diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/68574-h/68574-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68574-h/68574-h.htm | 20102 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 20102 deletions
diff --git a/old/68574-h/68574-h.htm b/old/68574-h/68574-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index e431dc7..0000000 --- a/old/68574-h/68574-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,20102 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Case Against Evolution, by George Barry O’Toole, Ph. D., S.T.D.. - </title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - -h1 -{ - margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 2em; - text-align: center; - font-size: x-large; - font-weight: normal; - line-height: 1.6; -} - - h2,h3, h4{ - text-align: center; - clear: both; - } - -.half-title { - margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 2em; - text-align: center; - font-size: x-large; - font-weight: normal; - line-height: 1.6; - } - -div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} -h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} - -/* Paragraphs */ - -p {text-indent: 1em; - margin-top: .75em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .75em; - } - -.psig {text-align: right; margin-right: 2em;} - -.spaced {margin-top: 3em; margin-bottom: 3em;} -.space-above {margin-top: 6em;} - - -hr { - width: 33%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: 33.5%; - margin-right: 33.5%; - clear: both; -} - - -hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} - -@media print { hr.chap {display: none; visibility: hidden;} } - -ul.index { list-style-type: none; } -li.ifrst { margin-top: 1em; } -li.indx { margin-top: .5em; } -li.isub1 {text-indent: 1em;} - -table { - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - } - -.standard { font-size: .9em; border-collapse: collapse; } -td {padding-left: 5px;} - -.tdl {text-align: left;} -.tdr {text-align: right;} -.tdc {text-align: center;} - -.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - left: 92%; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: right; -} /* page numbers */ - -div.hangsection p {text-indent: -3em; margin-left: 3em;} - - -.blockquot { - margin-left: 5%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - -.center {text-align: center;} - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} -.allsmcap { text-transform:lowercase; } - -.small {font-size: small;} - - -/* Images */ - -img {border: none; max-width: 100%} - -.figcenter { - margin: auto; - text-align: center; - page-break-inside: avoid; - max-width: 100%; -} - - -/* Footnotes */ - - .footnotes {border: dashed 1px;} - - .footnote { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; - font-size: 0.9em; - } - -.footnote .label { - position: absolute; - right: 84%; - text-align: right; - } - -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .8em; - text-decoration: none; - white-space: nowrap - } - -/* Poetry */ -.poetry-container {text-align: center;} -.poetry {text-align: left; margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%;} -/* uncomment the next line for centered poetry in browsers */ - .poetry {display: inline-block;} -.poetry .stanza {margin: 1em auto;} -.poetry .verse {text-indent: -3em; padding-left: 3em;} -/* large inline blocks don't split well on paged devices */ -@media print { .poetry {display: block;} } -.x-ebookmaker .poetry {display: block;} -.poetry .indent2 {text-indent: -2em;} -.poetry .indent4 {text-indent: -1em;} -.poetry .indent24 {text-indent: 10em;} - - -/* Transcriber's notes */ - -.transnote { - background-color: #E6E6FA; - color: black; - font-size:smaller; - padding:0.5em; - margin-bottom:5em; - font-family:sans-serif, serif; - } - -/* Poetry indents */ -.poetry .indent0 {text-indent: -3em;} -.poetry .indent2 {text-indent: -2em;} -.poetry .indent24 {text-indent: 9em;} -.poetry .indent4 {text-indent: -1em;} - -/* Illustration classes */ -.illowp30 {width: 30%;} - - - </style> - </head> -<body> -<p style='text-align:center; font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold'>The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Case Against Evolution, by George Barry O'Toole</p> -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online -at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you -are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this eBook. -</div> - -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Title: The Case Against Evolution</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Author: George Barry O'Toole</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Release Date: July 26, 2022 [eBook #68574]</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Language: English</p> - <p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:left'>Produced by: Tim Lindell, Les Galloway and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)</p> -<div style='margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:4em'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CASE AGAINST EVOLUTION ***</div> -<hr class="chap" /> - -<div class="transnote"> -<h3>Transcriber’s Notes</h3> - -<p>Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations -in hyphenation have been standardised but all other spelling, -punctuation and accents remains unchanged. -</p> -<p>The repetition of section titles on consecutive pages has been removed.</p> -<p>A reference to Monism as “destructive of culture, etc.” in the index -to page 450, which does not exist, has been changed to 350.</p> -</div> - - -<p class="half-title">THE CASE AGAINST EVOLUTION</p> - - - -<div class="figcenter illowp30" id="monogram" style="max-width: 18.75em;"> - <img src="images/monogram.jpg" alt="publishers monogram" /> -</div> -<p class="center small"> -THE MACMILLAN COMPANY<br /> -<small>NEW YORK · BOSTON · CHICAGO · DALLAS<br /> -ATLANTA · SAN FRANCISCO</small></p> -<p class="center small"> -MACMILLAN & CO., <span class="smcap">Limited</span><br /> -<small>LONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTA<br /> -MELBOURNE</small></p> -<p class="center small"> -THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, <span class="smcap">Ltd.</span><br /> -<small>TORONTO</small></p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"></div> - -<h1> -THE CASE AGAINST<br /> -EVOLUTION</h1> - -<p class="center"> -<small>BY</small></p> -<p class="center"> -GEORGE BARRY O’TOOLE, <span class="smcap">Ph. D.</span>, S.T.D.<br /> - -<small>PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AND PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF PHILOSOPHY,<br /> -ST. VINCENT ARCHABBEY; PROFESSOR OF ANIMAL<br /> -BIOLOGY, SETON HILL COLLEGE</small></p> - -<p class="center space-above"> -New York<br /> - -THE MACMILLAN COMPANY<br /> - -1926</p> -<p class="center"> -<small><i>All rights reserved</i></small> -</p> - - -<p class="center small spaced"> -<span class="smcap">Copyright, 1925,<br /> -By</span> THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.<br /> -<br /> -Set up and electrotyped.<br /> -Published April, 1925.<br /> -Reprinted February, 1926.</p> - -<p class="center small"> -<i>Printed in the United States of America by</i><br /> -J. J. LITTLE AND IVES COMPANY, NEW YORK</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"> - -<p class="center spaced"><big>TO MY MOTHER</big></p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="ADDENDA">ADDENDA</h2> -</div> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Note to <a href="#Page_23">page 23</a>.</span>—</p> - -<p>As a result of recent investigations on the sex chromosomes and -chromosome numbers in mammals, Theophilus S. Painter reaches the -conclusions that polyploidy cannot be invoked to explain evolution -within this class. After giving a table of chromosome numbers for -7 out of the 9 eutherian orders, Painter concludes: “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 -subclass.</p> - -<p>“In the marsupials the chromosome number is a low one and in the -opossum is 22. At first sight it might appear that the eutherian condition -might have arisen from this by tetraploidy. There are two objections, -however. In the first place the bulk of the chromatin in -marsupials is about the same as in the eutheria, using the sex chromosome -as our measure. In the second place, polyploidy could scarcely -occur successfully in animals with X-Y sex chromosomes, as most mammals -possess, because of the complication occurring in the sex -chromosome balance” (<i>Science</i>, April 17, 1925, p. 424). As the X-Y -type of sex chromosomes occurs widely not only among vertebrates, -but also among insects, nematodes, and echinoderms, Painter’s latter -objection excludes evolution by polyploidy from a large portion of the -animal kingdom.</p> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Note to <a href="#Page_90">page 90</a>.</span>—</p> - -<p>Especially reprehensible, in this respect, are the reconstructions of -the Pithecanthropus, the Eoanthropus, and other alleged pitheco-human -links modeled by McGregor and others. These imaginative productions, -in which cranial fragments are arbitrarily completed and fancifully -overlayed with a veneering of human features, have no scientific value -or justification. It is consoling, therefore, to note that the great French -palæontologist, Marcelin Boule, in his recent book “Les Hommes -Fossiles” (Paris, 1921), has entered a timely protest against the appearance -of such reconstructions in serious scientific works. “Dubois and -Manouvrier,” he says, “have given reconstructions of the skull and -even of the head (of the Pithecanthropus). These attempts made -by medical men, are much too hypothetical, because we do not possess -a single element for the reconstruction of the basis of the brain case, or -of the jawbones. We are surprised to see that a great palæontologist, -Osborn, publishes efforts of this kind. 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 Pithecanthropus” -(<i>op. cit.</i>, p. 105). And elsewhere he remarks: “Some true savants have -published portraits, covered with flesh and hair, not only of the -Neandertal Man, whose skeleton is known well enough today, but also -of the Man of Piltdown, whose remnants are so fragmentary; of the -Man of Heidelberg, of whom we have only the lower jawbone; of -the Pithecanthropus, of whom there exists only a piece of the cranium -and ... two teeth. Such reproductions may have their place in works -of the lowest popularization. But they very much deface the books, -though otherwise valuable, into which they are introduced.” ... -“Men of science—and of conscience—know the difficulties of such attempts -too well to regard them as anything more than a pastime” -(<i>op. cit.</i>, p. 227).</p> - - -<p><span class="smcap">Note to <a href="#Page_342">page 342</a>.</span>—</p> - -<p>A fourth possibility is suggested by the case of the so-called skull of -the Galley Hill Man, of whose importance as a prehistoric link Sir -Arthur Keith held a very high opinion, but which has since turned out -to be no skull at all, but merely an odd-shaped piece of stone.</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CONTENTS">CONTENTS</h2> -</div> - -<table class="standard" summary=""> -<tr> -<td></td> -<td></td> -<td class="tdr"><small>PAGE</small></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl" colspan="2"><span class="smcap">Foreword</span></td> -<td class="tdr">xi</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="3"><big><a href="#PART_I">PART I</a>—EVOLUTION IN GENERAL</big></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl" colspan="2"><small>CHAPTER</small></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_I">I</a></td> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Present Crisis in Evolutionary Thought</span></td> -<td class="tdr">1</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_II">II</a></td> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Homology and Its Evolutionary Interpretation</span></td> -<td class="tdr">31</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_III">III</a></td> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Fossil Pedigrees</span></td> -<td class="tdr">66</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdc" colspan="3"><big><a href="#PART_II">PART II</a>—THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS</big></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_I2">I</a></td> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Origin of Life</span></td> -<td class="tdr">131</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_II2">II</a></td> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Origin of the Human Soul</span></td> -<td class="tdr">189</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_III2">III</a></td> -<td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Origin of the Human Body</span></td> -<td class="tdr">268</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl" colspan="2"><span class="smcap"><a href="#AFTERWORD">Afterword</a></span></td> -<td class="tdr">349</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl" colspan="2"><span class="smcap"><a href="#GLOSSARY">Glossary</a></span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl" colspan="2"><span class="smcap"><a href="#INDEX_TO_AUTHORS">Index to Authors</a></span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl" colspan="2"><span class="smcap"><a href="#INDEX_OF_SUBJECTS">Index of Subjects</a></span></td> -</tr> -</table> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_xii">[Pg xii]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="FOREWORD">FOREWORD</h2> -</div> - - -<p>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 presumptuous. -It is, however, 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 justification.</p> - -<p>For the philosophers and scientists of the day evolution is -evidently something which admits of no debate and which -must be maintained at all costs. 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 it. If they advert to them at all, it is always to -minimize, and never to accentuate, their antagonistic force. -For the moment, at any rate, the minds of scientific writers -are closed to unfavorable, and open only to favorable, evidence, -so that one must look elsewhere than in their pages -for adequate presentation of the case against evolution.</p> - -<p>The present work aims at setting forth the side of the -question which it is now the fashion to suppress. It refuses -to be bound by the convention which prescribes that evolution -shall be leniently criticized. It proceeds, in fact, upon -the opposite assumption, namely, that a genuinely scientific -theory ought not to stand in need of indulgence, but should -be able, on the contrary, to endure the acid test of merciless -criticism.</p> - -<p>Evolution has been termed a “necessary hypothesis.” We -have no quarrel with the phrase, provided it really means -evolution as an hypothesis, and not evolution as a dogma. -For, obviously, the problem of a gradual differentiation of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xiii">[Pg xiii]</span> -organic species cannot even be investigated upon the fixistic -assumption, inasmuch as this assumption destroys the problem -at the very outset. Unless we assume the possibility, at -least, that modern species of plants and animals may have -been the product of a gradual process, there is no problem -to investigate. It is, however, a far cry from the possibility -to the actuality; 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 hypothesis. On the contrary, -research often results in the overthrow of the very hypothesis -which led to its inception. We can, therefore, quite readily -admit the necessity of evolution as an hypothesis, while rejecting -its necessity as a dogma.</p> - -<p>Assent to evolution as a dogma is advocated not only by -materialists, who see in evolutionary cosmogony proof positive -of their monism and the complete overthrow of the idea -of Creation, but also by certain Catholic scientists, who seem -to fear that religion may become involved in the anticipated -ruin of fixism. 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 -inevitable, 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 -theory. Recollection of the Galileo incident is, doubtless, -salutary, in so far as it suggests the wisdom of caution and -the imperative necessity of close contact with ascertained -facts, but a consideration of this sort is no warrant whatever -for an uncritical acceptance of what still remains unverified. -History testifies that verification followed close upon the -heels of the initial proposal of the heliocentric theory, but -the whole trend of scientific discovery has been to destroy, -rather than to confirm, all definite formulations of the evolutional -theory, in spite of the immense erudition expended -in revising them.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_xiv">[Pg xiv]</span></p> - -<p>There is, in brief, no parity at all between Transformism -and the Copernican theory. Among other points of difference, -Tuccimei notes especially the following: “The Copernican -system,” he remarks, “explains <i>that which is</i>, whereas evolution -attempts to explain <i>that which was</i>; it enters, in other -words, into the problem of origins, an insoluble problem in -the estimation of many illustrious evolutionists, according to -whom no experimental verification is possible, given the -processes and factors in conjunction with which the theory -was proposed. 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 became, with the discoveries -of Newton, a demonstrated thesis, scarcely fifty years -after the death of Galileo; the theory of evolution, on the -other hand, is at the present day no longer able to hold its own -even as an hypothesis, so numerous are its incoherencies and -the objections to it raised by its own partisans.” (“La Decadenza -di una Teoria,” 1908, p. 11.)</p> - -<p>The prospect, then, of a renewal of the Galileo episode -is exceedingly remote. Far more imminent to the writer seems -the danger that the well-intentioned rescuers of religion may -be obliged to perform a most humiliating <i>volte face</i>, after having -accepted all too hastily a doctrine favored only for the -time being in scientific circles. It is, in fact, by no means -inconceivable that the scientific world will eventually discard -the now prevalent dogma of evolution. 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 opinion.</p> - -<p>On the whole, the safest attitude toward evolution is the -agnostic one. It commits us to no uncertain position. It does -not compromise our intellectual sincerity by requiring us to -accept the dogmatism of scientific orthodoxy as a substitute -for objective evidence. It precludes the possible embarrassment -of having to unsay what we formerly said. And last, -but not least, it is the attitude of simple truth; for the truest -thing that Science is, or ever will be, able to say concerning -the problem of organic origins is that she knows nothing -about it.</p> - -<p>In the present work, we shall endeavor to show that Evolution -has long since degenerated into a dogma, which is believed -in spite of the facts, and not on account of them. The first -three chapters deal with the theory in general, discussing -in turn its genetical, morphological, and geological aspects. -The last three chapters are devoted to the problem of origins, -and treat of the genesis of life, of the human soul, and of -the human body, respectively.</p> - -<p>While this book is in no sense a work of “popular science,” -I have sought to broaden its scope and interest by combining -the scientific with the philosophic viewpoint. Certain portions -of the text are unavoidably technical, but there is much, besides, -that the general reader will be able to follow without -difficulty. Students, especially of biology, geology, and experimental -psychology, may use it to advantage as supplementary -reading in connection with their textbooks.</p> - -<p>I wish to acknowledge herewith my indebtedness to the -Editor of the <i>Catholic Educational Review</i>, Rev. George Johnson, -Ph. D., to whose suggestion and encouragement the inception -of this work was largely due. I desire also to express -my sincere appreciation of the services rendered in the revision -of the manuscript by the Rev. Edward Wenstrup, O.S.B., -Professor of Zoölogy, St. Vincent College, Pennsylvania.</p> - -<p class="psig">BARRY O’TOOLE.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">St. Vincent Archabbey</span>,<br /> -<span style="margin-left: 2em;">January 30, 1925.