aaf ,mammalian stock1 #hb ,mammoth1 #ia1 #aae1 #cbf ,man1 #aib1 #aic1 #bab1 #bcf1 #bga1 #bij1 #cdj1 #cda1 #cdc2 bestial1 #cdj2 brutalization of1 #bcf2 destitute of instincts1 #cdc2 face of1 #bg2 indications of his physical presence always accomplished by signs of intelligence1 #cdj2 left defenceless by nature1 #cdc2 modern1 #cda2 more than a decaying organism1 #bab2 never found apart from evidence of his intelligence1 #cdc2 physically helpless1 #cdc2 skull of1 #bga2 unique in his soul1 not in his body1 #aib1 #aic ,mantids1 #bdg ,marattia1 #aah ,mars1 #ahd ,marsoulas1 caves of1 #cci ,marsupial1 #aad1 #bif ,mason bee1 #bea1 #bed1 #bfj ,mastodons1 #aae1 #cdj2 8prehistoric10 engraving of1 #cdj ,material1 #aic1 #aid1 #bjg1 #bad2 functions1 #bad2 organism coperates intrinsically in organic substrate1 #bbd2 sense of term1 #aic1 #aid2 substance1 inaccessible to senses1 #bjg ,materialism1 #agh1 #aii1 #bab1 #bad1 #bcf1 #ceb1 #cee1 #ceg1 #ceh1 #cfa2 a purely academic philosophy1 #baa2 attempt to gloss over1 #bjg2 ,darwinian1 #bcf2 evolutionary1 #cfj1 #cfa2 its destructive effect on religion1 ideals and morality1 #cfa2 parasitic1 #ceh ,materialistic1 #bjg1 #cea-cef1 #ceg2 philosophy ignores active rle of mind1 #bjg2 view of human nature unnatural and intolerable--complete and consistent application impossible1 #ceg2 view make morality unthinkable--antisocial1 #cea-cef ,material organ cannot be effected by the supersensible1 #bbb ,matterhorn1 #aji ,materialist1 #bcj ,materialists1 many evolutionists are avowed1 #cea ,matter1 #ga1 #agc1 #agd1 #agi1 #aha1 #ahf1 #aid1 #aii1 #bjj1 #bjd1 #baj2 a constant in inorganic units1 #age2 a source of indeterminism1 #ga2 a variant in living organisms1 #age2 constant in chemical reactions1 variant in metabolism1 #aii1 #bjj1 #baj2 does not coincide with sum total of reality1 #ahf2 initial vivification of1 due to supermaterial agency1 #agi2 inorganic1 #aha2 not more real than mind1 #bjd2 notions of1 #bjj2 ponderable and imponderable1 #aid ,maturity1 #aee ,mauer1 #cah ,mayflies1 #aae ,means1 #bed1 #bei ,measles1 invisible germ of1 #afi ,mechanics1 #cej ,mechanism1 #aec1 #aed1 #aga1 #agi1 #bej2 environmental1 #aec2 teleological but simple1 #aec1 #aed ,mechanist1 #eh1 #bjj1 #bjd1 #cea2 many evolutionists are avowed1 #cea ,mechanistic universe1 #cej ,media1 #acf ,medium1 vibrant1 #bac ,meganeura monyi ,brogn1 #aae ,meiosis1 #be1 #db1 #aeg ,melia1 #bfa ,melocrinidae1 #ib ,membrana nictitans1 #bif1 #big2 not functionless1 #big ,memory1 #bac1 #bch1 #bdb1 #bdc2 associative1 #bch2 sensitive1 #bdb1 #bdc2 sentiment1 #bch1 #bdb ,men1 #cah1 #cbe1 #cbh1 #cbi2 and apes1 link between1 #cah --intermediate between1 #cah2 fossil1 #cbe2 of ,krapina1 #cbe1 #cbh1 #cbi ,mendelism1 #c1 #bd1 #be1 #bf1 #bh1 #db1 #df1 note1 #eg1 #cdi ,mental protuberance1 #bgb ,mental states1 #bje ,merosthenic1 #bgj ,mesonephric duct1 #bha1 #bhb ,mesonephros1 #bhj1 #bha1 #bhb1 #bhd ,mesozoic1 #gc1 #ajd note1 #aah1 #aai1 #cce2 lowest series of1 #aai2 middle system of1 #aai ,metabolism1 #eg1 #aci1 #baj1 #baa1 #bbg1 #bbh2 destructive and constructive1 #acg ,metagenesis1 #abb ,metamorphosis1 #abc1 #bhc ,metamorphism1 #hi1 #abf2 of rocks1 #abf ,metanephros1 #bhj1 #bhb ,metaphysical1 #cea ,metaphysics1 #aeb1 #ahe1 #bca1 #cdi1 #cej1 #cea1 #ceb2 ,epicurian1 #aeb2 monistic1 #cdi2 vs4 physical science1 #ceb ,metaphytes1 #acf ,metazoa1 #aah ,metazoans1 #acf1 #agj1 #bhd ,meteorites1 #ahb1 #ahc ,metista1 #e1 #ei1 #acf1 #aef1 #aeg1 #aei1 #afc ,microgamete1 #aeh ,microns1 #ahc ,microrganism1 #afi1 #ahc ,microsomes1 #aci ,migrations1 #gb1 #gf1 #aab ,millennium1 #ceh ,mimicry1 #bdf ,mind1 #aie1 #aif1 #aih1 #bjc1 #bjd1 #bje1 #bjg1 #bjh1 #bji1 #baa1 #bbb1 #bbc1 #bdi2 active and passive1 #bjg2 apprehends material objects under dematerialized form1 #bbc2 a substance1 #bjg2 connotation of1 #bjc2 cannot utilize coperation of material organ in abstract conceptions1 #bbc2 frame of1 #baa2 human1 #bdi2 of man alleged to be of animal extraction1 #aie1 #aif2 phenomenalistic notion of1 #bji2 science of1 #aig2 states of1 not less real than states of matter1 #bjd2 noumenal1 #aih ,minimum1 #bch1 #cdi1 #cej2 an empirical rule1 not an axiom1 #cej2 principle of1 #bch1 #cdi1 #cej ,miocene1 #ie1 #caj1 #cbc2 ,upper1 #ie ,miracle1 definition of1 #ahg ,miraculous1 #fi1 #cea-cef1 #ceg ,mitachondria1 #adj ,mitosis1 #ei1 #ach1 #aci1 #aee ,modification1 #g1 #da1 #db1 #de1 #df1 #ea1 #gg1 #hj1 #abc1 #cjg1 #cbg1 #ccd2 adaptive1 #de1 #df1 #ea1 #hj2 environmentally-induced1 #abc2 heritable1 #db1 #de1 #cjg2 non-inheritable1 #ccd2 parallel1 #gg1 #hj2 product of variation1 #da2 of specific magnitude1 #g2 of varietal magnitude1 #g ,moeritherium1 #aae ,molars1 #cac1 #cbb2 teeth1 #cbb ,mole1 #cf1 #hj1 #bia1 #cje ,mole-cricket1 #cf1 #hj ,molecule1 #eg1 #eh1 #adc1 #add1 #afb1 #afg1 #agj1 #age1 #bjb1 #bjc2 biophoric1 #eg2 complex1 #bjb2 complex endothermic1 #afb2 living and dead1 #adc2 structure of1 #eh ,molluscs1 #aag1 #aah1 #aai1 #abc1 #bgh1 #bhc ,mongolian1 #cbd1 #cbe1 #ccd2 cossack1 #cbd ,monism1 #cej1 #cea1 #ceb1 #cei2 destructive of culture1 spirituality1 morality1 #cej2 fail to motivate ,christian morality1 #ceh2 makes ,god immanent in world1 #cei2 makes will law unto itself1 #cei2 materialistic1 #cej1 #ceb ,monist1 #cej ,monistic view vitiates artistic taste1 #ceb ,monkey1 #bgj1 #bge ,monomolecules1 #afe2 are not units1 #afe ,monotremeta1 #bif ,montana1 #ajg note ,moral consequences of failure to discriminate1 #cfj ,morality1 #ced1 #cfj2 evolutionary conception of1 #cfj ,motor-verbalist1 #bai ,morphogenetic forces1 #eh1 #bhd2 ,laws1 uniform1 #bhd ,morphogeny1 organic1 #bih ,morphology1 embryonic and adult1 #bhd ,mountain columns1 #aac ,mountains1 #aac1 #aec ,mouse1 brain of1 #cae ,moustier ,cave1 #cbi ,movements1 #bda1 #bdb2 reflex1 #bdb2 spontaneous1 #bda1 #bdb4 ,mule1 #e ,mllerian duct1 #bha ,multimolecule1 #eh1 #add1 #afb1 #afe1 #aff1 #afh1 #agj1 #agi2 are not units1 #afe2 colloidal1 #aff2 crystalloidal1 #afe1 #aff2 not a link between molecules and cells1 #agi2 structure of1 #eh ,murder1 as an experiment1 #cei ,muscles1 #bih ,mutants1 #af1 #ag1 #ah1 #ai1 #bj1 #ba1 #bb1 #bc1 #bg1 #hg2 chromosomal1 #ag1 #ba1 #bb1 #bc --balanced and unbalanced1 #ba1 #bb --balance1 odd and even1 #bb --status as 8new species0 not established1 #bc2 factorial1 #ag1 #ah1 #ai1 #bj2 pseudo1 #ag1 #bg ,mutation1 #af1 #af note1 #bf1 #db1 #hf1 #hh1 #abb1 #bfe1 #cjc1 #cje1 #cjg1 #ccd2 changes of loss1 #ah1 #dc2 chromosomal1 #ag1 #db1 #dd1 #de1 #hh2 factorial1 #ai1 #bj1 #db1 #dd1 #de1 #hh1 #cje1 #ccd --a varietal1 not a specific change2 fortuitous1 #bfe2 heritable1 #af1 #cjc1 #ccd2 pseudo1 #ag1 #db1 #hh ,mutation1 #af1 #bj1 #df2 ,theory1 #af1 #bj ,myxdema1 #bid ,nahun beds1 #ie ,natural explanations1 #fi1 #gj ,naturalism borrows moral standards1 #ceh ,natural process1 #fi1 #gd ,natural science1 #ahf ,natural ,selection1 #i1 #aa1 #ab1 #ac1 #bi1 #cj1 #aeb1 #aec1 #cje1 #cjf1 #cej2 a theory of chance1 #aa1 #cej2 has no positive efficacy1 #aec2 theory has impeded progress of science1 #ac ,nature1 #aea1 #ahe2 inorganic impotent to duplicate even laboratory synthesis1 not to speak of vital phenomena1 #aea --lacks means of self-vivification1 #ahe2 not automatic1 #aea ,nautilus1 #aah1 #bhc ,neanderthal1 #cad1 #cae1 #cag1 #cbe1 #cbf1 #cbi1 #ccj1 #cca1 #ccb1 #ccc1 #cce1 #ccg1 #cdb2 bone1 show some racial characteristics1 #cbi2 cranium1 #cca1 #ccb --capacity underestimated1 #ccc1 not ancestral to ,cro-,magnon type1 #cce2 not more ancient than modern type1 #ccg2 remains1 #cbe1 #ccb --human1 #cbe2 skull1 cranial capacity of1 #cad1 #cbe2 type of1 #ccj1 #ccb ,neanderthal ,man1 #cad1 #cae1 #cag1 #cbc1 #cbf1 #cda1 #cdb2 distinctly human1 #cdb2 a dwarf1 #cad2 ,no4 #a1 #cbc1 #cbf2 divided opinion on1 #cbd2 ,no4 #b1 skeleton1 #cbf --skull missing1 #cbf ,neanderthal type1 #cbf1 #ccj1 #ccb1 #ccc1 #ccd1 #ccf2 alleged to be distinct species1 #ccb2 alleged to be more ancient1 #ccd2 degenerate1 #ccf2 differences1 #ccd2 race1 #ccd2 no longer considered oldest type1 #ccf ,neanderthaloid1 #cbh1 #ccc1 #cda1 #cdc2 characteristics occur in modern skulls1 #ccc2 race1 #cdc2 skulls1 modern features occur in1 #ccc ,nebular1 hypothesis1 #aha ,negroes1 #ccd ,neo-,darwinism1 #aj ,neo-,kantian1 #bjc1 #bai2 phenomenalist1 #bjc ,neo-,lamarkism1 #aj1 #ab1 #ae ,neolithic1 #ccb ,neontologists1 #gf ,neotoma1 #cjg ,neo-vitalism1 #aga1 #bja1 #bjb2 postulates a unique force1 an agent 8sui generis10 #aga ,neo-vitalists1 #eh1 #bjj1 #bja2 regard vital principle as force 8sui generis10 a unique agent1 #bjj1 #bja ,nephridia1 #bhj ,neptune1 #ahd ,nerve plasm1 #bfe ,neurograms1 #bac1 #bad1 #bbb2 extended1 #bbb2 imprinted on neurons1 #bac1 #bad2 objects capable of stimulating an extended organ1 #bbb2 objects of1 endowed with concrete properties1 #bbb2 proportioned to stimuli1 #bbb2 physical basis of imagery1 #bad1 #bbb ,neurons1 #bac1 #bbb1 #cej2 sensory and central1 #bac2 utility of sensory1 #bbb ,new names for fossil duplicates of modern species1 #aai1 #abj ,new ,stone ,age1 prehistoric1 #ccg ,nihilism1 philosophical1 #cej ,nitrogen snow1 #ahc note2 reddish light of1 #ahd note ,non-cosmopolitan species1 #bhc ,non-enents1 #cji ,non-opposability of human hallux1 #ej ,non-phenomenon or substance1 #bji ,non-specialist1 when disqualified and when not1 #ahi-aia ,non-viable1 #be ,novelty1 emergent1 #cej ,nuclear components1 self-perpetuating1 #aci ,nuclear reorganization1 #aee1 #afj1 #afa1 #afb2 a restorative process1 #aee1 #afa2 means of rejuvenation1 #afa2 none in somatogenic reproduction1 #afj2 periodic1 #afb2 primitive1 #afb ,nuclear sap1 #aci ,nucleus1 #acg1 #ach1 #afa2 cellular1 #ach2 daughter1 #afa2 distributed1 #ach2 germinal1 #afa2 parent1 #afa ,nucula1 #aah ,nutrition1 a reflexive activity1 #age ,object1 #bag1 #bbc1 #bbd2 concurrence of1 extrinsic1 #bag2 indicated spiritual nature of mind1 #bbd2 7material7 abstract1 made of representation1 #bbd2 of abstract thought1 incapable of making impressions or leaving records on material receptors1 #bbc ,occipital foramen1 #bgb ,occiput1 broad1 #ccb ,ocean beds1 elevation of1 #aad1 #aae ,ocean bottoms1 #aac-aae ,ocean floor1 #aae ,octopus1 #fd nothera1 #af1 #ag1 #bg1 #bh2 gigas1 #ag2 ,lamarkiana1 #bg1 #bh sophagus1 invertebrate1 #bic ,old ,stone ,age1 #ccb1 #ccg1 #cci1 #cdj2 class of1 #ccb2 prehistoric1 #ccg ,oligocene1 #cji1 #cag ,onion-coat1 #ii1 #ajb1 #ajc1 #aji2 a convenient device1 #aji2 ,alpine1 #aji2 hypothesis of1 #ajb1 #ajc --8transcendental form of10 #ajb2 lithological and biological1 #ajb2 mineral envelopes1 #ajb2 theory1 #ii ,ontogeny1 #ci1 #gi1 #bge1 #bhe ,olites1 #gi ,opisthonephros1 #bhj1 #bhb ,opposability of simian hallux1 #ej ,opposition1 #bah1 #bai1 #bcd1 #bce2 between imagery and thought1 #bah1 #bai2 between psycho-organic and spiritual activity1 #bcd1 #bce2 entails distinction1 #bce ,orang-utan1 #cc1 #bga ,orders1 #cg ,organ1 #bbb1 #bbf1 #bgf1 #bhf1 #bhg1 #bhh1 #bib1 #bih1 #cjj1 #cjc2 embryonic1 #bgf2 functionless1 #bhf1 #bhg1 #bib2 incapable of reflection1 #bbf2 material1 cannot be effected by the supersensible1 #bbb2 nascent and rudimentary1 #bhg1 #bhh2 distinction1 arbitrary1 #bhh2 reduced1 #bhf1 #bhg2 vestigial1 #bib1 #cjj1 #cjc2 useless1 #bhf ,organelles1 #aci ,organic activity1 rigidly regulated by metabolism1 #bbh ,organic functions1 #bjc1 #bac1 #bae2 agent and subject of1 not soul alone1 #bjc2 not only functions in man1 #bae ,organic substances1 #adi1 #aej2 laboratory synthesis of1 #adi1 #aej2 not to confounded with living or organized substances1 #aej ,organisms1 #aed1 #aee1 #afc1 #bja1 #bjb1 #bjc1 #bdf2 a product of the law of ,complexity1 #afg2 multicellular1 #aee2 none subcellular1 #aed2 of some species1 syntonic1 #bdf2 participates as coefficient factor in physiological and sensory functions1 #bjc2 soul-informed1 #bjc2 unicellular1 #aed1 #afc ,organization1 #adc1 #aej2 elude art of chemist1 #aej ,order1 #bji2 ideal1 phenomenalists confuse it with real order of things1 #bji2 real1 of things1 #bji ,ordivician1 #aaa ,orientation of forces1 centrifugal and centripetal1 #agi ,origins1 #ga1 #hc1 #afa1 #bbj1 #bba1 #cfj2 biparental1 #afa2 common1 #ha --of man and brute1 #cfj2 organic1 need not be unified in space but should be in time1 #ga2 of concepts1 #bbj1 #bba ,orneau1 river1 #cbf2 valley1 #cbg ,ornithorhynchus1 #ei1 #bhg ,ornithosaurs1 #hj ,orthogenesis1 #f1 #g1 #df note1 #ec2 cannot explain adaptation1 #ec ,osmia1 #beb ,outcrop1 #ic ,overthrust1 #ih1 #ajg1 #aaj2 a triumph of modern research1 #ajg ,ovists1 #afj ,oximes1 #adh ,oxychromatin1 #aci ,oysters1 #gi ,palobotany1 #aag ,palolithic1 #cbg1 #cbh1 #ccj1 #ccc1 #cdc2 artists1 #cdc2 human remains1 #ccj2 man1 #cbh1 #ccc ,palontological argument1 #ff-abg2 defects in1 #ge1 #abd2 in abstract1 #ff-ge2 in concrete1 #ge-abg2 a theoretical construction1 #abf ,palontological evidence1 #c1 #h1 #ff1 #gd-hj1 #hc1 #hi1 #ig1 #aje1 #ajg1 #abd1 #caa1 #cab2 imperfection of1 #hi2 rated as outweighing physical evidence1 #ig1 #ajg ,palontological pedigrees1 #c1 #gf1 #gh1 #ha1 #hb1 #hd1 #abf2 definition of1 #ha2 of horse1 #gf1 #gh1 #ha1 #hb1 #abf2 camel1 #abf1 and elephant1 #abf ,palontologists1 #gf1 #hf1 #hg1 #hh1 #ia1 #aai1 #aij1 #caj1 #cac1 #cba1 #ccd1 #cdd2 incompetent to decide questions of specific origin or distinction1 #hg1 #hh1 #hi1 #ccd ,palontology1 #c1 #hb1 #hc1 #hh1 #ib1 #ie1 #if1 #aad1 #aai1 #abf1 #aie1 #caa1 #cab1 #cac1 #cdd2 facts of1 #hc1 #aie2 ignorant concerning origin of man1 #cdd2 orthodox1 #ie1 #if1 #aai ,palotherium1 #gf ,palozoic1 #gc1 #ajh1 #aag1 #aah1 #abd note1 #abe1 #cce ,palingenesis1 #bgg1 #bhh ,pan-,pacific ,conferences1 #cdd1 #cdf ,panspermia1 #ahb ,parallelism1 #eg1 #eh2 vs4 divergence1 #eg ,paramcium1 #ach1 #afa1 #agh2 aurelia1 #ach ,parasites1 #df1 #ec ,parasitism1 #eb ,parathyroids1 #bib ,parent cell1 #aef ,parthenogenesis1 #aeh1 #aei1 #afj1 #afb2 artificial1 #aei1 #afj --not violation of law of genetic continuity1 #aei1 #afj ,pathology1 #ada ,patient1 #agf1 #agg ,pear-tree1 #f1 #hh ,pebrine1 #dd ,pecking instinct of chicks1 #bef ,pecten1 #aah ,pedigrees1 of genera1 #hd ,pelopus1 #bfj ,penguin1 wings of1 #bhg ,pentacrinus1 #aai ,perception1 #bjh1 #bab1 #bec2 an act of1 #bjh2 of personality1 not personality1 #bab2 sensory1 #bec ,percepts1 objective1 #bce2 sensory1 #bai ,periodicity1 #ef2 of elements1 #ef2 families of elements1 #ef ,peri ,psyches1 ,aristotle's1 #aif1 #aig1 #bae ,perissodactyla1 #gh ,permian1 #ajd1 #aah ,persistence1 #aaf1 #aai1 #abc2 cannot be subsumed under same principles as transmutations1 #abc2 its significance intensified by current theories1 #abc2 of types1 #aai2 of unchanged types1 #aaf ,persistent types1 generic and specific1 #abc ,personal identity1 sense of1 #bab ,personality1 #bje1 #baa1 #bab1 #bch2 a unitary and uniform reality1 #bab2 alternating1 #baa2 based on unchanging principle1 #bab2 perception of1 #bab ,pessimism1 #cee1 #ceg ,petit-,puymoyen1 industry of1 #cca ,phophytin1 #adg ,pharyngeal arches and clefts1 #bgh1 #bgi ,phase1 reversal of1 #afh1 #afi ,phenomena1 #bjh1 #bji2 phenomenalists' substantialization of1 #bji ,phenomenalism1 #bjg1 #bjh1 #baa1 #bab2 a purely academic philosophy1 #baa2 identifies mind with 8thought stream10 #bab ,phenomenalistic school1 #bjf ,phenomenalists1 #bjc1 #bje1 #bjf1 #bjg2 inconsistently admit of physical phenomena while denying subject of psychic phenomena1 #bjf1 #bjg ,phenotype1 #e1 #ai1 #be1 #bg1 #da1 #dc1 #fh1 #abc ,philology1 #cci2 proves primitive man to have been civilized1 not barbaric1 #cci ,philosophers1 #bbj ,philosophy1 #ahi1 #aij1 #aie2 in rle of critic1 #ahi2 in rle of sycophant1 #aij2 materialistic1 #aie2 relation to science1 #ahi ,phonetic elements1 #bdf ,photosynthesis1 #adf ,phycocyanin1 #adi ,phylogeny1 #ci1 #hj1 #abb1 #bge1 #bgf1 #bhd1 #bhe1 #cjh2 human1 #bhe1 #cjh2 palontological1 #aae ,phylum1 #cg1 #ch1 #fi1 #aaf ,physical impressions1 #bac ,physical science1 #ceb1 #ced ,physicochemical action1 reducible to interaction between unequally energized masses and particles1 #age ,physicochemical forces1 executive factors in vital operations1 #bja ,physiology1 #cej ,phytol1 #adg ,picotee sweet pea1 #ai ,piltdown skull1 #cbj ,pineal eye1 #bib ,pineal gland1 #bib1 #bic1 #bie2 not functionless1 #bic ,pioneer colonies1 #aaj ,pithecanthropus1 distinctly simian1 #cdb ,pithecanthropus erectus1 #cji1 #cac-cah1 #cdb2 cranial capacity of1 #cad2 a giant ape1 #cae2 existing casts inaccurate1 #cah ,pituitary body1 #bib1 #bic ,pituitrin1 #bid ,placenta1 #bgf ,planarian1 #bgh ,planetesimal1 hypothesis1 #aha ,plantigrade1 #bgb ,plastids1 #aci1 #ada ,platycrinidae1 #ib ,platyrhine monkeys1 #bhg ,pleistocene1 #gh1 #ajj1 #ajd1 #cac1 #cai1 #cbj1 #cbe2 ,lower1 #cac1 #cbj2 ,middle1 #cai ,pleurotomaria1 #aah ,plica1 semilunaris1 #big ,pliocene1 #gh1 #ie1 #cji1 #cac1 #cag1 #cbc2 ,upper1 #cji1 #cac1 #cag ,pluteus1 #aei ,polar body1 second1 #aei ,polariscope1 #add ,polymorphism1 #abb ,polynesians1 #cbe ,polynuclear condition1 #ach ,polyphemus1 the ,cyclops1 #bic ,pompilids1 #bdg1 #bdh1 #bfc1 #bfd ,pompilius1 #bdg1 #bfa ,popular trust not to be abused1 #cde1 #cdf ,postauricular muscles1 #cjd1 #cje ,post-glacial time1 #bhi ,preadaptations1 #df1 #dg1 #eb1 #ec1 #fc1 #abd1 #bgi2 adventitious appearance of1 #df1 #dg2 divergent1 #bgi2 entail modifications of specific magnitude1 #dg2 evolution as 8natural explanation0 of1 #ec2 inherited1 #dg ,pre-,cambrian1 #ajj1 #aaf1 #aah1 #abe2 terranes1 #abe --extension great1 #abe ,preformation1 #c1 #afj ,prehension1 #ej1 #bga1 #bgb ,prehistoric1 #ccg ,prehuman1 arboreal stage1 #cji1 #bag ,presupposition1 latent in materialistic logic1 #ahf ,pre-tertiary1 #cab ,primates1 #cjh ,primitive man1 #cch1 #cdb1 #cdc2 not irrational1 #cdb1 #cdc2 not a savage1 #cch ,primula1 #ai ,principles1 #aga1 #agb2 entitive and dynamic1 #aga1 #agb ,priocnemis1 flavicornis1 #bdh ,priority1 #gf2 a 8sine qua non0 condition of ancestry1 #gf ,process1 #bjf1 #bji1 #bbe2 divorced from agents1 #bji2 of reflection entails identity of observer and observed1 #bbe2 subjectless and sourceless1 of phenomenalists1 #bjf ,prognathic face1 #ccb ,prognathism1 #cbe1 #ccj1 #ccc1 #cda2 of upper jaw accentuated1 #cda 8,progress10 #cee1 #cei2 modern1 #cei2 of science1 #cee ,progression1 #ej1 #bga1 #bgb1 #cag2 bipedal1 #bgb2 modes of1 #bga1 #cag ,prehistory1 undocumented1 unreliable1 #cdj ,pronephric duct1 #bha ,pronephros1 #bhj1 #bha note ,prophylaxis1 #cef ,propliopithecus1 #cji1 #caa ,prosthenic1 #bga ,protein1 #adj1 #add1 #ade1 #adg1 #aea2 multimolecule of1 #adj ,proterotheres1 #gh ,proterotheriid1 #gh ,proterozoic1 #ajd note1 #aag ,protista1 #e1 #ei1 #acf1 #ach1 #aef1 #aeg1 #afc2 polynuclear condition not rare among1 #ach ,protoplasm1 #ada1 #adc1 #add1 #aea1 #afj1 #afa1 #age1 #aha2 dead1 #adc2 how reinvigorated1 #afj1 #afa2 invisible structure1 #ada2 not a chemical compound but a complex system1 #adb1 #adc2 persistent specificity of1 #add2 ultramicroscopic structure of1 #adc2 visible1 a picture of1 #ada ,protococcus1 #aea2 viridis1 #aea ,protons1 #ajc1 #agd ,protophytes1 #ace1 #acf ,protoplasmic architecture1 #agd ,protozoa1 #aag1 #aah1 #ace1 #acf1 #agj ,psyche1 #agi1 #bjj ,psychic1 #aih1 #bje1 #bcj1 #bcc2 and physical dualism of ,descartes1 #aih2 functions1 #bje1 #bcc --of organic type1 #bcc2 states1 correlated with organic states1 #bcj ,psychology1 #aif1 #aig1 #aih1 #bjd1 #bje1 #bjh1 #baa1 #bce1 #bcf1 #cfa2 alone competent to pronounce origin of man1 #aif2 as science of behavior1 #aih2 human1 #bce2 positive1 #cfa2 reveals psychic activities as modification of abiding ego1 #bje2 sole science that studies man on his distinctively human side1 #aif2 vulgar1 #bcf2 without a soul1 #bjh1 #bcf ,psychophysical1 #aih1 #bjf1 #bcf2 dualism1 #aih2 parallelism1 #bjf1 #bcf ,psychosis1 #bac1 #bce1 #bee1 organic1 #bac1 #bce --has for agent and recipient the psycho-organic composite1 #bac2 psycho-organic1 #bee ,physiological process not reducible to mere physicochemical reaction1 #aii ,potency1 #aii ,purpose1 #aa1 #bdi1 #bee1 #beh1 #bei1 #bih2 ,divine1 #bdi2 unconscious of1 #bee1 #bei ,purposiveness1 #bdh1 #bdi1 #bfb2 no intelligence1 #bfb2 objective1 #bdh1 #bdi2 unconscious1 #bdh ,quadrumana1 #bif ,qasr-el-,sagha1 #aae ,quaternary1 #ih1 #cai2 ,early1 #cai ,races1 #ccd1 #cdb ,radiation1 pressure of1 #ahc ,radioactive elements1 #ef ,radio-activity1 #aah ,radiolaria1 #aah ,radiometer1 #ahc ,radius1 shows curvature1 #cbg ,ragweed1 #af ,raft of ,red ,river1 #aed ,random ,assortment1 #bg1 #db2 of chromosomes1 #bg ,ratio1 body-brain1 #cag ,rays1 #aai ,reactants1 #bji ,reaction1 #bdc1 #beb2 elementary1 motor1 #beb2 historical basis of #bdc ,reaction-systems1 #bf1 #bjd ,reason1 #bce1 #bdj1 #bdd1 #bde1 #bei1 #bfg1 #cdc2 not evolved1 #bfg2 sole means of human preservation1 #cdc2 superorganic power of1 #bdd1 #bde ,reasoning1 #bjg1 #bbj ,recapitulation1 #dh1 #bge1 #bgh1 #bgi1 #bhe2 embryonic1 #dh1 #bge1 #bgh1 #bgi ,receptors1 #eg1 #bac1 #bbb2 extended1 necessary to perceive material stimuli1 #bbb ,recessive chin1 #caa ,recognition1 #bjg ,recombination1 #bg1 #db2 chromosomal1 #bg2 factorial1 #bg ,reconstructions1 #hi1 #ij1 #ib1 #cba2 of fossil skulls1 #cba2 psychological motivation of1 #hi1 #ij2 scientific1 #hi1 #ij1 #ib ,recuperation1 autonomous1 #afc 8,recurrent faunas10 #aaj ,reduction1 #db1 #aeg ,reflection1 #bbd1 #bbe1 #bbf1 #bdj1 #bef2 a fact1 #bbe1 #bbf2 alleged impossibility of1 #bbe2 only possible to spiritual agent1 #bbd2 undeniable fact of1 #bbe ,reflexes1 innate and conditioned1 #bch ,reflexion1 #bbe ,reflexive orientation1 #agd1 #agf2 of energies1 no living being1 #agf2 of forces in living organism1 #agd2 in living being1 #bja ,regression of organ1 #cje ,regulation1 #bec2 intelligent1 #bec2 sensory1 #bec ,rejuvenation1 #aee1 #afa1 #afc2 three kinds of1 #afa ,rejuvenescence1 #afj1 #afa1 #afb ,reign of ,terror1 #ceg2 ,french1 #ceg2 ,russian1 #ceg ,reindeer1 #ccb ,re-integration of atoms1 impossible1 #afc ,relationships1 #bed2 causal and telic1 #bed2 supersensible1 #bed ,religion1 #ced1 #cfa2 only sanction of morality1 #cfa ,remains1 ,javanese1 #cah ,repair-work1 #bea1 #beb ,reproduction1 #e1 #bd1 #be1 #bf1 #ef1 #fh1 #fi1 #acg1 #ada1 #aef1 #aeg1 #aeh1 #aei1 #afa2 biparental 7bisexual71 #bd1 #aeh2 cytogenic1 #aef1 #aeg1 #aeh1 #aei1 #afa2 link between life-cycles1 #aef2 nonsexual1 #aef--three kinds of1 #aef1 #aeg2 reducible to cell-division1 #afc2 sexual1 #be1 #aef1 #aeg --autosexual1 #aeh1 #aei --bisexual1 #aeh --unisexual1 #aeh somatogenic1 #aef1 #aeg1 #aeh1 #aei1 #afj1 #afa --limited1 #afa --no rejuvenation in1 #afa ,reptiles1 #fa1 #hj1 #bha1 #bhb1 #bif1 #cja2 flying1 #hj2 palozoic and modern1 #bif ,resemblance1 #ch1 #ed1 #eh1 #fc1 #gi1 #hj1 #bhd1 #cdj1 #cda2 compatible with separate ancestry1 #fc1 #hj --even specific1 does not entail common origin1 #gi1 #hj2 family1 #ed1 #ef2 generic1 #ch1 #ef2 heterogenetic1 #hj2 ordinal1 #ef2 phyletic1 #ef2 specific1 #ch1 #ef1 #gi2 to modern man1 #cdj1 #cda ,responsibility1 #bcb1 #cfj1 #cfa2 harmful consequences1 #cfj2 implies mastery of will over its own actions1 #bcb2 of evolutionary propagandists1 #cfj1 #cfa ,resultants1 #bcc note1 #bcd note ,resurrection1 natural basis of1 #bjb ,reversion1 #ag1 #cjc1 #cjd1 #cje2 to type1 #cje ,rhinoceros etruscus1 #cai2 merckii1 #cbi2 tichorhinus1 #cbf1 #cbi1 #ccb ,rhodesian ,man1 #cdj1 #cda2 may be modern1 #cda ,rhynchonella1 #aah ,right-handedness1 human1 #bhh2 duration of1 #bij ,river drift1 #cbg ,rocks1 #ff1 #ic1 #if1 #ajc1 #ajd1 #ajg1 #aah1 #abj1 #aha1 #big1 #cce2 composition and mineral contents disregarded in classification1 #if2 crystalline1 #ajd1 #aha2 fossiliferous1 #ajd1 #ajg1 #aah1 #aha1 #bgi1 #cce2 ,european classification of1 #ajg2 groups of1 #abj2 igneous1 #aha2 metamorphic1 #ajd2 sedimentary1 #ff1 #ic1 #if1 #ajg1 #aha2 systems of1 #ajc ,rubidium1 isotopes of1 #agc ,rudiment1 #bic1 #big1 #cja1 #cjb2 ontogenetic1 #cja1 #cjb2 phylogenetic1 #cja1 #cjb ,rudimentary1 #bii ,rudimentary organs1 #bhf1 #bia1 #bic1 #bih1 #cje2 criticism of1 #bhf2 evolutionary argument from1 #bhf2 ontogenetic explanation of1 #bih2 phylogenetic1 #bih --explanation of1 #bhf ,running birds1 #aad1 #cje ,s-,r bonds1 #bjd ,salamander1 #bdh ,saurians1 #fj ,savagery1 not prior to civilization1 #ccg ,savages1 descended from civilized ancestry not vice versa1 #cch ,scandinavia1 #aaj ,scepticism1 #aih logic of1 #aih ,scholastics1 #aia1 #bbe ,scholastic1 theory of origin of concepts1 #bbj ,science1 #ahh1 #cjd1 #cei2 as religion1 #cei2 gives no heed to consequences1 #cfj2 its attitude towards philosophy1 #ahh2 sham1 #cjd ,scientists1 #cdd1 #cdh2 many not satisfied with 8evidence0 for human evolution1 #cdd2 fallibility of1 #cdh ,scientific questions1 decided by evidence1 not by authority1 #cdd ,scotland1 #ajg ,sea-anemone1 #bfa ,sea floor1 #aac ,sea-urchin1 #aai1 #adj2 egg of1 #adj ,second causes1 #eb1 #ga2 efficacy finite1 #ga ,sediment1 #ic1 #ajc1 #abe2 primordial1 #abe2 universal layer of1 #ajc ,seedlings1 #afa ,segregation1 #be ,selection1 #aa1 #ab1 #ac1 #fe1 #aeb1 #aec1 #cjf2 artificial1 #aeb --not on a par with natural selection1 #aeb2 intelligent and fortuitous1 #aeb1 #aec2 principle1 #aa1 #ab1 #ac1 #fe2 values1 #cjf ,self1 #bje ,self-fertilization1 #aei ,self-observation1 #bbd1 #bbe2 impossible for an organ1 #bbf2 power of1 cannot reside in material organ1 #bbd1 #bbe2 requires a spiritual principle1 #bbe ,self-regulation1 #agd1 #agf1 #agi ,self-sacrifice1 rendered meaningless1 #cef ,semilunar fold1 #bif1 #big ,senescence1 #bf1 #aeg1 #afj1 #afb2 an inherent tendency of living matter1 #afj2 tendency practically if not actually universal1 #afb ,sensationists1 #bah ,sensations1 #bji1 #bbg1 #bdb2 intensity of1 #bbg ,sense1 #bjd1 #bbg1 #bbh1 #bce1 #bed1 #cej2 debilitated by powerful stimulus1 #bbg2 external1 #bjd2 organic nature of1 #bbg2 their power of reaction temporarily inhibited by process of repair1 #bbg1 #bbh ,sense organs1 #bac1 #bea ,sense-perception1 #aii1 #bjc1 #bad1 #bai1 #bbj1 #bbg1 #bca1 #bce2 a brain function #aii2 a psycho-organic function1 #bad2 concerned with factual reality of existence1 #bai2 involves a decomposition of neural tissue1 #bbg2 not independent of body1 #bbg2 organic function1 #bjc ,sensibility1 organic1 #bdd1 #bde ,sensori-motor1 #bea ,sensory functions of the nervous system1 #aii ,sensual appetites1 exhaustible1 #bcb ,sensual emotion1 organic function1 #bjc ,sequence1 #ajj1 #ajg1 #ajh2 inverted or 8wrong10 #ajg1 #ajh2 no invariable order of1 #ajj2 of fossiliferous strata1 #ajj2 8wrong10 #ajg1 #ajg note ,serum1 #ae ,sexual 7gametic7 incompatibility1 #d1 #e1 #ai1 #bj1 #ba ,sharks1 #hj1 #aai1 #bif 8,shell-craters10 #cdg ,shoots1 #afj ,sight1 #bag2 intrinsic dependence on eye1 #bag2 extrinsic dependence on object1 #bag ,silurian1 #ib1 #ajf1 #aaa1 #aah2 ,middle1 #ib1 #ajf ,simia satyrus1 #cb ,simple explanations not necessarily true1 #cej ,siwalik beds1 #ie1 #caj ,skeleton1 #fj1 #fa1 #cca2 human1 #cca ,skulls1 #cbh1 #cbi1 #cca1 #ccc1 #cdj1 #cda2 fossil1 #cc1 #cda2 human1 #cca ,skull cap1 #bga1 #cac1 #cad1 #cbd1 #cbh ,sleep1 would interrupt process of relaying consciousness from thought to thought1 #bab1 #bac ,sloth1 #eb ,snapdragon1 #hh ,social inequalities1 artificial laws for benefit of rich1 #cfa ,socialism1 #ceg1 #cfj2 ,marxian1 #ceg2 ,scientific1 #ceg ,sodium1 #afe1 #aff2 bromide1 #afe2 chloride1 #afe1 #aff2 iodide1 #afe ,solemn burial1 #cca1 #ccb1 #cdc2 most ancient instances1 #ccb ,solutreans1 #ccc ,soma1 #ac1 #ei1 #cjc ,somatella1 #ei ,somatic cells1 #ac1 #ad1 #ag1 #acf1 #aef1 #afc ,somites1 #bhj ,sophism1 ,comte's like that of ,zeno1 #bbf ,soul1 #agb1 #agi1 #aic1 #aid1 #aig1 #aih1 #bjj1 #bja1 #bjb1 #bjc1 #bje1 #bjf1 #bji1 #baj1 #baa1 #baf1 #bfh1 #caa1 #cej1 #cfa2 definition of1 #bjj2 a 8formative power0 and 8integrating0 and unifying principle1 #bjj1 #baa2 a vital entelechy1 #baj2 as revealed in biology and psychology1 #bje2 consubstantial with matter1 #bjb2 differs in kind1 not merely in degree from bestial soul1 #aid2 discarded by ,descartes1 #aig2 discarded by scientific psychology1 #cei2 formal principle of life1 #bjc2 functional1 #bjc1 #bjf1 #bji --cannot be primary principle of life1 #bjf2 name1 not reality of1 rejected1 #bjj2 not a complete entity1 #bja2 primary ground of life1 #bjf2 rejected in dynamic1 not in entitive sense1 #bjj1 #bja2 spiritual1 not a product of evolution1 #aic1 #baf1 #bfh --originates by a creative act1 #aic1 #bfh2 subject of psychology1 #aig2 subsistent in man1 #bjb2 substantial1 #bjc1 #bji2 term alleged to be meaningless1 #bjj ,specialism1 advantages and disadvantages of1 #ahi ,species1 #c1 #d1 #e1 #f1 #ag1 #ai1 #bf1 #cg1 #ch1 #gd1 #ge1 #gh1 #hj1 #hc1 #hd1 #hf1 #hg1 #aaj1 #aaa1 #aab1 #aai1 #abj-abc1 #aca1 #aeg1 #bef1 #beg1 #cab1 #cac1 #cbj1 #ccd1 #cdb2 definition of1 #d2 change of1 #d1 #f2 differentiation and multiplication of1 #aca2 difficulty of distinguishing1 #abj-abc2 elementary1 #ag2 extinct and extant1 #abj-abc1 #ccd2 extinct1 precarious basis for time-scale1 #ccd2 formation as contrasted with transformation of1 #gd1 #ge1 #aca2 fossil1 #c1 #d1 #hc1 #ib1 #abj1 #abb1 #cab1 #cac2 intermediate1 absence of1 #hj1 #hc1 #hd1 #ccd2 intersterility of1 #d1 #e1 #bf1 #ch2 only one human1 #cdb2 persistent1 #abc2 syngamy1 an essential requisite of1 #e ,species-by-species method1 #hg ,spectral analysis of constitution of sun1 #baf ,spectroscope1 #add ,speech1 bestial1 #bde1 #bdf ,sperm1 #aef1 #aeh1 #aei1 #afj2 activation by means of1 #aei ,spermists1 #afj ,sphex gryphus 7,sm71 #bfa ,spiders1 #beg ,spiral cleavage1 #bgh ,spirit1 #aid1 #caa2 definition of1 #aid ,spiritual1 #bjf ,spiritualism1 #bjb1 #bcj1 #bca2 ,aristotelian1 #bcj1 #bca --admits direct dependence of lower psychic functions on organism1 #bcj --admits indirect dependence of higher psychic functions upon organism1 #bca2 ,cartesian1 #bcj2 destroyed by facts of physiological psychology1 #bcj2 hylomorphic1 #bjb2 of ,aristotle1 #bjb2 psychophysical of ,descartes1 #bjb1 #bjc ,spirituality1 #bjc1 #cea2 excludes co-agency of organism1 #bjc2 of human soul1 #cea ,spiritual representations1 #bba ,spleen1 #cja ,splitters1 #cg ,splitting1 #aba ,spontaneous generation1 #aca1 #acb1 #acc1 #acf1 #adb1 #adh1 #adi1 #afg1 #agi1 #ahb1 #ahe1 #ahf2 defined1 #aca-acc2 antiquity of1 #acc2 old and new exception of1 #afg2 philosophical 8proof0 of1 #ahe ,spontogenesis1 an outlawed hypothesis1 #afd ,spores1 #acd1 #acf1 #aef1 #aha2 bacterial1 #aha ,sporulation1 #aef1 #aeg ,springopora1 #aah ,spy1 #cbi1 #ccj1 #ccc2 bones1 #cbi2 crania1 capacity underestimated1 #ccj ,spy remains1 #cai1 #cbe1 #cbf1 #cbg1 #cbi1 #ccj1 #ccb2 skeletons of ,no4 #a and ,no4 #b1 #cbg ,squatting1 a habit of savage races1 #cbh ,squirrel1 #bfj ,starfish1 #adj1 #aed1 #chb2 egg of1 #adj2 symmetry of1 #aed ,states1 #bjc1 #bjh2 conscious or psychic1 #bjc1 #bjh2 mental1 active and passive1 #bjh2 of matter1 not more real1 #bjc ,statistics1 moral1 #cfa ,stems1 #afj ,stentor1 #agd ,sterility1 interspecific1 #e1 #ba1 #ch ,sterilization1 #acd1 #ace ,stimulators1 #bdc ,stimulus1 #bbg1 #bbh ,stizus ruficornis1 #bdg ,stock1 #caj1 #caa2 hylobatic and troglodyte1 #caj1 #caa2 pithecoid1 #caa ,stone implements1 #cbi1 #cca1 #ccd1 #cdj1 #cdb2 characteristic1 unsafe basis for time-scale1 #ccd ,stratification1 #ajb2 scheme of1 universal1 #ajb2 synchronous deposition of1 different in mineral content1 #ajb ,stratigraphers1 #ajf ,stratigraphic1 #aja1 #ajb1 #ajg2 continuity1 #aja2 facts1 #ajg2 horizons1 #aja2 sequence1 #aja --invariable order