</span> -</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</span></p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="PART_I">PART I<br /> - -EVOLUTION IN GENERAL</h2></div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - - -<div class="chapter"> -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I<br /> - - -THE PRESENT CRISIS IN EVOLUTIONARY -THOUGHT</h3></div> - - -<p>Three prominent men, a scientist, a publicist, and an orator, -have recently made pronouncements on the theory of Evolution. -The trio, of course, to whom allusion is made, are -Bateson, Wells, and Bryan. As a result of their utterances, -there has been a general reawakening of interest in -the problem to which they drew attention. Again and -again, in popular as well as scientific publications, -men are raising and answering the question: “Is Darwinism -dead?” Manifold and various are the answers given, -but none of them appears to take the form of an unqualified -affirmation or negation. Some reply by drawing a distinction -between Darwinism, as a synonym for the theory of evolution -in general, and Darwinism, in the sense of the particular form -of that theory which had Darwin for its author. Modern -research, they assure us, has not affected the former, but has -necessitated a revision of ideas with respect to the latter. -There are other forms of evolution besides Darwinism, and, -as a matter of fact, not Darwin, but Lamarck was the originator -of the scientific theory of evolution. Others, though -imitating the prudence of the first group in their avoidance of -a categorical answer, prefer to reply by means of a distinction -based upon their interpretation of the realities of the problem -rather than upon any mere terminological consideration.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</span></p> - -<p>Of the second group, some, like Osborn, distinguish between -the <i>law</i> of evolution and the theoretical <i>explanations</i> of this -law proposed by individual scientists. The existence of the -law itself, they insist, is not open to question; it is only with -respect to hypotheses explanatory of the aforesaid law that -doubt and disagreement exist. The obvious objection to such -a solution is that, if evolution is really a law of nature, it -ought to be reducible to some clear-cut mathematical formula -comparable to the formulations of the laws of constant, multiple, -and reciprocal proportion in chemistry, or of the laws of -segregation, assortment, and linkage in genetics. Assuming, -then, that it is a genuine law, how is it that today no one -ventures to formulate this evolutional law in definite and -quantitative terms?</p> - -<p>Others, comprising, perhaps, a majority, prefer to distinguish -between the <i>fact</i> and the <i>causes</i> of evolution. Practically -all scientists, they aver, agree in accepting evolution as -an established fact; it is only with reference to the agencies -of evolution that controversy and uncertainty are permissible. -To this contention one may justly reply that, by all the -canons of linguistic usage, a fact is an observed or experienced -event, 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 species. If, however, the admission -be made that the term “fact” is here used in an untechnical -sense to denote an inferred event postulated for the purpose -of interpreting certain natural phenomena, then the -statement that the majority of modern scientists agree as to -the “fact” of evolution may be allowed to stand, with no further -comment than to note that the formidable number and -prestige of the advocates fail to intimidate us. Considerations -of this sort are wholly irrelevant, for in science no less than in -philosophy authority is worth as much as its arguments and -no more.</p> - -<p>The limited knowledge of the facts possessed by the biolo<span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</span>gists -of the nineteenth century left their imaginations perilously -unfettered and permitted them to indulge in a veritable -orgy of theorizing. Now, however, that the trail blazed by -the great Augustinian Abbot, Mendel, has been rediscovered, -work of real value is being done with the seed pan, the incubator, -the microtome, etc., and the wings of irresponsible speculation -are clipped. 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 “experimental -evidence” of evolution. Even with respect to the -inferential or circumstantial evidence from palæontology, the -enormous deluge of fossils unearthed by the tireless zeal of -modern investigators has annihilated, by its sheer complexity, -the hasty generalizations and facile simplifications of a -generation ago, forcing the adoption of a more critical -attitude. Formerly, a graded series of fossil genera -sufficed for the construction of a “palæontological pedigree”; -now, the worker in this field demands that the chain -of descent shall be constructed with species, instead of genera, -for links—“Not till we have linked species into lineages, can -we group them into genera.” (F. A. Bather, <i>Science</i>, Sept. 17, -1920, p. 264.) This remarkable progress in scientific studies -has tended to precipitate the crisis in evolutionary thought, -which we propose to consider in the present chapter. Before -doing so, however, it will be of advantage to formulate a clear -statement of the problem at issue.</p> - -<p>Evolution, or transformism, as it is more properly called, -may be defined as the theory which regards the present species -of plants and animals as modified descendants of earlier -forms of life. Nowadays, therefore, the principal use of the -term evolution is to denote the developmental theory of organic -species. It is, however, a word of many senses. In the -eighteenth century, for example, it was employed in a sense -at variance with the present usage, that is, to designate the -non-developmental theory of embryological encasement or -preformation as opposed to the developmental theory of epi<span class="pagenum" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</span>genesis. -According to the theory of encasement, the adult -organism did not arise by the generation of new parts (epigenesis), -but by a mere “unfolding” (<i>evolutio</i>) of preëxistent -parts. At present, however, evolution is used as a synonym -for transformism, though it has other meanings, besides, being -sometimes used to signify the formation of inorganic nature as -well as the transformation of organic species.</p> - -<p>Evolution, in the sense of transformism, is opposed to -fixism, the older theory of Linné, according to whom no <i>specific</i> -change is possible in plants and animals, all organisms -being assumed to have persisted in essential sameness of type -from the dawn of organic life down to the present day. The -latter theory admits the possibility of environmentally-induced -modifications, which are non-germinal and therefore -non-inheritable. It also admits the possibility of germinal -changes of the varietal, as opposed to the specific, order, but -it maintains that all such changes are confined within the -limits of the species, and that the boundaries of an organic -species are impassable. Transformism, on the contrary, affirms -the possibility of specific change, and assumes that the boundaries -of organic species have actually been traversed.</p> - -<p>What, then, is an organic species? It may be defined as a -group of organisms endowed with the <i>hardihood</i> necessary to -survive and propagate themselves under natural conditions -(<i>i.e.</i> in the wild state), exhibiting a common inheritable type, -differing from one another by no major germinal difference, -perfectly interfertile with one another, but <i>sexually incompatible</i> -with members of an alien specific group, in such wise -that they produce hybrids wholly, or partially, sterile, when -crossed with organisms outside their own specific group.</p> - -<p>David Starr Jordan has wisely called attention to the -requisite of viability and survival under natural conditions. -“A species,” he says, “is not merely a form or group of individuals -distinguished from other groups by definable features. -A complete definition involves longevity. A species is a kind -of animal or plant which has run the gauntlet of the ages and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</span> -persisted.... A form is not a species until it has ‘stood.’” -(<i>Science</i>, Oct. 20, 1922, p. 448.)</p> - -<p>Sexual (gametic) incompatibility as a criterion of specific -distinction, presupposes the bisexual or biparental mode of -reproduction, namely, syngamy, and is therefore chiefly applicable -to the metista, although, if the view tentatively proposed -by the protozoölogist, E. A. Minchin, be correct, it -would also be applicable to the protista. According to this -view, no protist type is a true species, unless it is maintained -by syngamy (<i>i.e.</i> bisexual reproduction)—“Not until syngamy -was acquired,” says Minchin, “could true species exist among -the Protista.” (“An Introduction to the Study of the Protozoa,” -p. 141.)</p> - -<p>To return, however, to the metista, the horse (<i>Equus caballus</i>) -and the ass (<i>Equus asinus</i>) represent two distinct species -under a common genus. This is indicated by the fact that the -mule, which is the hybrid offspring of their cross, is entirely -sterile, producing no offspring whatever, when mated with -ass, horse, or mule. Such total sterility, however, is not essential -to the proof of specific differentiation; it suffices that the -hybrid be less fertile than its parents. As early as 1686, -sterility (total or partial) of the hybrid was laid down by -John Ray as the fundamental criterion of specific distinction. -Hence Bateson complains that Darwinian philosophy flagrantly -“ignored 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 degree.” (<i>Science</i>, Jan. 20, 1922, -p. 58.)</p> - -<p>Accordingly, the sameness of type required in members of -the same species refers rather to the genotype, that is, the -sum-total of internal hereditary factors latent in the germ, -than to the phenotype, that is, the expressed somatic characters, -viz. the color, structure, size, weight, and all other -perceptible properties, in terms of which a given plant or animal -is described. Thus it sometimes happens that two dis<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</span>tinct -species, like the pear-tree and the apple-tree, resemble -each other more closely, as regards their external or somatic -characters, than two varieties belonging to one and the same -species. Nevertheless, the pear-tree and the apple-tree are so -unlike in their germinal (genetic) composition that they cannot -even be crossed.</p> - -<p>According to all theories of transformism, new species arise -through the transformation of old species, and hence evolutionists -are at one in affirming the occurrence of specific -change. When it comes, however, to assigning the agencies -or factors, which are supposed to have brought about this -transmutation of organic species, there is a wide divergence -of opinion. The older systems of transformism, namely, -Lamarckism and Darwinism, ascribed the modification of -organic species to the operation of the external factors of -the environment, while the later school of orthogenesis attributed -it to the exclusive operation of factors residing within -the organism itself.</p> - -<p>Lamarckism, for example, made the formation of organs -a response to external conditions imposed by the environment. -The elephant, according to this view, being maladjusted -to its environment by reason of its clumsy bulk, developed a -trunk by using its nose to compensate for its lack of pliancy -and agility. Here the use or function precedes the organ -and molds the latter to its need. Darwinism agrees with -Lamarckism in making the environment the chief arbiter of -modification. Its explanation of the elephant’s trunk, however, -is negative rather than positive. This animal, it tells -us, developed a trunk, because failure to vary in that useful -direction would have been penalized by extermination.</p> - -<p>Wilson presents, in a very graphic manner, the appalling -problem which confronts evolutionists who seek to explain -the adaptations of organisms by means of environmental factors. -Referring, apparently, to Henderson’s “Fitness of the -Environment,” he says: “It has been urged in a recent valuable -work ... that fitness is a reciprocal relation, involving<span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</span> -the environment no less than the organism. This is both a -true and suggestive thought; but does it not leave the naturalist -floundering amid the same old quicksands? The historical -problem with which he has to deal must be grappled at closer -quarters. He is everywhere confronted with specific devices -in the organism that must have arisen long after the conditions -of environment to which they are adjusted. Animals -that live in water are provided with gills. Were this all, we -could probably muddle along with the notion that gills are -no more than lucky accidents. But we encounter a sticking -point in the fact that gills are so often accompanied by a variety -of ingenious devices, such as reservoirs, tubes, valves, -pumps, strainers, scrubbing brushes, and the like, that are -obviously tributary to the main function of breathing. Given -water, asks the naturalist, how has all this come into existence -and been perfected? The question is an inevitable product -of our common sense.” (Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1915, p. 405.)</p> - -<p>Impressed with the difficulty of accounting for the phenomena -of organic adaptation by means of the far too general -and unspecific influence of the environment, the orthogenetic -school of transformism inaugurated by Nägeli, Eimer, and Kölliker -repudiated this explanation, and sought to explain organic -evolution on the sole basis of internal factors, such as -“directive principles,” or germinal determinants. According to -this conception, the elephant first developed his trunk under -the drive of some internal agency, and afterwards sought out -an environment in which the newly-developed trunk would be -useful. In other words, orthogenesis makes the organ precede -the function, and is therefore the exact reverse of Lamarckism.</p> - -<p>Evolutionists in general, as we have said, regard our present -plants and animals as the modified progeny of earlier forms, -understanding by “modified” that which is the product of a -trans-specific, as distinguished from a varietal or intra-specific, -change. To substantiate the claim that changes of specific -magnitude have actually taken place, they appeal to two principal -kinds of evidence, namely: (a) empirical evidence based<span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</span> -on such variations as are now observed to occur among living -organisms; (b) inferential evidence, which aposterioristically -deduces the common ancestry of allied organic types from their -resemblances and their sequence in geological time. Hence, -if we omit as negligible certain subsidiary arguments, the -whole evidence for organic evolution may be summed up under -three heads: (1) the genetic evidence grounded on the facts -of variation; (2) the zoölogical evidence based on homology, -that is, on structural resemblance together with all further -resemblances (physiological and embryological), which such -similarity entails; (3) the palæontological evidence which -rests on the gradual approximation of fossil types to modern -types, when the former are ranged in a series corresponding -to the alleged chronological order of their occurrence in the -geological strata. 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 chapter, an objective -to which a brief and rather eclectic historical survey of -evolutionary thought appears to offer the easiest avenue of -approach.</p> - -<p>While many bizarre speculations on the subject of transformism -had been hazarded in centuries prior to the nineteenth, -the history of this conception, as a scientific hypothesis, dates -from the publication of Lamarck’s “Philosophie Zoologique” -in 1809. According to Lamarck, organic species are changed -as a result of the <i>indirect</i> influence of the external conditions -of life. A change in environment forces a change of habit on -the part of the animal. A change in the animal’s habits results -in adaptation, that is, in the development or suppression -of organs through use or disuse. The adaptation, therefore, -thus acquired was not directly imposed by the environment, -but only indirectly—that is, through the mediation of habit. -Once acquired by the individual animal, however, the adaptation -was, so Lamarck thought, taken up by the process of inheritance -and perpetuated by being transmitted to the animal’s -offspring. The net result would be a progressive differentia<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</span>tion -of species due to this indirect influence of a varying environment.</p> - -<p>Such was the theory of Lamarck, and it is sound and -plausible in all respects save one, namely, the unwarranted -assumption that acquired adaptations are inheritable, since -these, to quote the words of the Harvard zoölogist, G. H. -Parker, “are as a matter of fact just the class of changes in -favor of the inheritance of which there is the least evidence.” -(“Biology and Social Problems,” 1914, p. 103.)</p> - -<p>The next contribution to the philosophy of transformism -was made by Charles Darwin, when, in the year 1859, he published -his celebrated “Origin of Species.” In this work, 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 direction. -This spontaneous variability gives rise to slight variations, -some of which are advantageous, others disadvantageous to the -organism. The enormous fecundity of organisms multiplies -them in excess of the available food supply, and more, accordingly, -are born than can possibly survive. In the ensuing -competition or struggle for existence, individuals favorably -modified survive and propagate their kind, those unfavorably -modified perish without progeny. This process of elimination -Darwin termed natural selection. Only individuals favored by -it were privileged to propagate their kind, and thus it happened -that these minute variations of a useful character were -seized upon and perpetuated “by the strong principle of -<i>inheritance</i>.” In this way, these slight but useful modifications -would tend gradually to accumulate from generation to -generation in the direction favored by “natural selection,” -until, by the ensuing summation of innumerable minor differences -verging in the same direction, a major difference -would be produced. The end-result would be a progressive -<i>divergence</i> of posterity from the common ancestral type, -whence they originally sprang, ending in a multiplicity of new -forms or species, all differing to a greater or lesser extent from<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</span> -the primitive type. The contrary hypothesis of a possible -<i>convergence</i> of two originally diverse types towards eventual -similarity Darwin rejected as an extremely improbable explanation -of the observed resemblance of organic forms, which, -not without reason, he thought it more credible to ascribe to -their assumed divergence from a common ancestral type.</p> - -<p>Such was the scheme of evolution elaborated by Charles Darwin. -His hypothesis leaves the origin of variations an unsolved -mystery. It assumes what has never been proved, namely, the -efficacy of “natural selection.” It rests on what has been -definitely disproved by factual evidence, namely, the inheritability -of the slight variations, now called fluctuations, which, -not being transmitted even, by the hereditary process, cannot -possibly accumulate from generation to generation, as Darwin -imagined. Moreover, fluctuations owe their origin to variability -in the external conditions of life (<i>e.g.</i> in temperature, -moisture, altitude, exposure, soil, food, etc.), being due to -the <i>direct</i> influence or pressure of the environment, and not -to any spontaneous tendency within the organism itself. -Hence Darwin erred no less with respect to the spontaneity, -than with respect to the inheritability and summation, of his -“slight variations.”</p> - -<p>The subsequent history of Lamarckian and Darwinian -Transformism is briefly told. That both should pass into the -discard was inevitable, but, thanks to repeated revisions undertaken -by loyal adherents, their demise was somewhat retarded. -In vain, however, did the Neo-Darwinians attempt to do for -Darwinism what the Neo-Lamarckians had as futilely striven -to do for Lamarckism. The revisers succeeded only in precipitating -a lethal duel between these two rival systems, -which has proved disastrous to both. The controversy begun -in 1891 between Herbert Spencer and August Weismann -marked the climax of this fatal conflict.</p> - -<p>Spencer refused to see any value whatever in Darwin’s -principle of natural selection, while other Neo-Lamarckians, -less extreme, were content to relegate it to the status of a sub<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</span>ordinate -factor in evolution. Darwin had considered it “the -most important means of modification,” 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 another. In fact, if natural -selection has enjoyed, or still continues to enjoy, any vogue -at all, it is not due to its value in natural science (which, for all -practical intents and purposes, is nil), but solely to its appeal -as “mechanistic solution”; for nothing further is needed to -commend it to modern thinkers infected with what Wasmann -calls <i>Theophobia</i>. Natural selection, in making the organism -a product of the concurrence of blind forces unguided by -Divine intelligence, a mere fortuitous result, and not the realization -of purpose, has furnished the agnostic with a miserable -pretext for omitting God from his attempted explanation of -the universe. “Here is the knot,” exclaims Du Bois-Reymond, -“here the great difficulty that tortures the intellect which -would understand the world. Whoever does not place all -activity wholesale under the sway of Epicurean chance, whoever -gives only his little finger to teleology, will inevitably -arrive at Paley’s discarded ‘Natural Theology,’ and so much -the more necessarily, the more clearly he thinks and the more -independent his judgment.... The possibility, ever so distant, -of banishing from nature its seeming purpose, and putting -a blind necessity everywhere in the place of final causes, -appears, therefore, as one of the greatest advances in the world -of thought, from which a new era will be dated in the treatment -of these problems. To have somewhat eased the torture -of the intellect which ponders over the world-problem will, as -long as philosophical naturalists exist, be Charles Darwin’s -greatest title to glory.” (<i>Darwin versus Galiani</i>, “Reden,” -Vol. I, p. 211.)</p> - -<p>But however indispensable the selection principle may be to -a philosophy which proposes to banish the Creator from creation, -its scientific insolvency has become so painfully apparent -that biologists have lost all confidence in its power to solve<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</span> -the problem of organic origins. It is recognized, for example, -that natural selection would suppress, rather than promote, -development, seeing that organs have utility only in the state -of perfection and are destitute of selection-value while in the -imperfect state of transition. Again, the specific differences -that diversify the various types of plants and animals are -notoriously deficient in selection-value, and therefore the -present differentiation of species cannot be accounted for by -means of the principle of natural selection. Finally, unless -one is prepared to make the preposterous assumption that the -environment is a telic mechanism expressly designed for shaping -organisms, he is under logical necessity of admitting that -the influence of natural selection cannot be anything else than -purely destructive. There is, as Wilson points out, no aprioristic -ground for supposing that natural selection could do -anything more than maintain the <i>status quo</i>, and as for -factual proofs of its effectiveness in a positive sense, they -are wholly wanting. Professor Caullery of the Sorbonne, in -his Harvard lecture of Feb. 24, 1916, assures us that, “since -the time of Darwin, natural selection has remained a purely -speculative idea and that no one has been able to show its -efficacy in concrete indisputable examples.”</p> - -<p>Considerations of this sort induced not only Neo-Lamarckians, -but many non-partisans as well, to take the field against -the Darwinian Selection Principle. Thus Spencer’s caustic attack -became a forerunner of others, and eminent biologists, -like Fleischmann, Driesch, T. H. Morgan, and Bateson, have -in turn poured the vials of their satire upon the attempts of -Neo-Darwinians to rehabilitate the philosophy of natural -selection. Wm. Bateson warns those, who persist in their -credulity with reference to the Darwinian account of organic -teleology, that they “will be wise henceforth to base this faith -frankly on the impregnable rock of superstition and to abstain -from direct appeals to natural fact.” This admonition forms -the conclusion of a scathing criticism of what he styles the -“fustian of Victorian philosophy.” “In the face of what we<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</span> -know,” it runs, “of the distribution of variability in nature, -the scope claimed for natural selection must be greatly reduced. -The doctrine of the survival of the fittest is undeniable -so long as it is applied to the organism as a whole, but -to attempt by this principle to find value in all definiteness -of parts and functions, and in the name of science to see fitness -everywhere, is mere eighteenth century optimism. Yet it was -in its application to the parts, to the details of specific difference, -to the spots on the peacock’s tail, to the coloring of an -orchid flower, and hosts of such examples, that the potency of -natural selection was urged with greatest emphasis. Shorn -of these pretensions the doctrine of the survival of favored -races is a truism, helping scarcely at all to account for the -diversity of species. Tolerance plays almost as considerable -a part. By these admissions the last shred of that teleological -fustian with which Victorian philosophy loved to clothe the -theory of evolution is destroyed.” (<i>Heredity</i>, “Presidential -Address to Brit. Ass’n. for Advanc. of Science,” Aug. 14, 1914.) -Nor is this all. The Darwinian Selection Principle is reproached -with having retarded the progress of science. It is -justly accused of having discouraged profound and painstaking -analysis by putting into currency its shallow and spurious -solution of biological problems. “Too often in the past,” says -Edmund Wilson, “the 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 exploration.” -(Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1915, p. 406.)</p> - -<p>In retaliation for the destructive criticism of natural selection, -the Neo-Darwinians have proceeded to pulverize the -Lamarckian tenet concerning the inheritability of acquired -adaptations. Weismann, having laid down his classic distinction -between the <i>soma</i> (comprising the vegetative or tissue -cells in contact with the environment) and the <i>germ</i> (<i>i.e.</i> the -sequestered reproductive cells or gametes, which are sheltered -from environmental vicissitudes), showed that the Lamarckian -assumption that a change in the somatic cells (which<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</span> -constitute the organism of the individual) is registered in the germ -cells (which constitute the vehicle of racial inheritance), is -supported neither by <i>a priori</i> probability nor by any facts -of observation. Germ cells give rise by division to somatic -or tissue cells, but the converse is not true; for, once a cell has -become differentiated and specialized into a tissue cell, it can -never again give rise by division to germ cells, but only to -other tissue cells of its own kind. Hence the possibility of a -change in the tissue being transmitted to the germ has no -antecedent probability in its favor. Neither is it grounded -on the facts of observation. Bodily mutilations of the -parent are not transmitted to the offspring. The child of a -blacksmith is not born with a more developed right arm than -that of a tailor’s child. When the ovaries from a white rabbit -are grafted into a black rabbit, whose own ovaries have been -previously removed, the latter, if mated to a white male, will -produce spotlessly white young. Hence the offspring inherit -the characters of the germ track of the white female, whence -the ovaries were derived, without being influenced in the least -by the pigmented somatic cells of the nurse-body (<i>i.e.</i> the -black female), into which the ovaries were grafted. Kammerer’s -experiments, in which young salamanders were found -to exhibit at birth the coloration, which their parents had -acquired through the action of sunlight, fail to convince, because, -in this case, 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 parents. 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 plasm.</p> - -<p>The same objection holds true of the recent experiments, -in which the germ cells have been modified by modifying the -interior medium or internal environment by means of antibodies -and hormones. No one doubts the possibility of influencing -heredity by a direct modification of the germ cells,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</span> -especially when, as is always the case in these experiments, the -modification produced is destructive rather than constructive. -The experiments, therefore, of Prof. M. F. Guyer of Wisconsin -University, 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 antigen, are beside the mark. To demonstrate -the Lamarckian thesis one must furnish evidence of a -constructive addition to inheritance by means of prior somatic -acquisition. The transmission of defects artificially produced -is not so much a process of inheritance (transmission of -type) as rather one of degeneracy (failure to equate the -parental type).<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> Commenting on Guyer’s suggestion that an -organism capable of producing antibodies that are germinally-destructive, -may also be able to produce constructive bodies, -Prof. Edwin S. Goodrich says: “The real weakness of the -theory is that it does not escape from the fundamental objections -we have already put forward as fatal to Lamarckism. -If an effect has been produced, either the supposed constructive -substance was present from the first, as an ordinary internal -environmental condition necessary for the normal development -of the character, or it must have been introduced from without -by the application of a new stimulus. The same objection -does not apply to the destructive effect. 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 generations.” (<i>Science</i>, Dec. 2, 1921, -p. 535.)</p> - -<p>But in demonstrating against the Neo-Lamarckians that -somatic modifications unrepresented in the germ plasm could -have no significance in the process of racial evolution, Weismann -had <i>proved too much</i>. His argument was no less telling<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</span> -against Darwinism than it was against Lamarckism. Darwin’s -“individual differences” or “slight variations,” now spoken of -as fluctuations, were quite as unrepresented and unrecorded -in the germ cells as Lamarck’s “acquired adaptations.” There -can be no “summation of individual differences” for the simple -reason that fluctuations have no germinal basis and are therefore -uninheritable—“We must bear in mind the fact,” says -Prof. Edmund Wilson, “that Darwin often failed to distinguish -between non-inheritable fluctuations and hereditary -mutations of small degree.” (Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1915, -p. 406.) Fluctuations, as we have seen, are due to variability -in the environmental conditions, <i>e.g.</i> in access to soil nutrients, -etc. As an instance of fluctuational variation the seeds of -the ragweed may be cited. Normally these seeds have six -spines, but around this average there is considerable fluctuation -in individual seeds, some having as many as nine spines -and others no more than one. Yet the plants reared from -nine-spine seeds, even when similarly mated, show no greater -tendency to produce nine-spine seeds than do plants reared -from one-spine seeds.</p> - -<p>To meet the difficulty presented by the non-inheritability of -the Lamarckian adaptation and the Darwinian fluctuation, -De Vries substituted for them those rare and abruptly-appearing -inheritable variations, which he called mutations<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> -and regarded as elementary steps in the evolutionary process. -This new version of transformism was announced by De Vries -in 1901, and more fully explained in his “Die Mutations-Theorie” -(Leipzig, 1902-1903). Renner has shown that De -Vries’ new forms of Œnothera were cases of complex hybridization -rather than real mutants, as the forms produced by -mutation are now called. Nevertheless, the work of Morgan, -Bateson, and others leaves little doubt as to the actual<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</span> -occurrence of <i>factorial</i> mutants, while Dr. Albert F. Blakeslee has -demonstrated the existence of <i>chromosomal</i> mutants. When -unqualified, the term mutant usually denotes the factorial -mutant, which arises from a change in one or more of the -concatenated genes (hereditary factors) of a single chromosome -(nuclear thread) in the germinal (<i>i.e.</i> gametic) complex. -All such changes are called factorial mutations. They are -hereditarily transmissible, and affect the somatic characters -of the race permanently, although, in rare cases, such as that -of the bar-eyed Drosophila mutant, the phenomenon of <i>reversion</i> -has been observed. The chromosomal mutant, on the -contrary, is not due to changes in the single factors or genes, -but to duplication of one or more entire chromosomes (linkage-groups) -in the gametic complex. Like the factorial mutant, -it produces a permanent and heritable modification. The increase -in nuclear material involved in chromosomal mutation -(<i>i.e.</i> duplication) seems to cause a proportionate increase in -the cytoplasmic mass of the single somatic cells, which manifests -itself in the phenotype as giantism. De Vries’ <i>Œnothera -gigas</i> is a chromosomal mutant illustrative of this phenomenon. -Besides the foregoing, there is the <i>pseudomutant</i> produced -by the factorial recombination, which results from a -<i>crossover</i>, <i>i.e.</i> an exchange of genes or factors between two -germinal chromosomes of the same synaptic pair. This reciprocal -transfer of genes from one homologous chromosome to -another happens, in a certain percentage of cases, during synapsis. -The percentage can be artificially increased by exposing -young female hybrids to special conditions of temperature.</p> - -<p>If these new mutant forms could be regarded as genuine new -species, then the fact that such variations are heritable and -come within the range of actual observation, would constitute -the long-sought empirical proof of the reality of evolution. -Consciously or subconsciously, however, De Vries recognized -that this was not the case; for he refers to mutants as “elementary -species,” and does not venture to present them as -authentic organic species.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</span></p> - -<p>The factorial mutant answers neither the endurance test -nor the intersterility test of a genuine species. It would, doubtless, -be going too far to regard all such mutant forms as examples -of germinal degeneracy, but it cannot be denied that -all of them, when compared to the wild type, are in the direction -of unfitness, none of them being viable and prosperous -under the severe conditions obtaining in the wild state. Bateson, -who seems to regard all mutant characters as recessive -and due to germinal loss, declares: “Even in Drosophila, -where hundreds of genetically distinct factors have been identified, -very few new dominants, that is to say positive additions, -have been seen, and I am assured that none of them are -of a class which could be expected to be viable under natural -conditions. I understand even that none are certainly viable -in the homozygous state.” (Toronto Address, <i>Science</i>, Jan. 20, -1922, p. 59.) “Garden or greenhouse products,” says D. S. -Jordan, “are immensely interesting and instructive, but they -throw little light on the origin of species. To call them species -is like calling dress-parade cadets ‘soldiers.’ I have heard -this definition of a soldier, ‘one that has stood.’ It is easy to -trick out a group of boys to look like soldiers, but you can -not define them as such until they have ‘stood.’” (<i>Science</i>, -Oct. 20, 1922.) In a word, factorial mutants, owing, as they -do, their survival exclusively to the protection of artificial -conditions, could never become the hardy pioneers of new -species.</p> - -<p>Bateson insists that the mutational variation represents a -change of loss. “Almost all that we have seen,” he says, “are -variations in which we recognize that elements have been -lost.” (<i>Science</i>, Jan. 20, 1922, p. 59.) In his Address to the -British Association (1914), he cites numerous examples tending -to show that mutant characters are but diminutions or -intensifications of characters pre-existent in the wild or normal -stock, all of which are explicable as effects of the loss (total -or partial) of either positive, or inhibitive (epistatic) hereditary -factors (genes). One of these instances illustrating the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</span> -subtractive nature of the factorial mutation is that of the -Primula “Coral King,” a salmon-colored mutant, which was -suddenly given off by a red variety of Primula called “Crimson -King.” Such a mutation is obviously based on the loss of -a germinal factor for color. The loss, however, is sometimes -partial rather than total, as instanced in the case of the purple-edged -Picotee sweet pea, which arose from the wholly purple -wild variety by fractionation of the genetic factor for purple -pigment. Even where the mutational variation appears to be -one of gain, as happens when a positive character appears -<i>de novo</i> in the phenotype, or when a dilute parental character -is intensified in the offspring, it is, nevertheless, interpretable -as a result of germinal loss, the loss, namely, total or partial, -of a genetic inhibitor. Such inhibitive genes or factors are -known to exist. Bateson has shown, for example, that the -whiteness of White Leghorn chickens is due, not to the absence -of color-factors, but to the presence of a genetic inhibitor—“The -white of White Leghorns,” he says, “is not, as white in -nature often is, due to the loss of the color elements, but to -the action of something which inhibits their expression.” (Address -to the Brit. Ass’n., Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1915, p. 368.) -Thus the sudden appearance in the offspring of a character not -visibly represented in the parents may be due, not to germinal -acquisition, but the loss of an inhibitory gene, whose elimination -allows the somatic character previously suppressed by it -to appear. Hence Bateson concludes: “In spite of seeming -perversity, therefore, 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 loss.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, -p. 375.)</p> - -<p>Another consideration, which disqualifies the factorial mutant -for the rôle of a new species, is its failure to pass the test -of interspecific sterility. When individuals from two distinct -species are crossed, the offspring of the cross is either completely -sterile, as instanced in the mule, or at least partially so. But -when, for example, the sepia-eyed mutant of the vinegar fly is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</span> -back-crossed with the red-eyed wild type, whence it originally -sprang, the product of the cross is a red-eyed hybrid, -which is perfectly fertile with other sepia-wild hybrids, with -wild flies, and with sepia mutants. This proves that the sepia-eyed -mutant has departed, so to speak, only a varietal, and -not a specific, distance away from the parent stock. Ordinary -or factorial mutation does not, therefore, as De Vries imagined, -produce new species. These mutants do, indeed, meet -the requirement of permanent transmissibility, for their distinctive -characters cannot be obliterated by any amount of -crossing. Nevertheless, the factorial mutation falls short of -being an empirical proof of evolution, because it is a varietal, -and not a specific, change. In other words, factorial mutants -are new varieties and not new species. 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 species, provided, of course, that the variant were also -capable of survival under the natural conditions of the wild -state.