of1 #ajb ,stratigraphy1 #ic ,strata1 #ff1 #hc1 #hg1 #ib-if1 #ajb1 #ajc1ajh1 #aji1 #aaf1 #aai1 #abj1 #abe2 classification of1 #ajc2 concrete sequence of1 #aji2 dated by fossils and fossils by strata1 #id2 fossiliferous1 #ib1 #if1 #ajb1 #aji1 #aaf1 #aai --classification of1 #aai --,european classification of1 #ajb2 how characterized1 #if2 intervening1 skipped1 #abj2 mineral1 #ajb2 substitution of fossiliferous for lithological1 #ajc2 substitution of fossiliferous for mineral1 #ajc2 wrong order of1 #ajh2 8younger0 and 8older10 #ajh1 #aaf ,strontium1 isotopes of1 #agc ,structures1 #abb1 #bhd2 constant and adaptive1 #abb2 distinction influenced by personal equation1 #abb2 embryonic1 undifferentiated1 #bhd2 homologous and adaptive1 #abb ,struggles for existence1 #bia ,sturgeons1 #aai ,sub-archan beginnings of life impenetrable1 #abf ,subject1 #bje1 #bjg1 #bjh2 abiding1 of our thoughts1 feelings and desires1 #bje2 active1 #bjh2 of thought1 active1 #bjg ,subjective abstractions1 phenomenalist objectivation of1 #bji ,subjectless thought1 an abstraction1 #bji ,submicron1 #adj1 #ahc note ,submicroscopic dimensions1 no obstacle to manifestation of vital phenomena1 #agj ,submicroscopic organisms show genetic continuity1 reproductiveness and typical vital power1 #afi1 #agj ,subspecies1 #ccd1 #cdb ,substages1 #if1 #ajc ,substance1 #bji ,substantial composite of body and soul1 #bjc ,succession1 #ge1 #gf2 to be distinguished from filiation1 #ge2 not descent1 #ge1 #gf ,sunlight1 once richer in actinic rays1 #adh ,superciliary ridges1 #bgb ,superorganic1 #bdj ,superorganic functions1 #bad1 #bbg2 have soul as their exclusive agent and recipient1 #bad ,superorganic functions1 soul alone active cause and receptive subject1 #bjc ,supernatural1 #ahf1 #ahg2 defined1 #ahg ,supernumerary1 #cjc1 #cjd1 #cjf2 mammary glands1 #cjd2 organs1 #cjc1 #cjd ,superposition1 #ic1 #aja1 #aaa2 as a criterion of comparative antiquity1 #ic2 criterion of1 confined to local areas1 #aja --not available for correlation of strata in different localities1 #aja2 only safe means of distinguishing between spatial and chronological distribution1 #aja1 #aaa2 restricted to local areas1 #ic ,suppression of organs1 #cje ,sweden1 #bhi ,syllogisms1 of no avail against facts1 #bbf ,symbiosis1 #eb1 #abd ,symbiotes1 #df1 #ec ,synapsis1 #ag1 #be ,syngamy1 #e1 #be1 #aef1 #aeg-afa2 essential to biparental inheritance1 #afj2 means of rejuvenation1 #afa2 qualification of a true species1 #e ,synthesis1 chemical1 spontaneous and artificial1 #aea1 #aeb ,systems1 #if1 #aja1 #ada1 #adb1 #aea2 colloidal1 #adb2 complete polyphasic1 #adb2 how determined1 #if2 of rocks1 #if2 of strata1 #aja2 polyphasic1 #ada2 protoplasmic1 #ada1 #adb2 simple1 #aea ,systematist1 #df1 #aba ,tactisms1 #bjd ,tactualist1 #bai ,taenia1 #bdh ,taiga1 #ia ,tarantula1 #bdg1 #bfc ,tasmanian blacks1 #cbe ,tautomerism1 #bjb ,taxonomic questions1 #ccd ,taxonomist1 #abh ,taxonomy1 #cf1 #cg1 #ch1 #gg1 #aja1 #aba1 #abb1 #abc1 #cbj2 fossil1 #aja1 #abb --basis of correlation1 #aja --arbitrary and unreliable1 #abb2 homology1 basis of1 #cf2 influence of palontology1 #gg2 need of revision in1 #aba1 #abc ,teleological1 #bbe ,teleology1 #aed1 #bdj1 #bdh1 #bdi1 #bei1 #bfg2 a material expression of intelligence1 #bei2 does not entail vibrant intelligence1 #bei2 its combination with sentient consciousness1 #bdj2 of organisms1 #aed2 of artefacts1 #aed2 psychic implication of1 #aed2 unconscious1 #bdj ,teleosts1 #abj ,telic1 #aej1 #bdi2 phenomena of nature1 #bdi ,terebratulina1 striata1 #aah1 #abj2 caput serpentis1 #aah ,termitomyia1 #df ,termitoxenia ,heimi1 #dh ,tertiary1 #gb1 #hb1 #ii1 #ajj1 #ajd1 #aji1 #aaa1 #aab1 #aac1 #aah1 #aed1 #bgj1 #cjh1 #caa2 ancestor1 #cab2 ,man1 #aed ,tertiary envelopes of eggs1 #cjj ,tethelin1 #bid ,tethys1 #aji ,tetraploid race1 #bc1 #de2 origin of1 not yet observed1 #bc ,tetraploidy1 #bb1 #bc1 #dd ,thigh1 bone1 #caf1 #cag ,third eyelid1 #bif1 #big ,third ,interglacial ,period1 latter half of1 #cca ,thoatherium1 #gh ,thought1 #bah-bbb1 #bbg1 #bbi1 #bcj1 #bcc2 and imagery1 concomitant but incommensurable1 #bai2 digs below phenomenal surface1 #bai2 distinguished from imagery1 #bah1 #bai2 intellectual1 steady1 lucid and continuous1 #bbi2 not function of material organism1 #bcc2 power does not always degenerate with old age1 #bcj2 presupposes imagery1 #bba2 proceeds with complete ease after initial exertion of imagination1 #bbi2 rational1 #bbb1 #bbd1 #bca1 #bcc --has spiritual soul for source and subject1 #bcc --reflective1 #bbd --spiritual1 #bbb --superorganic function of1 #bca2 reflective1 a superorganic function1 #bbg2 requires substrate of sensible images1 #bbj --on which it is objectively dependent1 #bbb2 some in all individuals1 #bai2 spiritual1 #bbb2 untranslatable into adequate imagery1 #bai ,thrust faults1 #ajg ,thrust planes like bedding planes1 #ajh ,thymus1 #bii1 #cjj1 #cja1 #cjb2 an ontogenetic rudiment1 #cja1 #cjb ,thyroid glands1 #bib1 #bid1 #bie1 #cja ,thyroxin1 #bid ,time-value1 #ge1 #hb1 #hc1 #hd1 #ie1 #if1 #aja2 of geological formations1 dubious1 #ge2 of index fossils1 #ie1 #if --affords no basis for scientific certainty1 #aja ,tissue1 lymphatic1 #cja ,tissue cells1 #ac1 #ad1 #acf1 #aef ,tonsils1 #cja ,tools1 use of1 by animals1 #bfa ,trachelocerca1 #ach ,training1 #bdd1 #bde1 #bef ,transformism1 #c1 #d1 #f1 #af1 #bd1 #be1 #cb1 #dj1 #dc1 #eb1 #ec1 #ee1 #ef1 #ei1 #fa1 #fg1 #fi-gb1 #ge1 #hj1 #hd1 #aji1 #aag1 #abc1 #abd1 #abf1 #abg1 #aca1 #bfc1 #bfh1 #cdc2 definition of1 #c2 impotent to explain origin of intelligence1 #baf1 #bcc note1 #bfc2 interpretation1 not corollary1 of fossil facts1 #abf2 monophyletic1 #fi1 #gj2 8natural0 explanation of homology1 #eb2 proofs for1 empirical1 aphoristic1 and aposterioristic1 #ee1 #ef2 rests on personal belief rather than on facts1 #abg2 ultra-partisans of1 #cdc2 unconcerned with origin of life1 #aca2 unifies origins in time1 but not in space1 #fi ,transformist1 #ch ,transmutation1 #f1 #bh1 #ce1 #dj1 #ej1 #fe1 #fi1 #gj1 #ga1 #gc1 #abc1 #aic ,trial and error1 #bda1 #bdc ,triassic1 #aah1 #aai ,trilobites1 #ajj1 #aag ,triploidy1 #ba1 #bb ,troglodyte1 #cd1 #ej1 #cad1 type1 #cad ,troglodytes niger1 #cc1 #cad ,tropisms1 #bjd ,tubercule of ,darwin1 not homologous with apex of horse's ear1 #cjc ,tubers1 #afj ,tubules1 nephridial or excretory1 #bhj ,types1 #ed1 #ee1 #ff1 #hc1 #hd1 #ib1 #aaf-abj1 #abc1 #abd1 #ada1 #cbh1 #cbi1 #ccd1 #cce1 #ccf2 ,ancestral1 #ib1 #aag1 #bgf2 annectant1 #ib2 approximation in1 #ff2 common ancestral1 #hc2 ,cr-,magnon1 #ccb1 #ccd1 #cce2 no evidence of its descent from ,neanderthal type1 #ccd2 generalized1 #ed1 #ee1 #ha1 #hd2 are abstractions1 #ed1 #ee2 generic1 #aaf1 #aag2 persistence of1 #aah1 #abc2 ,grimaldi1 #ccb2 intergradent1 #hc2 invertebrate1 #aag2 modern1 #aaf1 #abj1 #ccd2 ,neanderthaloid1 #cbi1 #cce2 persistent1 #aaf2 persistence of1 #aai2 phyletic1 #aaf1 #aag2 permanence of1 #aah2 specific1 #aaf1 #ada --persistence of1 #aah1 #abc2 fossil doctrine of their invariable sequence1 #ajd1 #cab ,ultramicron1 #add1 #afh2 destitute of reproductive power1 #afh2 may not be natural unit1 #afh2 of colloidal solutions1 #afh ,ultramicroscope1 #adj1 #add2 limit of1 #adj ,ultraspiritualism of ,descartes1 #aii1 #bjb ,ultra-violet rays1 #adh1 #ahd ,unchange1 not explained by theory of exchange1 #abc ,understanding1 #bce ,ungulates1 #gh1 #hb2 fossil1 #hb ,uniformitarianism1 #fg1 #fh ,uniformity of nature1 #adi1 #ahf2 only justification for reconstruction of the past1 #adi2 principle of1 #afi ,union of soul and body1 according to ,descartes1 #aih1 #aii ,units1 #add1 #afb1 #afc1 #aff1 #afg1 #afh1 #agj1 #agd-agg1 #aii-bja2 difference between1 #agj2 inorganic1 #add1 #afc1 #aff1 #agj1 #agd1 #age1 #agf1 #agg1 #bja --and living1 #agj1 #age-agg --incapable of other than transitive action1 #agd1 #agg2 living and non-living1 #aii1 #bjj2 natural1 #afh2 new1 of life to be discovered1 #afg2 of nature1 non-living1 #afb1 #afc ,universe1 ,stone ,book of1 #abg ,uranium1 #adf ,urea1 #agc ,ureter1 #bhb ,uroleptus mobilis1 #ach1 #afa ,urosthenic1 #bgj ,ursus spelaeus1 #cbf1 #cbi ,use1 #bia ,utility1 #bia ,valence1 #afe2 atomic1 #afe2 molecular 7residual71 #afe ,variation1 #i1 #ah1 #dj1 #da1 #db1 #de1 #fc1 #fd1 #hh1 #cjc2 agencies of1 #db2 cause of modification1 #da2 converges and diverges1 #fc1 #fd2 fluctuational1 #i1 #cjc2 heritable1 #db2 intra-specific1 #dc2 mutational1 a change of loss1 #ah2 non-inheritable1 #db2 process of diversifying1 #dj1 #de2 trans-specific1 #dc1 #hh --no experimental evidence of1 #de ,varieties1 #ccd1 #cdb ,vault1 #cbi1 #ccb ,vegetarians1 #bcf ,versatility1 #beg1 #beh1 #bei2 distinctive mark of intelligence1 #beg1 #beh ,vertebr1 #bgi ,vertebrate1 #fj ,vertebrata1 #aai1 #bgj1 #bga1 #bgi-bhd1 #bib1 #big1 #cjj1 #cjb2 amniotic1 #bhj-bhb2 anamniotic1 #bhj1 #bhb ,vestigial remnants1 #bii ,viability1 #d1 #e1 #be1 #bf1 #dc1 #dd ,vibration1 #bji2 pure1 #bji2 without vibrant medium1 #bji ,vinegar fly1 #ai1 #he ,violet1 #be1 #aei ,visceral arches and clefts1 #bgh1 #bgi ,visualist1 #bai ,vital activity1 #bja ,vital continuity1 #acd1 #aci1 #aee2 genetic1 first article of1 #acd2 law of1 #acd1 #aee2 law of1 #aci2 its fourth article1 #aci ,vital force1 no special1 #bja ,vitality1 #aej2 eludes art of chemist1 #aej ,vital principle1 #agb1 #bjj1 #bjc2 as defined by ,neo-,vitalists1 #agb2 entitive1 not dynamic1 #agb2 term alleged to be meaningless1 #bjj2 term in disfavor1 #bjj ,vivisection1 #cfj ,volcanic bombs1 #cdf-cdh ,volition1 #bba1 #bca1 #bcc2 not function of the material organism1 #bcc2 presupposes conception1 #bba2 rational1 has spiritual soul for source and subject1 #bcc2 rational1 superorganic1 #bca ,walrus1 #bif ,wasp1 predatory1 #bdg1 #bfc ,weddas1 cranial capacity of1 #cae ,weight1 #cae ,whale1 #ce1 #df1 #fj1 #bgi2 flipper of1 #ce1 #fj1 #bgi ,white ,leghorns1 #ai ,wild ,kirchli1 industry of1 #cca ,will1 #bba1 #bcb1 #bce2 insatiable1 #bcb2 of man1 free1 #bcb2 self-determining or reflexive1 #bcb2 superior to sensual appetite1 #bce ,wing venation1 #di note1 #di ,wisconsin1 ,cambrian sediments of1 #aje ,wolffian duct1 #bha1 #bhb ,woods ,hole1 #bc1 #db1 #dg ,world ,war1 #cei ,worm1 #bdi ,wormwood1 #bdh1 #bee2 common1 #bee ,wrtzburg1 ,school of1 #bai ,x-rays1 #add1 #cag ,yoldia ,sea1 #bhi ,yolk-sac1 #bgf ,zamia1 #aah ,zebra1 #ha ,zones1 stratigraphic1 #if1 #ajc1 #ajf2 zogeographical1 #ii ,zologists1 #ff1 #gg ,zology1 #ce1 #cg1 #ee1 #abf1 #cjd ,zopsychologists1 #bdj ,zygote1 #be1 #acf1 #aef-aeh