</p> - -<p>In his Toronto address of December 28, 1921, Wm. Bateson -announced the failure of De Vries’ Mutation Theory, when he -said: “But that particular and essential bit of the theory of -evolution, which is concerned with the origin and nature of -species remains utterly mysterious. We no longer feel as we -used to do, that the process of variation, now contemporaneously -occurring, is the beginning of a work which needs -merely the element of time for its completion; for even time -cannot complete that which has not yet begun. 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 degree. Huxley, very -early in the debate, pointed out this grave defect in the evidence, -but before breeding researches had been made on a -large scale no one felt the objection to be serious. Extended<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</span> -work might be trusted to supply the deficiency. It has not -done so, and the significance of the negative evidence can -no longer be denied....</p> - -<p>“If species have a common origin where did they pick up -the ingredients which produce this sexual incompatibility? Almost -certainly it is a variation in which something has been -added. We have come to see that variations can very commonly—I -do not say always—be distinguished as positive and -negative.... Now we have no difficulty in finding evidence -of variation by loss, but variations by addition are rarities, -even if there are any such which must be so accounted. The -variations to which interspecific sterility is due are obviously -variations in which something is apparently added to the stock -of ingredients. It is one of the common experiences of the -breeder that when a hybrid is partially sterile, and from it any -fertile offspring can be obtained, the sterility, once lost, disappears. -This has been the history of many, perhaps most, of -our cultivated plants of hybrid origin.</p> - -<p>“The production of an indubitably sterile hybrid from completely -fertile parents which has arisen under critical observation -is the event for which we wait. Until this event is witnessed, -our knowledge of evolution is incomplete in a vital -respect. From time to time such an observation is published, -but none has yet survived criticism.” (<i>Science</i>, Jan. 20, 1922, -pp. 58, 59.)</p> - -<p>But what of the chromosomal mutant? For our knowledge -of this type of mutation we are largely indebted to Blakeslee’s -researches and experiments on the Jimson weed (<i>Datura stramonium</i>). -According to Blakeslee, chromosomal mutants result -from duplication, or from reduction, of the chromosomes, -and they are classified as <i>balanced</i> or <i>unbalanced</i> types -according as all, or only some, of the chromosomal linkage-groups -are similarly doubled or reduced. If only one of -the homologous chromosomes of a synaptic pair is doubled, -the mutant is termed a <i>triploid</i> form. It is balanced when -one homologous chromosome is doubled in every synaptic<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</span> -pair, but if one or more chromosomes be added to, or subtracted -from, this balanced triploid complex, the mutant is -termed an unbalanced triploid. When all the chromosomes -of the normal diploid complex are uniformly doubled, we have -a balanced <i>tetraploid</i> race. The subtraction or addition of one -or more chromosomes in the case of a balanced tetraploid -complex renders it an unbalanced tetraploid mutant. The -retention in somatic cells of the haploid number of chromosomes -characteristic of gametes and gametophytes gives a -balanced <i>haploid</i> mutant, from which hitherto no unbalanced -haploids have been obtained. The normal diploid type and -the balanced tetraploid type are said to constitute an <i>even</i> -balance, while balanced triploids and haploids constitute an -<i>odd</i> balance. The odd balances and all the unbalanced mutants -are largely sterile. Thus, for example, more than 80% -of the pollen of the haploid mutant is bad. “The normal -Jimson Weed,” says Blakeslee, “is diploid (2n) with a total -of 24 chromosomes in somatic cells. In previous papers the -finding of tetraploids (4n) with 48 chromosomes and triploids -(3n) with 36 was reported, as well as unbalanced mutants with -25 chromosomes represented by the formula (2n + 1). The -finding of two haploid or 1n plants, which we are now able -to report, adds a new chromosomal type to the balanced series -of mutants in <i>Datura</i>. This series now stands: 1n, 2n, 3n, 4n. -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 chromosomes, it is possible that a -similar series of unbalanced mutants may be obtainable from -our new haploid plants, despite the great unbalance which -would thereby result.” (<i>Science</i>, June 16, 1923, p. 646.) The -haploid mutant, of which Blakeslee speaks, has, of course, 12 -unpaired chromosomes in its somatic cells.</p> - -<p>The balanced triploid is, like the haploid mutant, largely -sterile, and is only obtainable by crossing the tetraploid race -with the normal diploid plant. Since, then, the product of -the cross of the diploid and tetraploid races is sterile, the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</span> -tetraploid race fulfills the sterility test of a distinct species. -Whether or not it fulfills the endurance test of survival under -natural condition is doubtful, inasmuch as diploid Daturas -are about three times as prolific as the tetraploid race. Moreover, -as Blakeslee himself confessed in a lecture at Woods -Hole attended by the present writer in the summer of 1923, -the origin of a balanced tetraploid form from the normal -diploid type by simultaneous duplication of all the chromosomes -in the diploid complex, is an event that has yet to be -witnessed. Nor is any gradual transition from the diploid -to the tetraploid race, by way of unbalanced types and triploids, -conceivable, seeing that such forms are too sterile -to maintain themselves, and are, in fact, incapable of transmitting -their own type in the absence of artificial intervention. -There are, it is true, some instances, in which diploid -and tetraploid races and species occur together in cultivation -and in nature. In certain cases, this tetraploidy is merely -apparent, being due to fragmentation of the chromosomes; in -other cases, it is really due to chromosomal duplication, giving -rise to genuine tetraploid forms. The question is often hard -to decide, the mere number of the chromosomes being not, -in itself, a safe criterion. Of the actual origin, however, of -tetraploid from diploid races we have as yet no observational -evidence. Hence Blakeslee’s researches on the chromosomal -mutant have so far failed to furnish experimental proof of -the origin of a genuine new species. Besides, waiving all other -considerations, the limits within which chromosomal duplication -is possible are of necessity so narrow, that, at best, this -phenomenon can only be invoked to explain a very small -range of variation. In fact, it is doubtful whether haploidy, -triploidy, and tetraploidy have any important bearing whatever -upon the problem of the origin of species. (See <a href="#ADDENDA">Addenda</a>.)</p> - -<p>The mutation, then, in so far as we have experimental -knowledge of it, does not fulfill requirements of a specific -change. It cannot even be regarded as an <i>elementary step</i> -in the direction of such a change. With this admission, De<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</span>-Vriesianism -becomes obsolete, descending like its predecessors, -Lamarckism and Darwinism, into the charnel-house of discarded -systems whose value is historic, but no longer scientific. -When we enquire into the reason of this common -demise of all the classic systems of transformism, we find -it to reside in the progress of the new science of Mendelian -genetics, whose foundations were laid by an Augustinian -monk of the nineteenth century. Six years after the appearance -of Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” Gregor Johann Mendel -published a short paper entitled “Versuche über Pflanzen-hybriden,” -which, unnoticed at the time by a scientific world -preoccupied with Darwinian fantasies, was destined, on its -coming to light at the beginning of the present century, to -administer the final <i>coup de grace</i> to all the elaborate schemes -of evolution that had preceded or followed its initial publication. -It took half a century, however, before the dust of Darwinian -sensationalism subsided sufficiently, to permit the “rediscovery” -of Mendel’s solid and genuine contribution to biological -science. But the Prälat of the abbey at Brünn never -lived to see the day of his triumph. The true genius of his -century, he died unhonored and unsung, a pretender being -crowned in his stead. For Coulter says of Darwin: “He died -April 19, 1882, probably the most honored scientific man in -the world.” (<i>Evolution</i>, 1916, p. 35.)</p> - -<p>Within the small dimensions of the paper, of which we -have spoken, 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 order. It is no exaggeration -to say that his discovery has revolutionized the science of -biology, giving it, for the first time, mathematical formulas -comparable to those of chemistry. His two laws of inheritance, -namely, the law of segregation and the law of independent -assortment of characters, have, as previously intimated, -become the basis of the new science of Genetics. His -analysis of biparental reproduction has interpreted for us the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</span> -cytological phenomena of synapsis, meiosis, and syngamy, -has explained for us the instability of hybrids, has placed -Weismann’s speculations concerning the autonomy and continuity -of the germ plasm on a firm basis of experimental -fact, has clarified all our notions respecting the mode and -range of hereditary transmission, and has, in a word, opened -our eyes to that new and hitherto unexplored realm of nature -which Bateson calls “the world of gametes.”</p> - -<p>Efforts have been made to construct systems of transformism -along Mendelian lines, but none of them has met with -notable success. Lotsy, for example, sought to explain all -variation on the basis of the rearrangement of preëxistent -genetic factors brought about by crossing. But such a solution -of the problem is very unsatisfactory. In the first place, the -generality of hybrid (heterozygous) forms are ruled out on the -score of instability. The phenotype of hybrids is directly -dependent, not on the genes themselves, but on the diploid combination -of genes contained in the zygote. This combination, -however, is always dissolved in the process of gamete-formation, -by the segregative reduction division which occurs in the -reproductive organs of the hybrid. Hybrids, therefore, do not -<i>breed true</i>, if propagated by sexual reproduction. To maintain -constancy of type in hybrids, one must resort to somatogenic -reproduction (<i>i.e.</i> vegetative growth from stems, etc.). Certain -violets, in fact, as well as blackberries, are maintained in a -state of constant hybridism by means of this sort of reproduction, -even in nature. In the case of <i>balanced lethals</i> (<i>i.e.</i> factors -causing death in the pure or homozygous state), the -hybrid phenotype may be maintained even by sexual reproduction, -inasmuch as all the pure (homozygous) offspring -are non-viable. Two lethals are said to be balanced, -when they occur, the first in one and the second in the -other homologous chromosome of the same synaptic pair. -“Such a factorial situation would maintain a state of constant -heterozygosis, the fixed hybridism of an impure species ... -the hybrid will breed true until the relative position of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</span> -lethals are changed by a crossover, or the genetical constitution -in these respects is altered by a mutation.” (Davis, -<i>Science</i>, Feb. 3, 1922, p. 111.) As is evident, however, the -condition of balanced lethals involves a considerable reduction -in fertility.</p> - -<p>Hybridization, moreover, is successful between varieties of -the same species rather than between distinct species. Interspecific -crosses are in some cases entirely unproductive, in -other cases productive of wholly-sterile, hybrids, and in still -other cases productive of semisterile hybrids. When semisterile -hybrids are obtainable from an interspecific cross, the -phenotype can be kept constant by somatogenic reproduction, -but, as we shall see in a later chapter, this kind of reproduction -does not counteract senescence, and stock thus propagated -usually plays out within a determinate period. Finally, the -mixture of incompatible germinal elements involved in an -interspecific cross tends to produce forms, which are subnormal -in their viability and vitality. The conclusions of Goodspeed -and Clausen are the following: “(1) As a consequence of -modern Mendelian developments, the Mendelian factors may -be considered as making up a reaction system, the elements -of which exhibit more or less specific relations to one another; -(2) 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 -hybrids; (3) when distinct reaction systems are involved, -as in species crosses, the phenomena must be viewed in the -light of a contrast between systems rather than between specific -factor differences, and the results will depend upon the -degree of mutual compatibility displayed between the specific -elements of the two systems.” (<i>Amer. Nat.</i>, 51 (1917), p. 99.) -To these conclusions may be added the pertinent observation -of Bradley Moore Davis: “Of particular import,” he says, “is -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</span> -and vital adjustments in proportion relative to the degree -of protoplasmic confusion, and this means chemical and physical -disturbance.” (<i>Science</i>, Feb. 3, 1923, p. 111.)</p> - -<p>But crossing produces, in the second filial generation (F<sub>2</sub>), -pure (homozygous) as well as hybrid (heterozygous) forms.⅖ -In some cases these pure forms are new, the phenotype being -different from that of either pure grandparent. Such a result -is produced by <i>random assortment</i> of the chromosomes in -gamete and zygote formation, and occurs when the genes for -two or more pairs of contrasted characters are located in different -chromosome pairs. The phenomenon is formulated in -Mendel’s Second Law, the law of independent assortment. The -novelty, however, of the true-breeding forms thus produced -is not absolute, but relative. There is no origination of new -hereditary factors. It is simply a recombination of the old -genes of different stocks, the genes themselves undergoing -no intrinsic alteration. The combination is new, but not the -elements combined. In addition to chromosomal recombination, -we have factorial recombination by means of crossovers. -This, too, can produce new and true-breeding forms of a fixed -nature, but here, likewise, it is the combination, and not the -elements combined, which is new. The “new” forms thus produced -are called, as we have seen, pseudomutants. When -pseudomutations, that is, crossovers, occur in conjunction with -the condition of balanced lethals, they closely simulate genuine -factorial mutations. This is exemplified in the case of -De Vries’ <i>Œnothera Lamarckiana</i>, which is the product of -a crossover supervening upon a situation of balanced lethals. -In cases of this kind, the crossover releases hitherto suppressed -recessive characters, giving the appearance of real mutation. -“The workers with Drosophila,” says Davis, “seem 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 latent. Well-known workers have arrived at similar -conclusions for <i>Œnothera</i> material and are not content to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</span> -accept as evidence of mutations the behavior of <i>Lamarckiana</i> -and some other forms when they throw their marked variants.” -(<i>Science</i>, Feb. 3, 1922, p. 111.)</p> - -<p>The new forms, however, resulting from random assortment -and crossovers cannot be regarded as new species. “Analysis,” -says Bateson, “has revealed hosts of transferable characters. -Their combinations suffice to supply in abundance series of -types which might pass for new species, and certainly would -be so classed if they were met with in nature. Yet critically -tested, 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 -species. Specific difference therefore must be regarded as -probably attaching to the base upon which these transferables -are implanted, of which we know absolutely nothing at -all. Nothing that we have witnessed in the contemporary -world can colorably be interpreted as providing the sort of -evidence required.” (<i>Science</i>, Jan. 20, 1922, pp. 59, 60.)</p> - -<p>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 evolution. In spite of the enormous advances made -in the fields of genetics and cytology, the problem of the -origin of species is, scientifically speaking, as mysterious as -ever. No variation of which we have experience is interpretable -as the transmutation of a specific type, and David Starr -Jordan voices an inevitable conclusion when he says: “None -of the created ‘new species’ of plant or animal I know of -would last five years in the open, nor is there the slightest -evidence that any new species of field or forest or ocean ever -originated from mutation, discontinuous variation, or hybridization.” -(<i>Science</i>, Oct. 20, 1922, p. 448.)</p> - -<p>“In any case,” as Professor Caullery tells us in his Harvard -lecture on the “Problem of Evolution,” “we do not see in the -facts emerging from Mendelism, how evolution, in the sense -that morphology suggests, can have come about. And it<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</span> -comes to pass that some of the biologists of greatest authority -in the study of Mendelian heredity are led, with regard to -evolution, either to a more or less complete agnosticism, or to -the expression of ideas quite opposed to those of the preceding -generation; ideas which would almost take us back to creationism.” -(Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1916, p. 334.) It is, of -course, impossible within the limits of a single chapter to -convey any adequate impression of all that Mendel’s epoch-making -achievement portends, 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 discovery. In its classic forms of Lamarckism, -Darwinism and De-Vriesianism, the survival of the theory is -out of the question. Whether or not it can be rehabilitated -in any form whatever is a matter open to doubt. Transfixed -by the innumerable spears of modern objections, its extremity -calls to mind the plight of the Lion of Lucerne. Possibly, -it is destined to find a rescuer in some great genius of the -future, but of one thing, at least, we may be perfectly certain, -namely, that, even if rejuvenated, it will never again resume the -lineaments traced by Charles Darwin. In the face of this -certainty, it is almost pitiful to hear the die-hards of Darwinism -bolstering up a lost cause with the wretched quibble -that, though natural selection has been discredited as an explanation -of the differentiation of species, Darwinism “in its -essentials” survives intact. For, if there is any feature which, -beyond all else, deserves to be called an essential of Darwin’s -system, surely it is natural selection. For Darwin it was “the -most important” agency of transformation (cf. “Origin of -Species,” 6th ed., p. 5). Apart from his hypothesis of the summation -through inheritance of slight variations (“fluctuations”), -now completely demolished by the new science of -genetics, it represented his sole contribution to the philosophy -of transformism. It alone distinguishes Darwinism from Lamarckism, -its prototype. Without it the “Origin of Species” -would be Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. With it<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</span> -Darwin’s fame should stand or fall. Therefore, since Darwin -erred in making it “the most important means of modification,” -Darwinism is dead, and no grief of mourners can resuscitate -the corpse. “Through the last fifty years,” says -Bateson, “this theme of the natural selection of favored races -has been developed and expounded in writings innumerable. -Favored races certainly can replace others. The argument -is sound, but we are doubtful of its value. For us that debate -stands adjourned. We go to Darwin for his incomparable -collection of facts. We would fain emulate his scholarship, -his width, and his power of exposition, but to us he speaks -no more with philosophical authority. We read his scheme of -evolution as we would those of Lucretius or of Lamarck, delighting -in their simplicity and their courage.” (<i>Heredity</i>, -Presid. Add. to British Assoc. for Advanc. of Science, Smith. -Inst. Rpt. for 1915, p. 365.)</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II<br /> - - -HOMOLOGY AND ITS EVOLUTIONARY -INTERPRETATION</h3></div> - - -<p>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 subject. M. Henri de Dorlodot, in his “Le Darwinisme,” -appears in the rôle of an ardent admirer of Darwin -and an enthusiastic advocate of the doctrine of Transformism. -The contrary attitude is adopted by Mr. Alfred McCann, whose -“God—or Gorilla” is bitterly antagonistic not only to Darwinism -but to any form whatever of the theory of Transformism. -Both of these works possess merits which it would be -unjust to overlook. Dorlodot deserves credit for having shown -conclusively that there is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures, -or in Patristic tradition, or in Catholic theology, or in the -philosophy of the Schools, which conflicts with our acceptance -of organic evolution as an hypothesis explanatory of certain -biological facts. In like manner, it must be acknowledged -that, even after a liberal discount has been made in penalty of -its bias and scientific inaccuracy, Mr. McCann’s book still contains -a formidable residue of serious objections, which the -friends of evolution will probably find it more convenient to -sidestep than to answer.</p> - -<p>Unfortunately, however, neither of these writers maintains -that balanced mental poise which one likes to see in the -defenders of Catholic truth. Dorlodot seems too profoundly -impressed with the desirability of occupying a popular position -to do impartial justice to the problem at issue, and his -anxiety to keep in step with the majority blinds him apparently<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</span> -to the flaws of that “Darwinism” which he praises. Had he -been content with a simple demarcation of negative limits, -there would be no ground for complaint. But, when he goes -so far as to bestow unmerited praise upon the author of the -mechanistic “Origin of Species” and the materialistic “Descent -of Man”; when, by confounding Darwinism with evolution, he -consents to that historical injustice which allows Darwin to -play Jacob to Lamarck’s Esau, and which leaves the original -genius of Mendel in obscurity while it accords the limelight of -fame to the unoriginal expounder of a borrowed conception; -when, by means of the sophistry of anachronism, he speciously -endeavors to bring the speculations of an Augustine or an -Aquinas into alignment with those of the ex-divinity student -of Cambridge; when he assumes that Fixism is so evidently -wrong that its claims are unworthy of consideration, -whereas Transformism is so evidently right that we can dispense -with the formality of examining its credentials; when, -in a word, he expresses himself not merely in the sense, but in -the very stereotyped cant phrases of a dead philosophy, we -realize, with regret, that his conclusions are based, not on any -reasoned analysis of the evidence, but solely upon the dogmatism -of scientific orthodoxy, that his thought is cast in antiquated -molds, and that for him, apparently, the sixty-five -years of discovery and disillusionment, which have intervened -since the publication of the “Origin of Species,” have passed -in vain.</p> - -<p>But, if Dorlodot represents the extreme of uncritical approval, -Mr. McCann represents the opposite, and no less reprehensible, -extreme of biased antagonism, that is neither fair in -method nor conciliatory in tone. Instead of adhering to the -time-honored practice of Catholic controversialists, which is -rather to overstate than to understate the argument of an adversary, -Mr. McCann tends, at times, to minimize, in his -restatement, the force of an opponent’s reasoning. He frequently -belittles with mere flippant sneer, and is only too ready -to question the good faith of those who do not share his con<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</span>victions. -Thus, when McCann ridicules Wells and accuses him -of pure romancing, because the latter speaks of certain hairy -“wild women” of the Caves, he himself seems to be ignorant -of the fact that a palæolithic etching has been found representing -a woman so covered with hair that she had no need of -other apparel (the bas-relief from Laugerie-Basse carved on -reindeer palm—cf. Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1909, p. 540 and -Plate 2).</p> - -<p>Mr. McCann may object, with truth, that this is far from -being a proof that the primitive representatives of the human -race were hairy individuals, but the fact suffices, at least, to -acquit Mr. Wells of the charge of unscrupulous invention. -Hence, while we have no wish to excuse the lamentable lack -of scientific conscientiousness so manifestly apparent in the -writings of popularizers of evolution, like Wells, Osborn, and -Haeckel, nevertheless common justice, not to speak of charity, -constrains us to presume that, occasionally at least, their departures -from the norm of objective fact were due to ordinary -human fallibility or to the mental blindness induced by preconceptions, -rather than to any deliberate intent to deceive. -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 Mr. McCann himself. Thus we find that the seventh illustration -in “God—or Gorilla” (opposite p. 56) bears the legend: -“Skeletons of man and <i>chimpanzee</i> compared,” when, in point -of fact, the ape skeleton in question is not that of a chimpanzee -(<i>Troglodytes niger</i>) at all, but of an Orang-utan (<i>Simia -satyrus</i>), as the reader may verify for himself by consulting -Plate VI of the English version of Wasmann’s “Modern -Biology,” where the identical illustration appears above its -proper title: “Skeleton of an adult Orang-utan.” Since the -error is repeated in the index of illustrations and in the legend -of the third illustration of the appendix, it is impossible, in -this instance, to shift the responsibility from Mr. McCann to -the printer. In any case, it is sincerely to be hoped that this,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</span> -and several other infelicitous errors will be rectified in the -next edition of “God—or Gorilla.”</p> - -<p>In the next chapter we shall have occasion to refer again -to Dorlodot’s book. For the present, however, his work need -not concern us, while in that of Mr. McCann we single out but -one point as germane to our subject, namely, the latter’s inadequate -rebuttal of the evolutionary argument from homology. -The futility of his method, which consists in matching insignificant -differences against preponderant resemblances, and in -exclaiming with ironic incredulity: “Note extraordinary resemblances!” -becomes painfully evident, so soon as proper presentation -enables us to appreciate the true force of the argument -he is striving to refute. <i>Functionally</i> the foot of a -Troglodyte ape may be a “hand,” but <i>structurally</i> it is the -homologue of the human foot, and not of the human hand; nor -is this homology effectually disposed of by stressing the dissimilarity -of the hallux, whilst one remains discreetly reticent -concerning the similarity of the calcaneum. For two reasons, -therefore, the irrelevance of Mr. McCann’s reply is of special -interest here: (1) 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 solve; -(2) 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 ape, so that, unless the argument from homology proves -upon closer scrutiny to be inherently <i>inconclusive</i>, its applicability -to the human body is a foregone conclusion, and implies -with irresistible logic the common ancestry of men and apes.</p> - -<p>Such are the reflections suggested by the meager measure of -justice which Mr. McCann accords to the strongest zoölogical -evidence in favor of evolution, and they contain in germ a -feasible program for the present chapter, which, accordingly, -will address itself: first, to the task of ascertaining the true -significance of homology in the abstract as well as the full -extent of its application in the concrete; second, to that of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</span> -determining with critical precision its intrinsic value as an -argument for the theory of transmutation.</p> - -<p><i>Homology</i> is a technical term used by the systematists of -botany, zoölogy and comparative anatomy to signify basic -structural similarity as distinguished from superficial functional -similarity, the latter being termed <i>analogy</i>. Organisms -are said to exemplify the phenomenon of homology when, beneath -a certain amount of external diversity, 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 plan. In cases of this -kind, the basic similarity is frequently masked by a veneer of -unlikeness, and it is only below this shallow surface of divergence -that we find evidences of the identical structure or common -type.</p> - -<p>Thus organs of different animals are said to be homologous -when they are composed of like parts arranged in similar relation -to one another. Homologous organs correspond bone for -bone and tissue for tissue, so that each component of the one -finds its respective counterpart in the other. The organs in -question may be functionally specialized and externally differentiated -for quite different purposes, but the superficial diversity -serves only to emphasize, by contrast, the underlying -identity of structure which persists intact beneath it. Thus, -for example, the wing of a pigeon, the flipper of a whale, the -foreleg of a cat, and the arm of a man are organs differing -widely in function as well as outward appearance, but they are -called homologous, none the less, because they all exhibit the -same basic plan, being composed of similar bones similarly -disposed with respect to one another.</p> - -<p>Organs, on the other hand, are called analogous which, -though fundamentally unlike in structure, are, nevertheless, -superficially modified and specialized for one and the same -function. The wing of a bird and the wing of an insect furnish -a trite instance of such analogy. Functionally they subserve -the same purpose, but structurally they bear no relation to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</span> -each other. In like manner, though both are devoted to the -same function, there exists between the leg of a man and the -leg of a spider a fundamental disparity in structure.</p> - -<p>At times, specialization for the selfsame function involves -the emergence of a similar modification or uniform structural -adaptation from a substrate of basic dissimilarity. In these -instances of parallel modifications appearing on the surface -of divergent types, we have something more than mere functional -resemblance. Structure is likewise involved, albeit -superficially, in the modification which brings about this external -uniformity. In such cases, analogy is spoken of as <i>convergence</i>, -a phenomenon of which the mole and the mole-cricket -constitute a typical example. The burrowing legs of the insect -are, so far as outward appearance goes, the exact replica on a -smaller scale of those of the mole, though, fundamentally, -their structure is quite unlike, the mole being built on the -endoskeletal plan of the vertebrates, whereas the mole-cricket -is constructed on the exoskeletal plan characteristic of the -arthropods. Speaking of the first pair of legs of the mole-cricket, -Thomas Hunt Morgan says: “By their use the mole-cricket -makes a burrow near the surface of the ground, similar -to, but of course much smaller than, that made by the mole. -In both of these cases the adaptation is the more obvious, because, -while the leg of the mole is formed on the same general -plan as that of other vertebrates, and the leg of the mole-cricket -has the same fundamental structure as that of other insects, -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 put.” (Quoted by Dwight in -“Thoughts of a Catholic Anatomist,” p. 235.) In the analogies -of convergence, therefore, we have the exact converse of the -phenomenon so often encountered in connection with homology. -The latter exhibits a contrast between basic identity and superficial -diversity, the former a contrast between superficial convergence -and fundamental divergence.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</span></p> - -<p>Now the extreme importance of homology is manifest from -the fact that the taxonomists of zoölogy and botany have found -it to be the most satisfactory basis for a scientific classification -of animals and plants. In both of these sciences, organisms -are arranged in groups according as they possess in common -certain points of resemblance whereby they may be referred -to this, or that, general type. The resemblance is most complete -between members of the same species, which do not -differ from one another by any major difference, though they -may exhibit certain minor differences justifying their subdivision -into varieties or races. These morphological considerations, -however, must, in the case of an organic species, be -supplemented by the additional physiological criteria of perfect -sexual compatibility and normal viability, as we have already -had occasion to note in the previous chapter. When -organisms, though distinguished from one another by some -major difference, agree, notwithstanding, in the main elements -of structure, the several species to which they belong are -grouped under a common genus, and similarly genera are -grouped into families. A <i>relative</i> major difference, such as a -difference in the size of the teeth, suffices for the segregation -of a new species, while an <i>absolute</i> difference, such as a difference -in the number of teeth or the possession of an additional -organ, suffices for the segregation of a new genus. In practice, -however, the classifications of systematists are often very arbitrary, -and we find the latter divided into two factions, the -“lumpers” who wish to reduce the number of systematic groups -and the “splitters” who have a passion for breaking up larger -groups into smaller ones on the basis of tenuous differences. -Above the families are the orders, and they, in turn, are assembled -in still larger groups called classes, until finally we -reach the phyla or branches, which are the supreme categories -into which the plant and animal kingdoms are divided. As we -ascend the scale of classification, the points of resemblance between -the organisms classified are constantly decreasing in -number, while the points of difference increase apace. Hence,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</span> -whereas members of the same species have very much in common, -members of the same phylum have very little in common, -and members of different phyla show such structural disparity -that further correlation on the basis of similarities becomes -impossible (in the sense, at least, of a reliable and consistent -scheme of classification), all efforts to relate the primary -phyla to one another in a satisfactory manner having proved -abortive.</p> - -<p>Within the confines of each phylum, however, homology is -the basic principle of classification. But the scientist is not -content to note the bare fact of its existence. He seeks an explanation, -he wishes to know the <i>raison d’être</i> of homology. -Innumerable threads of similarity run through the woof of -divergence, and the question arises: How can we account for -the coëxistence of this woof of diversity with a warp of similarity? -Certainly, if called upon to explain the similarity existent -between members of one and the same species, even the -man in the street would resort instinctively to the principle of -inheritance and the assumption of common ancestry, exclaiming: -“Like sire, like son!” It is a notorious fact that children -resemble their parents, and since members of the same species -are sexually compatible and perfectly interfertile, 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 resemblance. Now, it is precisely this -selfsame principle of heredity which the Transformist invokes -to account for generic, no less than for specific, similarity. In -fact, he presses it further still, and professes to see therein the -explanation of the resemblances observed between members of -the different families, orders, and classes, which systematists -group under a common phylum. This, of course, 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 verification. Transformists -answer this difficulty, however, by contending that the -period, during which the human race has existed, has been,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</span> -geologically speaking, all too brief, and characterized by environmental -conditions much too uniform, to afford us a favorable -opportunity for ascertaining the extreme limits to which -the genetic process may possibly extend; and, even apart from -this consideration, they say, racial development (phylogeny) -may be, like embryological development (ontogeny) an irreversible -process, in which case no recurrence whatever of its -past phenomena are to be expected in our times.</p> - -<p>Be that as it may, the evolutionist interprets the resemblances -of homology as surviving vestiges of an ancient ancestral -type, which have managed to persist in the descendants -notwithstanding the transformations wrought in the latter by -the process of progressive divergence. Moreover, just as the -existence of a common ancestor is inferred from the <i>fact</i> of -resemblance, so the relative position in time of the common -ancestor is inferred from the <i>degree</i> of resemblance. The -common ancestor of forms closely allied is assumed to have -been proximate, that of forms but distantly resembling each -other is thought to have been remote. 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 family. The same reasoning is applied, -<i>mutatis mutandis</i>, to the ancestry of families, orders -and classes.</p> - -<p>The logic of such inferences may be questioned, but there is -no blinking the fact that, in practice, the genetic explanation -of homology is assumed by scientists to be the only reasonable -one possible. In fact, so strong is their confidence in the necessity -of admitting a solution of this kind, that they do not -hesitate to make it part and parcel of the definition of homology -itself. For instance, on page 130 of Woodruff’s “Foundations -of Biology” (1922), we are informed that homology signifies -“a fundamental similarity of structure based on descent -from a common antecedent form.” The Yale professor, however, -has been outdone in this respect by Professor Calkins of -Columbia, who discards the anatomical definition altogether<span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</span> -and substitutes, in lieu thereof, its evolutionary interpretation. -“When organs have the same ancestry,” he says, “that is, when -they come from some common part of an ancestral type, they -are said to be homologous.” (“Biology,” p. 165.) In short, F. -A. Bather is using a consecrated formula culled from the -modern biological creed when he says: “The old form of -diagnosis was <i>per genus et differentiam</i>. The new form is -<i>per proavum et modificationem</i>.” (<i>Science</i>, Sept. 17, 1920, -p. 259.)</p> - -<p>A moment’s reflection, however, will make it clear that, in -thus confounding the definition proper with its theoretical interpretation, -the modern biologist is guilty of a logical atrocity. -Homology, after all, is a simple anatomical fact, which can -be quite adequately defined in terms of observation; nor is the -definition improved in the least by having its factual elements -diluted with explanatory theory. On the contrary, the definition -is decidedly weakened by such redundancy. And as for -those who insist on defining homology in terms of atavistic -assumption instead of structural affinity, their procedure is -tantamount to defining the clear by means of the obscure, an -actual effect by means of a possible cause. Moreover, this -attempt to load the dice in favor of Transformism by tampering -with the definition of homology ends by defeating its own -purpose. For, if homology is to serve as a legitimate argument -for evolution, then obviously evolution must not be -included in its definition; otherwise, the conclusion is anticipated -in the premise, the question is begged, and the argument -itself rendered a vicious circle.</p> - -<p>Having formed a sufficiently clear conception of homology -as a static fact, we are now in a position to consider the problem -of its causality with reference to the solution proposed by -evolutionists. Transmutation, they tell us, results from the -interaction of a twofold process, namely, the conservative and -similifying process called <i>inheritance</i>, and progressive and -diversifying process known as <i>variation</i>. Inheritance by transmitting -the ancestral likeness tends to bring about uniformity.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</span> -Variation by diverting old currents into new channels -adjust organisms to new situations and brings about modification. -Homology, therefore, is the effect of inheritance, while -adaptedness or modification is the product of variation.</p> - -<p>As here used, the term inheritance denotes something more -than a mere recurrence of parental characters in the offspring. -It signifies a process of genuine transmission from -generation to generation. Strictly speaking, it is not the <i>characters</i>, -such as coloration, shape, size, chemical composition, -structural type, and functional specificity, that are “inherited,” -but rather the hereditary <i>factors</i> or chromosomal <i>genes</i>, which -are actually transmitted, and of which the characters are but -an external expression or manifestation. Hence, it is scarcely -accurate to speak of “inherited,” as distinguished from “acquired,” -characters. As a matter of fact, all somatic characters -are joint products of the interaction of germinal -and environmental factors. Consequently, the external character -would be affected no less by a change in the environmental -factors than by a change in the germinal factors. -In a word, somatic characters are not the exclusive expression -of the genetic factors, but are equally dependent upon environmental -influence, 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 “inherited,” remembering -that what is really transmitted to the offspring is a -complex of genes or germinal factors, and not the characters -themselves. The sense is, therefore, that “inherited” characters -are manifestative of what is contained in the germ -plasm, whereas “acquired” characters have no specific germinal -basis, but are a resultant of the interaction between -the somatic cells and the environment. In modern terminology, -as we have seen, the aggregate of germinal factors -transmitted in the process of reproduction is called the -genotype, while the aggregate of somatic characters which -manifest these germinal factors externally is spoken of as the -phenotype. Only the genotype is transmitted, the phenotype<span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</span> -being the subsequent product of the interplay of genetic factors -and environmental stimuli, dependent upon, and expressive -of, both.</p> - -<p>Variation, therefore, may be based upon a change in the -germ plasm, or in the environment, or in both. If it rests -exclusively upon an extraordinary change in the environmental -conditions, the resulting modification is non-inheritable, -and will disappear so soon as the exceptional environmental -stimulus that evoked it is withdrawn. If, on the -contrary, it is based upon a germinal change, it will manifest -itself, even under ordinary, i.e. unchanged or uniform environmental -influence. In this case, the modification is inheritable -in the sense that it is the specific effect of a transmissible -germinal factor, which has undergone alteration.</p> - -<p>As we have seen in the foregoing chapter, there are three kinds -of germinal change which result in “inheritable” modifications. -The first is called factorial mutation, and is initiated by an -alteration occurring in one or more of the chromosomal genes. -The second is called chromosomal mutation, and is caused -by duplication (or reduction) of the chromosomes. The third -may be termed recombination, one type of which results from -the crossover or exchange of genes between pairing chromosomes -(“pseudomutation”), the other from random assortment -in accordance with the Mendelian law of the independence of -allelomorphic pairs. This so-called “random assortment of -the chromosomes” is the result of the shuffling and free deals -of the chromosomal cards of heredity which take place twice in -the life-cycle of organisms: viz. first, in the process of gametic -reduction (meiosis); second, in the chance meeting of variously-constituted -sperms and eggs in fertilization. A mischance -of the first of these “free deals” is bewailed in the -following snatch from a parody belonging to the Woods Hole -anthology.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">“Oh chromosomes, my chromosomes,</div> - <div class="verse indent4">How sad is my condition!</div> - <div class="verse indent0">My grandsire’s gift for writing well</div><span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</span> - <div class="verse indent0">Has gone to some lost polar cell</div> - <div class="verse indent0">And so I write this doggerel,</div> - <div class="verse indent4">I cannot do much better.”</div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>These kinds of variation, however, in so far as they fall -within the range of actual observation, are confined within -the limits of the organic species. Intra-specific variation, -however, will not suffice. To account for the adaptive modifications -superimposed upon underlying structural identity, -Transformism is obliged to assume the possibility of trans-specific -variation. Yet in none of the foregoing processes of -variation do we find a valid factual basis for this assumption.</p> - -<p>Factorial mutation, for instance, waiving its failure to -produce naturally-viable forms, or to meet the physiological -sterility test of a new species, admits of interpretation as a -change of loss due to the “dropping out” of a gene from the -germinal complex. Bateson’s conception of evolution as a -process consisting in the gradual loss of inhibitive genes, -whose elimination releases suppressed potentialities, seems -rather incredible. Many will be inclined to see in Castle’s -facetious epigram a <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> of Bateson’s suggestion; -for, according to the latter’s view, as the Harvard -professor remarks, we should have to regard <i>man</i> as <i>a simplified -amœba</i>. Certainly, it seems nothing short of a contradiction -to ascribe the progressive complication of the phenotype to a -simplification of the genotype by loss.</p> - -<p>On the other hand, not only is there no experimental evidence -of a germinal change by positive acquisition, that is, -by the addition of genes, but it is hard to conceive how such -a change could come about. “At first,” admits Bateson, -“it 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 life.” “But,” he asks, -“is it easier to imagine that these powers could have been -conveyed by extrinsic addition? Of what nature could these -additions be? Additions of material can not surely be in -question. We are told that salts of iron in the soil may turn<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</span> -a pink hydrangea blue. The iron cannot be passed on to the -next generation. How can iron multiply itself? The power -to assimilate iron is all that can be transmitted. A disease-producing -organism like the pebrine of silkworms can in a -very few cases be passed on through the germ cells. But it -does not become part of the invaded host, and we can not -conceive it taking part in the geometrically ordered processes -of segregation. These illustrations may seem too gross; but -what refinement will meet the requirements of the problem, -that the thing introduced must be, as the living organism -itself is, capable of multiplication and of subordinating itself -in a definite system of segregation?” (<i>Heredity</i>, Smithson. -Inst. Rpt. for 1915, p. 373.)</p> - -<p>Nor can we agree with Prof. T. H. Morgan’s contention -that the foregoing difficulty of Bateson has been solved by -the discovery of the chromosomal mutation. All unbalanced -chromosomal mutants are subnormal in their viability and -vitality, not to speak of their marked sterility. Haploidy -represents a regressive, rather than a progressive, step. The -triploid mutant is sterile. The tetraploid race of Daturas -is inferior in fertility to the normal diploid plant. The origin -of balanced tetraploidy from diploidy must be presumed, since -it has never been observed. Moreover, tetraploidy represents -only quantitative, and not qualitative, progress. The increased -mass of the nucleus produces an enlargement of the cytoplasm, -the result of which is giantism. This effect, however, is not -specific; for giant and normal races possessing each the same -number of chromosomes are known to exist in nature. Hence -giantism may be due to other causes besides chromosomal -duplication. The only effect of this doubling is a reinforcement -and intensification of the former effect of the genetic factors, -their specificity remaining unchanged. Double doses are substituted -for single doses of the factors, but nothing really new -is added. Morgan himself recognizes that this mere repetition -of identical genes is insufficient, and that their multiplication -must be qualitative as well as numerical, to answer<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</span> -the specifications of a progressive step in evolution. Hence he -suggests that the chromosomal mutation is subsequently supplemented -by appropriate factorial mutation. Once this supposition -is made, however, all the objections we have -mentioned in connection with factorial mutation (<i>e.g.</i> the -subnormality of its products, its intra-specific nature, etc.) -return to plague the speculator, and, in addition to these, he -is confronted with the new difficulty of explaining how the -redundance of duplicate genes can be removed and replaced by -coördinate differentiation in their respective specificities. Now -we have no factual evidence whatever of such a solidaric redifferentiation -of the germinal factors, that would modify -harmoniously the composition and rôle of each and every -gene in the factorial complex. Nor is there any possibility -whatever of accounting for this telic superregulation of the -germinal regulators upon a purely mechanistic basis. How -can the ultimate chemical determinants of heredity be thus -redetermined? Consequently, although there is gametic incompatibility -between diploid races and the tetraploid races, -which are said to have arisen from the former, we are not, -nevertheless, warranted, by what has been experimentally -verified, in regarding tetraploid races as new species, or as -progressive steps in the process of organic evolution.</p> - -<p>To conclude, therefore, we have experimental verification -of the efficacy of the similifying process said to have been at -work in evolution, namely, inheritance. The same, however, -cannot be said of the correlative diversifying process of trans-specific -variation, which is said to have superficially modified -old structures into new species. The latter process, accordingly, -is but a pure postulate of science known to us only -through the effect hypothetically assigned to it, namely, the -adaptive modification.</p> - -<p>The adaptation, however, of which there is question here is -not to be confounded with the “acquired adaptation” of -Lamarckian fame; for, unlike the latter, it is an inheritable -modification rooted in the germ plasm. Adaptations of this<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</span> -sort do, indeed, adjust the organism to its external environment, -but they are innate and not acquired. Hence they are -often spoken of as <i>preadaptations</i>; for they precede, in a -sense, the organism’s contact with the environing element to -which they adjust it. They may possibly, it is true, have been -acquired in the distant past, but they have now a specific -germinal foundation, and no one was ever privileged to witness -their initial production <i>de novo</i>. The whale, for example, -though fundamentally a warm-blooded mammal, is superficially -a fish, by reason of such a preadaptation to its marine -environment. Preadaptation is of common occurrence, especially -among parasites, symbiotes, commensals, and inquilines. -Wasmann cites innumerable instances of beetles and flies so -profoundly modified, in accommodation to their mode of life -as guests in termite nests, that the systematist hesitates to -classify them under any of the accepted orders of insects. -Here the adaptive modification so disturbs the underlying -homology as to make of these creatures taxonomical ambiguities. -In the case of <i>Termitomyia</i>, he tells us, “the whole development -of the individual has been so modified that it -resembles that of a viviparous mammal rather than that of a -fly.” (“The Problem of Evolution,” pp. 14, 15.)</p> - -<p>Such modifications, however, amount to major, and not -merely minor, differences. We are not dealing, therefore, with -varietal distinctions here, but with specific, generic, and even -ordinal differences. With reference to the phenomenon of adaptive -modification,<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> three things, consequently, are worthy of -note: (1) it has the semblance of being adventitious to the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</span> -underlying structural uniformity; (2) it is of such magnitude that -it cannot be ascribed to variation within the species; (3) it -has been appropriated by the hereditary process, in the sense -that it is now an “inherited” character based on the transmission -of specific germinal factors.</p> - -<p>Now it is claimed that for the occurrence of this kind of -modification in conjunction with homology only one rational -explanation is possible, and that explanation is evolution. If -this contention be a sound one, and Dorlodot, who claims -certitude for the evolutionary solution, insists that it is such, -then, in the name of sheer logical consistency, but one course -lies open to us. We cannot stop at Wasmann’s comma,<a id="FNanchor_4" href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> we -must press on to the very end of the evolutionary sentence and -sing with the choristers of Woods Hole:</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">“It’s a long way from Amphioxus,</div> - <div class="verse indent2">It’s a long way to us;</div> - <div class="verse indent0">It’s a long way from Amphioxus,</div> - <div class="verse indent2">To the meanest human cuss.</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Good-bye fins and gill slits;</div> - <div class="verse indent2">Welcome skin and hair.</div> - <div class="verse indent0">It’s a long, long way from Amphioxus,</div> - <div class="verse indent2">But we came from there.”</div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>In this predicament it will not do, as we shall see presently, -to adopt Mr. McCann’s expedient of balancing anatomical differences -against anatomical resemblances. To do so is to -court certain and ignominious defeat. We must, therefore, -examine the argument dispassionately. If it be solid, we must -accept it and give it general application. If it be unsound, -we must detect its flaws and expose them. Intellectual honesty -allows us no alternative!</p> - -<p>Moreover, in weighing the argument from organic homology -we must not lose sight of the two important considerations -previously stressed: (1) that the inference of common an<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</span>cestry -in the case of homologous forms is based, not upon this -or that particular likeness, but upon an entire group of coördinated -resemblances; (2) that the resemblances involved are -not exterior similarities, but deep-seated structural uniformities -perfectly compatible with diversities of a superficial and -functional character. “Nothing,” says Dr. W. W. Keen, “could -be more unlike externally than the flipper of a whale and the -arm of a man. Yet you find in the flipper the shoulderblade, -humerus, radius, ulna, and a hand with the bones of four -fingers masked in a mitten of skin.” (<i>Science</i>, June 9, 1922, -p. 605.)</p> - -<p>In fact, the resemblances may, in certain instances, 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 process. In such cases, the embryo -or larva exhibits, at a particular stage, traces of a uniformity -completely obliterated from the adult form. In short, though -frequently presented as a distinct argument, embryological -similarity, together with all else of value that can still be -salvaged from the wreck of the Müller-Haeckel Law of Embryonic -Recapitulation, is, at bottom, identical with the general -evolutionary argument from homology. In the latter -argument we are directed to look beneath the modified surface -of the adult organism for surviving vestiges of the ancestral -type. In the former, we are bidden to go deeper still, to the -extent, that is, of descending into the very embryological -process itself, in order to discover lingering traces of the ancestral -likeness, which, though now utterly deleted from the -transformed adult, are yet partially persistent in certain -embryonic phases.</p> - -<p>In sectioning a larval specimen of the fly-like termite-guest -known as <i>Termitoxenia Heimi</i>, Father Wasmann came across -a typical exemplification of this embryological atavism. In -the adult insect, a pair of oar-like appendages replace the -wings characteristic of the <i>Diptera</i> (flies). These appendages -are organs of exudation, which elaborate a secretion whereof<span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</span> -the termites are very fond, and thereby render their possessors -welcome guests in the nests of their hosts. The appendages, -therefore, though now undoubtedly inherited characters, are -the specific means by which these inquilines are adapted to -their peculiar environment and mode of life among the termites. -Moreover, the organs in question not only differ from -wings functionally, but, in the adult, they bear no structural -resemblance whatever to the wings of flies. Nevertheless, on -examining his sections of the above-mentioned specimen, Wasmann -found a developmental stage of brief duration during -which wing veins appeared in the posterior branches of the -embryonic appendages. Now, assuming that Wasmann’s -technique was faultless, his specimen normal, and his interpretation -correct, it is rather difficult to avoid his conclusion that -we have here, in this transitory larval phase, the last surviving -vestige of ancestral wings now wholly obliterated from -the adult type, that, consequently, this wingless termite guest -is genetically related to the winged <i>Diptera</i>, 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 exudation, (cf. “Modern Biology,” -p. 385.) Indeed, phenomena of this kind seem to admit of -no other explanation than the atavistic one. It should be -remembered, however, that Wasmann does not appear to have -verified the observation in more than one specimen, and that -a larger number of representative specimens would have to -be accurately sectioned, strained, examined and interpreted, -before any reliable conclusion could be drawn.<a id="FNanchor_5" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a></p> - -<p>Such, in its most general aspect, is the atavistic solution -of the problem presented by the homology of types. In it,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</span> -similarity and diversity are harmoniously reconciled, in the -sense that they affect, respectively, different structural, or -different developmental, levels. It is futile, therefore, to look -for contradictions where they do not exist. In a word, the -attempt to create opposition between a group of basic and -correlated uniformities, on the one hand, and some particular -external difference, on the other, is not only abortive, but -absolutely irrelevant as well. The reason is obvious. Only -when likeness is associated with unlikeness is it an argument -for Transmutation. Likeness alone would demonstrate Immutability -by indicating a process of pure inheritance as distinguished -from the process of variation. Hence evolutionists -do not merely concede the coëxistence of diversity with similarity, -they gladly welcome this fact as vitally necessary to -their contention.</p> - -<p>Now it is precisely this point which Mr. McCann, like many -other critics of evolution, fails utterly to apprehend. Consequently, -his efforts to extricate the human foot from the -toils of simian homology are entirely unavailing. To offset -the force of the argument in question, it is by no means -sufficient, as he apparently imagines, to point to the fact that, -unlike the hallux of the ape, the great toe in man is non-opposable -(cf. “God—or Gorilla,” pp. 183, 184, and legends -under cuts opposite pp. 184 and 318). 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 -only, as distinguished from prehension; while, in the ape, -whose foot has retained both the progressive and the prehensile -function, the hallux is naturally opposable in adaptation to the -animal’s arboreal habits. He will then call attention to the -undeniable fact that, despite these adaptational differences, -the bones in the foot of a Troglodyte ape are, bone for bone, -the counterparts of the bones in the human foot and not -of those in the human hand. He will readily concede, that, -so far as function and adaptedness go, this simian foot is a -“hand,” but he will not fail to point out that it is, at the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</span> -same time, a <i>heeled</i> hand equipped with a calcaneum, a talus, -a navicular, a cuboid, and all other structural elements requisite -to ally it to the human foot and distinguish it from the -human hand. In fact, Mr. McCann’s own photographs of the -gorilla skeleton show these features quite distinctly, though he -himself, for some reason or other, fails to speak of them. It is -to be feared, however, that his adversaries may not take a -charitable view of his reticence concerning the simian heel, but -may be inclined to characterize his silence as “discreet,” all the -more so, that he himself has uncomplimentarily credited them -with similar discretions in their treatment of unmanageable -facts. In short, Mr. McCann’s case against homology resembles -the Homeric hero, Achilles, in being vulnerable at the -“heel.” At all events, the homology itself is an undeniable -fact, and it is vain to tilt against this fact in the name of -adaptational adjustments like “opposability” and “non-opposability.” -Since, therefore, our author has failed to prove that -this feature is too radical to be classed as an adaptive modification, -our only hope of exempting the human skeleton from -the application of the argument in question is to show that -argument itself is inconsequential.</p> - -<p>Mr. McCann’s predicament resembles that of the unlucky -disputant, who having allowed a questionable major -to pass unchallenged, strives to retrieve his mistake by -picking flaws in a flawless minor. As Dwight has well -said of the human body, “it differs in degree only from that -of apes and monkeys,” and “if we compare the individual -bones with those of apes we cannot fail to see the correspondence.” -(“Thoughts of a Catholic Anatomist,” p. 149.) In -short, there exists no valid anatomical consideration whatever -to justify us in subtracting the human frame from the extension -of the general conclusion deduced from homology. Whosoever, -therefore, sees in the homology of organic forms -conclusive evidence of descent from a common ancestor, cannot, -without grave inconsistency, reject the doctrine of the -bestial origin of man. He may still, it is true, exclude the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</span> -human mind or soul from the evolutionary account of origins, -but, if homology is, in any sense, a sound argument for common -descent, the evolutionary origin of the human body is -a foregone conclusion, and none of the anatomical “differences -in degree” will avail to spare us the humiliation of sharing with -the ape a common family-tree. It remains for us, then, to -reëxamine the argument critically for the purpose of determining -as precisely as possible its adequacy as a genuine -demonstration.</p> - -<p>To begin with, it must be frankly acknowledged that here -the theory of transformism is, to all appearances, upon very -strong ground. Its first strategic advantage over the theory -of immutability consists in the fact that, unlike the latter, -its attitude towards the problem is positive and not negative. -When challenged to explain the structural uniformities observed -in organic Nature, the theory of immutability is mute, -because it knows of no second causes or natural agencies adequate -to account for the facts. It can only account for -homology by ascribing the phenomenon exclusively to the -unity of the First Cause, and, while this may, of course, be the -true and sole explanation, to assume it is tantamount to removing -the problem altogether from the province of natural -science. Hence it is not to be wondered at that scientists -prefer the theory of transformism, which by assigning intermediate -causes between the First Cause and the ultimate -effects, vindicates the problem of organic origins for natural -science, in assuming the phenomena to be proximately -explicable by means of natural agencies. Asked whether he -believes that God created the now exclusively arboreal Sloth -(<i>Bradypus</i>) in a tree, the most uncompromising defender of -fixism will hesitate to reply in the affirmative. Yet, in -this case, what is nowadays, at least, an inherited preadaptation, -dedicates the animal irrevocably to tree-life, and makes -its survival upon the ground impossible.</p> - -<p>Analogous preadaptations occur in conjunction with the -phenomena of parasitism, symbiosis and commensalism, all of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</span> -which offer instances of otherwise disparate and unrelated -organisms that are inseparably bound together, in some apparently -capricious and fortuitous respect, by a preadaptation -of the one to the other. Parasites, guests, or symbiotes, as the -case may be, they are now indissolubly wedded to some determinate -species of host by reason of an appropriate and congenital -adjustment. For all that, however, the association -seems to be a contingent one, and it appears incredible that -the associates were always united, as at present, by bonds of -reciprocal advantage, mutual dependence, or one-sided exploitation. -Yet the basis of the relationship is in each case a now -inherited adaptation, which, if it does not represent the primitive -condition of the race, must at some time have been -acquired. For phenomena such as these, orthogenesis, which -makes an organ the exclusive product of internal factors, conceiving -it as a preformed mechanism that subsequently selects -a suitable function, has no satisfactory explanation. -Lamarckism, which asserts the priority of function and makes -the environment mold the organ, is equally inacceptable, in -that it flouts experience and ignores the now demonstrated -existence of internal hereditary factors. But, if between these -two extremes some evolutionary <i>via media</i> could be found, -one must confess that it would offer the only conceivable -“natural explanation” of preadaptation.<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> All this, of course, is -pure speculation, but it serves to show that here, at any rate, -the theory of Transformism occupies a position from which it -cannot easily be dislodged.</p> - -<p>But, besides the advantage of being able to offer a “natural -explanation” of the association of homology with adaptation,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</span> -Transformism enjoys the additional advantage of being able -to make the imagination its partisan by means of a visual -appeal. Such an appeal is always more potent than that of -pure logic stripped of sensuous imagery. When it comes to -vividness and persuasiveness, the syllogism is no match for -the object-lesson. Retinal impressions have a hypnotic influence -that is not readily exorcised by considerations of an -abstract order—“<i>Segnius irritant demissa per aurem, Quam -quae sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus</i>,” says Horace, in the “Ars -Poetica.” Philosophers may distinguish between the magnetic -appeal of a graphic presentation and the logical cogency of the -doctrine so presented, but there is no denying that, in practice, -imagination is often mistaken for reason and persuasion -for conviction. Be that as it may, 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 presentation. Given a class of impressionable -premedics and coeds; given an instructor’s table with -skeletons of a man, a flamingo, an ape and a dog hierarchically -arranged thereon; given an instructor sufficiently versed in -comparative osteology to direct attention to the points in which -the skeletons concur: and there can be no doubt whatever as to -the psychological result. The student forms spontaneously the -notion of a common vertebrate type, and the instructor assures -him that this “general type” is not, as it would be with respect -to other subject matter, a mere universal idea with no formal -existence outside the mind, but rather a venerable family -likeness, posed for originally by a single pair of ancestors (or -could it possibly have been, by one self-fertilizing hermaphrodite?) -and recopied from generation to generation, with certain -variations on the original theme, by the hand of an artist called -Heredity. This explanation may be true, but logically consequential -it is not. However, if the dialectic is poor, the -pedagogy is beyond reproach, and the solution proposed has in -its favor the fact that it accords well with the student’s limited -experience. He is aware of the truism that children re<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</span>semble -their parents. Why look for more recondite explanations -when one so obvious is at hand? The atavistic theory -gratifies his instinct for simplification, and, if he be of a -mechanistic turn of mind, the alternative conception of creationism -is quite intolerable. Nevertheless, it goes without -saying that the “inference” of common descent from the data -of homology is not a ratiocination at all, it is only a simple -apprehension, a mere abstraction of similarity from similars—“<i>Unde -quaecumque inveniuntur convenire in aliqua intentione -intellecta</i>,” says Aquinas, “<i>voluerunt quod convenirent in una -re</i>.” (<i>In lib. II sent.</i>, <i>dist.</i> 17, <i>q. I</i>, <i>a.</i> 1) Philosophy tells us -that the oneness of the universal is conceptual and not at all -extramental or real, but the transformist insists that the -universal types of Zoölogy and Botany are endowed with real -as well as logical unity, that real unity being the unity of the -common ancestor.</p> - -<p>Certainly, from the standpoint of practical effectiveness, the -evolutionary argument leaves little to be desired. The presentation -is graphic and the solution simple. But for the critic, -to whom logical sequence is of more moment than psychological -appeal, this is not enough. To withstand the gnawing -tooth of Time and the remorseless probing of corrosive human -reason, theories must rest on something sounder than a mirage -of visual imagery!</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">Tell me where is fancy bred,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Or in the heart or in the head?</div> - <div class="verse indent0">How begot, how nourished?</div> - <div class="verse indent4">Reply, reply.</div> - <div class="verse indent0">It is engendered in the eyes,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">With gazing fed; and fancy dies</div> - <div class="verse indent0">In the cradle where it lies.</div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>But is it fair thus to characterize the “common ancestors” of -Transformism as figments which, like all other abstractions, -have no extramental existence apart from the concrete objects -whence they were conceived? To be sure, their claim to be real -entities cannot be substantiated by direct observation or ex<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</span>periment, -and so a factual proof is out of the question. Man, -the late-comer, not having been present at the birth of organic -forms, can give no reliable testimony regarding their parentage. -In like manner, no <i>a priori</i> proof from the process of -inheritance is available, because heredity, as revealed to us by -the experimental science of Genetics, can account for specific -resemblances only, and cannot be invoked, at present, as an -empirically tested explanation for generic, ordinal, or phyletic -resemblances. It has still to be demonstrated experimentally -that the hereditary process is transcendental to limits imposed -by specific differentiation. There remains, however, the <i>a posteriori</i> -argument, which interprets homology and adaptation -as univocal effects ascribable to no other agency than the dual -process of inheritance and variation. What are we to think -of this argument? Does it generate certainty in the mind, -or merely probability?</p> - -<p>A moment’s reflection will bring to light the preliminary -flaw of incomplete enumeration of possibilities. To suppose -that inheritance alone can account for structural resemblance -is an unwarranted assumption. Without a doubt, there are -other similifying influences at work in Nature besides inheritance. -True, inheritance is one possible explanation of the -similarity of organisms, but it is not the <i>only</i> one. Even -among the chemical elements of inorganic nature we find -analogous uniformities or “family traits,” which, in the absence -of any reproductive process whatever, we cannot possibly attribute -to inheritance. Mendeléeff’s discovery of the periodicity -of the elements, arranged in the order of their atomic -weights, is well-known. At each interval of an octave, a succession -of chemical types, similar to those of the preceding -octave, recur. 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 resemblance. -Now, we have in the process of atomic disintegration, as observed -in radioactive elements and interpreted by the electronic -theory of atomic structure, a reasonably satisfactory basis<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</span> -upon which to account for the existence of these inorganic -uniformities. Here analogous chemical constitution, produced -in accordance with a general law, results in uniformity that -implies a similar, rather than an identical, cause. 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 origin. Why, then, should we lean so heavily on the -already overtaxed principle of inheritance, when parallelism is -as much a possibility in the organic world as it is an actuality -in the inorganic world?</p> - -<p>As to the contrast here drawn between inheritance and other -similifying factors, it is hardly necessary to remark that we -are speaking of inheritance as defined in terms of Mendelian -experiment and cytological observation. In the so-called -chemical theory of inheritance, the distinction would be meaningless -and the contrast would not exist. Ehrlich’s disciple, -Adami, sets aside all self-propagating germinal determinants, -like the chromomeres, in favor of a hypothetical “biophoric -molecule,” which is to be conceived as a benzine-like ring -bristling with sidechains. Around this determining core the -future organism is built up in definite specificity, as an -arch is constructed about a template. Adami has merely applied -Paul Ehrlich’s ideas concerning metabolism and immunity -to the question of heredity, commandeering for this purpose the -latter’s entire toolkit of receptors, haptophores, amboceptors, -etc., as though this grotesque paraphernalia of crude and -clumsy mechanical symbols (which look for all the world like -the wrenches of a machinist, or the lifters used by the cook -to remove hot lids from the kitchen range) could throw any -valuable light whatsoever on the exceedingly complex, and -manifestly vital, phenomenon of inheritance. It does not even -deserve to be called a chemical theory, for, as Starling correctly -remarks concerning Ehrlich’s conception, “though chemical -in form,” it is not so in reality, because “it does not explain -the phenomenon by reference to the known laws of chemistry.”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</span> -(Cf. <i>Physiology</i>, ed. of 1920, p. 1084.) In a word, the theory -of heredity, which seeks to strip inheritance of its uniqueness -as a vital process by identifying it with the more general physicochemical -processes occurring in the organism, is a groundless -speculation, that, far from explaining, flouts the very observational -data which it pretends to elucidate. <i>Kurz und gut!</i> -to requite the mechanist, Schäfer, with his own Danielesque -phrase, here, as elsewhere, the mechanists have succeeded in -extracting from the facts, not what the facts themselves proclaim, -but what preëxisted in their own highly-cultured imaginations -so well-stocked with cogs, cranks, ball bearings, and -other æsthetic imagery emanating from polytechnic schools -and factories.</p> - -<p>But in arguing from the existence of parallelism in the -inorganic world to its possibility in the organic world, we -are less liable to displease the mechanists than those other -extremists, the neo-vitalists, who will be prone to deny all -parity between living, and inanimate, matter. Fortunately, -we are in a position to appease the scruples of the latter by -referring to the facts of <i>convergence</i> as universally accepted -evidence that the phenomenon of parallelism occurs in animate, -no less than inanimate, nature. Admitting, therefore, that the -laws of organic morphology are of a higher order than those -which regulate atomic, molecular, and multimolecular structure, -these facts attest, nevertheless, that parallelisms arise -in organisms of separate ancestry which are due, not to heredity, -but to the uniform action of universal morphogenetic -forces. 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 “family” like the Halogens. -And why should this not be so? 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-tree. They -all originate as single cells. Their common means of growth<span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</span> -and reproduction is mitotic cell division. This leads to the -production of a <i>somatella</i>, among the protista, and of a <i>soma</i> -differentiated by histogenesis into two or three primary -tissues, among the metista. All these fundamental processes -are strikingly uniform throughout the entire plant and animal -world. In these universal properties of living matter, therefore, -we have a common basis for general structural and organizational -laws, which, though irreducible to the “common -ancestors” of Transformism, is quite adequate to account for -both the homologies and analogies of living matter. Accept -this basis of general laws regulating the development of living -matter, and there is no difficulty in seeing why the problems -posed by exposure to analogous environmental conditions are -solved in parallel fashion by organisms, irrespective of whether -they are nearly, or distantly, related in the sense of morphology. -Transformism, on the other hand, can only account -for homology at the expense of convergence, and for -convergence at the expense of homology. So far as a -common ancestral basis is concerned, the two kinds of -resemblance are, from the very nature of the case, irreducible -phenomena.</p> - -<p>It is only, in fact, by surrendering the principle that similarity -entails community of origin, and by falling back on the -suggested common basis of general laws, that Transformism -makes room in its system for the troublesome facts of convergence. -“It might be reiterated in passing,” says Dwight, -“that this ‘convergence’ business is a very ticklish one. We -have been taught almost word for word that resemblance -implies relationship, or almost predicates it; but according -to this doctrine it has nothing to do with it whatever.” -(“Thoughts of a Cath. Anat.,” p. 190.) And in a subsequent -chapter he says: “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 animals. -The curious low grade mammal, the <i>Ornithorhynchus</i>, with a -hairy coat and the bill of a duck, is a familiar instance. We<span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</span> -all know that the whales have the general form of the fish, although -they are mammals, and going more into details we -know that the whale’s flipper is on the same general plan -as that of the ancient saurians.... The origin of the eye, according -to evolutionary doctrines, has been a very difficult -problem, which gets worse rather than better the more you -do for it. 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 sight, it -would be a sufficient tax on our credulity to believe that this -could come off successfully in some extraordinary lucky species; -but that it should have turned out so well with all kinds -of vertebrates is really too much to ask us to swallow. But -this is not all: eyes are very widely spread among different -classes of invertebrates. More wonderful still, the eyes of certain -molluscs and crustacea are on stalks, and this is found -also in various and very different families of fishes. How -did this happen? Was it by way of descent from the molluscs -or the crustacea? If not, how could chance have brought -about such a similar result in diverse forms?” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, pp. -233-236.)</p> - -<p>It may be objected that the resemblances of convergence -are superficial analogies, not to be confounded with fundamental -homologies. This contention may be disputed; for, as -we shall see in the next chapter, there are cases where the -convergence is admittedly radical, and not merely superficial. -The distinction, moreover, between shallow and basic characters -is somewhat arbitrary, and its validity is often questionable. -When the skeletal homology that relates the -amphibia to the mammals, for instance, is traced to the root -of the vertebrate family tree, we find it all but disappearing -in a primitive Amphioxus-like chordate, whose so-called skeleton -contains no trace of bone or cartilage. Hence, if we go -back far enough, the homologies of today become the convergences -of a geological yesterday, and we find the vertebrate<span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</span> -type of skeleton arising independently in reptiles, mammals, -amphibia, and fishes.</p> - -<p>Again, there are times when convergent analogies appear -to be more representative of the common racial heritage -than the underlying structure itself, tempting the -evolutionist to fly in the face of the orthodox interpretation, -which rigidly rules out analogy in favor of homology, and -refuses to accept the eloquent testimony of a remarkable -resemblance merely because of a slight technical discrepancy -in the structural substrate. A large pinching claw, -or chela, for example, occurs in two organisms belonging -to the phylum of the arthropods, namely, the lobster and the -African scorpion. Both chelæ are practically identical in -structure, but, unfortunately, the chela of the lobster arises -from a different appendage than that from which the scorpion’s -chela emerges. If they arose from corresponding appendages, -they would be pronounced “homologous organs” -and acclaimed, without hesitation, as strong evidence in favor -of the common origin of all the arthropods. In proof of this, -we call attention to the importance attached to the adaptations -affecting homologous bones in fossil “horses.” As it is, -however, the two chelæ are analogous, and not homologous, -organs. Hence, technically speaking, the two chelæ are -utterly unrelated structures. To the eye of common sense, -however, the likeness appears to be far more important than -the difference, and the average person will be inclined to -view the resemblance as evidence of a community of type. In -fact, the tendency to discard superficial, and to retain only -fundamental, uniformities, is dangerous to the theory of Transformism. -When we confine our attention to what is really -basic, we find that the resemblances become so generalized -and widespread that specific conclusions as to descent become -impossible, and we lose all sense of direction in a clueless -labyrinth of innumerable, yet mutually contradictory, possibilities.</p> - -<p>Finally, it may be noted in passing that, though it is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</span> -customary with evolutionists to regard homologous characters -as the tenaciously persistent heritage of primeval days, and -to look upon adaptational characters as adventitious and accessory -to the aforesaid primitive heritage, the supposedly -older and more fundamental characters fail to give, by the -manifestation of greater fixity, any empirical evidence whatever -of their being more deeply or firmly rooted in the hereditary -process than the presumably newer adaptational characters. -We have, therefore, no experimental warrant for -appropriating homologous, rather than adaptational, characters -to the process of inheritance. “It is sometimes -asserted,” says Goodrich, “that old-established characters -are inherited, and that newly begotten ones are not, -or are less constant, in their reappearance. This statement -will not bear critical examination. For, on the one -hand, it has been conclusively shown by experimental breeding -that the newest characters may be inherited as constantly as -the most ancient.... While, on the other hand, few characters -in plants can be older than the green color due to chlorophyll, -yet it is sufficient to cut off the light from a germinating -seed for the greenness to fail to appear. Again, ever since -Devonian times vertebrates have inherited paired eyes; yet, -as Professor Stockard has shown, if a little magnesium chloride -is added to the sea water in which the eggs of the fish -<i>Fundulus</i> are developing, they will give rise to embryos with -one median cyclopean eye! Nor is the suggestion any happier -that the, so to speak, more deep-seated and fundamental -characters are more constantly inherited than the trivial or -superficial. A glance at the organisms around us, or the -slightest experimental trial, soon convinces us that the apparently -least important character may reappear as constantly -as the most fundamental. But while an organism may live -without some trivial character, it can rarely do so when a -fundamental character is absent, hence such incomplete individuals -are seldom met in Nature.” (<i>Science</i>, Dec. 2, 1921, -p. 530.)</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</span></p> - -<p>But, whether it be upon, or beneath, the surface, similitude -of <i>any kind</i> suffices to establish our contention that inheritance -is not the only similifying influence present in organisms, -and that resemblance is perfectly compatible with -independence of ancestry. We have, therefore, an alternative -for inheritance in the explanation of organic uniformities, and -by the admission of this alternative, which, for the rest, is -factually attested by the universally acknowledged phenomena -of convergence, the inference of common descent from structural -resemblance is shorn of the last remnant of its demonstrative -force, as an <i>a posteriori</i> argument.</p> - -<p>But a still more serious objection to the evolutionary interpretation -of homology and preadaptation arises from its -intrinsic <i>incoherency</i>. Evolution, as previously stated, is assumed -to be the resultant of a twofold process, namely, <i>inheritance</i> -and <i>variation</i>. The first is a conservative and -similifying process, which transmits. The second is a progressive -and diversifying process, which diverts. To the former -process are due the uniformities of homology, to the latter the -deviations of adaptation. Upon the admission of evolutionists -themselves, however, neither of these processes behaves in a -manner consistent with its general nature, and both of them -are flagrantly unfaithful to the principal rôles assigned to -them. Nowadays the hereditary process transmits <i>adaptational</i>, -as well as <i>homologous</i>, characters. If, then, adaptational -characters are more recent than homologous characters, -there must have been a time when inheritance ceased to <i>similify</i> -and become a <i>diversifying</i> process by transmitting what -it did not receive from the previous generation. There were -times when, not content with simply reiterating the past, it -began to divert former tendencies into novel channels. In -other words, inheritance becomes dualized into a paradoxical -process, which both perpetuates the old and appropriates the -new. The same inconsistency is manifest in the process of -variation, which capriciously produces <i>convergent</i>, no less -than <i>divergent</i>, adaptations. In two fundamentally identical<span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</span> -structures, like the wing of a bird and the foreleg of a cat, -variation is said to have produced diverse adaptations. In two -fundamentally diverse structures, like the head of an octopus -and the head of a frog, variation is said to have produced an -identical adaptation, namely, the vertebrate type of eye. It -appears, therefore, that the essentially diversifying process of -variation can become, on occasion, a simplifying process, which, -instead of solving environmental problems in an original manner, -prefers to employ uniform and standardized solutions, and -to cling to its old stereotyped methods. Inheritance similifies -and diversifies, variation converges and diverges. It is futile -to attempt to reduce either of these protean processes to a condition -that even approximates consistency. The evolutionist -blows hot and cold with the same breath. Verily, his god is -Proteus, or the double-headed Janus!</p> - -<p><i>Summa summarum</i>: The evolutionary argument from -homology is defective in three important respects: (1) in its -lack of experimental confirmation; (2) in its incomplete -enumeration of the disjunctive possibilities; (3) in its inability -to construct a scheme of transmutation that synthesizes inheritance -and variation in a logically coherent, and factually -substantiated formula. The first two defects are not necessarily -fatal to the argument as such. Though they destroy -its pretensions to conclusiveness, they do not preclude the fulfilment -of the moderate claim made in its behalf by Prof. T. -H. Morgan, who says: “In this sense (<i>i.e.</i>, as previously -stated) the argument from comparative anatomy, while not a -demonstration, carries with it, I think, a high degree of probability.” -(“A Critique of the Theory of Evolution,” p. 14.) -The third defect is more serious. The apparently irreducible -antagonism which the evolutionary assumption introduces between -inheritance and variation has been sensed even by the -adherents of transformism themselves, and they have searched -in vain for a formula, which, without sacrificing the facts, -would bring into concord the respective rôles of these discordant -factors. “It follows,” says Osborn, “as an unprejudiced<span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</span> -conclusion from our present evidence that upon Weismann’s -principle we can explain inheritance but not evolution, while -with Lamarck’s principle and Darwin’s selection principle we -can explain evolution, but not, at present, inheritance. Disprove -Lamarck’s principle and we must assume that there is -some third factor in evolution of which we are ignorant.” -(<i>Popular Science Monthly</i>, Jan., 1905.) The point is well -taken, and unless, as Osborn suggests, there is a <i>tertium quid</i> -by means of which the discord can be resolved into ultimate -harmony, we see no way of liberating the theory of Transmutation -from this embarrassing dilemma.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III<br /> - - -FOSSIL PEDIGREES</h3></div> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“<i>By dint of such great efforts we succeeded only in piecing together -genial romances more or less historical.</i>”—B. Grassi, Prof. of Comparative -Anatomy, Univ. of Rome, “La vita” (1906), p. 227.</p> -</div> - - -<h4>§ 1. <b>The Argument in the Abstract</b></h4> - -<p>The palæontological argument for evolution is based upon -the observed gradual approximation in type of the earlier -forms of life, as represented by the fossils still preserved in -successive geological strata, to the later forms of life, as represented -by the contemporary species constituting our present -flora and fauna. Here the observed distribution in time supplements -and confirms the argument drawn from mere structural -affinity. Here we are no longer dealing with the spatial -gradation of contemporary forms, arranged on a basis of -greater or lesser similarity (the gradation whence the zoölogist -derives his argument for evolution), but with a temporal -gradation, which is simultaneously a morphological series and -an historical record. The lower sedimentary rocks contain -specimens of organic life very unlike modern species, but, the -higher we ascend in the geological strata, the more closely do -the fossil forms resemble our present organisms. In fact, the -closeness of resemblance is directly proportional to the proximity -in time, and this seems to create a presumption that -the later forms of life are the modified descendants of the -earlier forms. Considered in the abstract, at least, such an -argument is obviously more formidable than the purely anatomical -argument based on the degrees of structural affinity -observable in contemporary forms. It ought, therefore, to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</span> -be extremely persuasive, provided, of course, it proceeds in -rigorous accord with indubitably established facts and rules -out relentlessly the alloy of uncritical assumptions.</p> - -<p>Here, likewise, we find the theory of transformism asserting -its superiority over the theory of immutability, on the ground -that evolutionism can furnish a natural explanation for the -gradational distribution of fossil types in the geological strata, -whereas the theory of permanence resorts, it is said, to a -supernaturalism of reiterated “new creations” alternating with -“catastrophic exterminations.” Now, if this claim is valid, and -it can be shown conclusively that fixism is inevitably committed -to a postulate of superfluously numerous “creations,” -then the latter theory is shorn of all right to consideration -by Occam’s Razor: <i>Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine ratione.</i> -It is rather difficult to conceive of the Creator as continually -blotting out, and rewriting, the history of creation, as ruthlessly -exterminating the organisms of one age, only to repopulate -the earth subsequently with species differing but little -from their extinct predecessors—<i>ad quid perditio haec</i>? Such -procedure hardly comports with the continuity, regularity and -irrevisable perfection to be expected in the works of that -Divine Wisdom, which “reacheth ... from end to end mightily -and disposeth all things sweetly” (<i>Wisdom</i>, viii; 1), which -“ordereth all things in measure, and number and weight.” -(<i>Wis.</i> xi; 21.)</p> - -<p>Following the lead of other evolutionists, Wasmann has -striven to saddle fixism with the fatuity of periodic catastrophism -and “creation on the installment plan.” But even -Cuvier, who is credited with having originated the theory of -catastrophism, did not go to the absurd extreme of hypothecating -reiterated creations, but sought to explain the repopulation -of the earth after each catastrophe by means of -migrations from distant regions unaffected by the catastrophe. -Historically, too, fixism has had its uniformitarian, as well as -its catastrophic, versions. In fact, Huxley classifies both uniformitarianism -and catastrophism as fixistic systems, when<span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</span> -he says: “I find three more or less contradictory systems of -geologic thought ... standing side by side in Britain. I shall -call one of them Catastrophism, another Uniformitarianism, -the third Evolutionism.” (“Lay Sermons,” p. 229.) Obviously, -then, fixism is separable from the hypothesis of -repeated catastrophes alternating with repeated “creations.” -Stated in proper terms, it is at one with evolutionism in rejecting -as undemonstrated and improbable the postulate of -reiterated cataclysms. It freely acknowledges that, in the absence -of positive evidence of their occurrence, the presumption -is against extraordinary events, like wholesale catastrophes. -It sanctions the uniformitarian tenet that ordinary cosmic -processes are to be preferred to exceptional ones as a basis -of geological explanation, and it repudiates as unscientific any -recourse to the unusual or the miraculous in accounting for -natural phenomena. Its sole point of disagreement with evolutionism -is its refusal to admit organic changes of <i>specific</i> -magnitude. It does, however, admit germinal changes of -<i>varietal</i> magnitude. It also recognizes that the external characters -of the phenotype are the joint product of germinal factors -and environmental stimuli, and admits, in consequence, the -possibility of purely <i>somatic changes</i> of considerable profundity -being induced by widespread and persistent alterations in -environmental conditions. Like Darwin, the uniformitarian -fixist ascribes the origination of organic life to a single vivifying -act on the part of the Creator, an act, however, that -was <i>formative</i> rather than <i>creative</i>, because the primal forms -of life, whether few or many, were all evolved through Divine -influence from preëxistent inorganic matter. Unlike Darwin, -he ascribes the continuation of organic life to generative processes -that were univocal (<i>generationes univocae</i>), and not -gradually-equivocal (<i>generationes paulatim aequivocae</i>). In -the next chapter, we shall see that, in attributing the initial -formation of species to a Divine act, neither Darwin nor the -creationists exposed themselves to the charge of explaining -the “natural” by means of the “miraculous.” And, as for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</span> -the process by which living forms were continued upon earth, -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 transmutation. The sole matter of dispute between the -two views is whether the life-cycles of organisms are circles -or spirals.</p> - -<p>But all this, it will be said, is purely negative. Merely to -refrain from any recourse to the extraordinary or the supernatural -is by no means sufficient. “Natural explanations” -must be explanatory as well as natural. Unless there be a -simplification, a reduction of plurality to unity, a resolution -of many particular problems into a common general problem, -we have no explanation worthy of the name. Granting, therefore, -that uniformitarian fixism does not recur to the anomalous -or the miraculous, it still lies open to the charge of -failing in its function as an explanation, because it multiplies -origins in both space and time. Transformism, on the contrary, -is said to elucidate matters, inasmuch as it unifies origins spatially -and temporally.</p> - -<p>That transformism successfully plausibleizes a unification -of origins in space, is true only in a limited and relative sense. -The most that can be said for the assumption, that resemblances -rest on the principle of common inheritance, is that -it permits of a numerical reduction of origins, but this numerical -reduction will, by an intrinsic necessity, always fall -short of absolute unification. The monophyletic derivation of -all organic forms from one primordial cell or protoblast is a -fantastic dream, for which, from the very nature of things, -natural science does not, and can not, furnish even the semblance -of an objective basis. The ground is cut from under -our feet, the moment we attempt to extend the principle of -descent outside the limits of an organic phylum. The sole -basis of inference is a group of uniformities, and, unless these -uniformities predominate over the diversities, there can be no -rational application of the principle of transformism. Hence,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</span> -the hypothesis, that organisms are consanguineous notwithstanding -their differences, loses all value as a solution at the -point where resemblances are outweighed by diversities. The -transmutation assumed to have taken place must be never -so complete as to have obliterated all recognizable vestiges -of the common ancestral type. “Whenever,” says Driesch, -“the theory that, in spite of their diversities, the organisms -are related by blood, is to be really useful for explanation, it -must necessarily be assumed in every case that the steps of -change, which have led the specific form A to become the -specific form B, have been such as only to change in part that -original form A. That is to say: the similarities between A -and B must never be overshadowed by their diversities.” -(“Science and Philosophy of the Organism,” v. I, p. 254.) -When, therefore, the reverse is true and diversities are prevalent -over uniformities, we are left without clue or compass in -the midst of a labyrinth of innumerable possibilities. Such are -the limits imposed by the very nature of the evidence itself, -and the scientists, who transgress these limits, by attempting to -correlate the primary phyla, are on a par with those unconvincible -geniuses, who continually besiege the Patent Office -with schemes ever new and weird for realizing the chimera of -“perpetual motion.”</p> - -<p>Thus scientific transformism is unable to simplify the problem -beyond a certain irreducible plurality of forms, lesser -only in degree than the plurality postulated by fixism. This -being the case, the attempts of Wasmann and Dorlodot to -prune the works of Creation with Occam’s Razor are not only -presumptuous, but precarious as well. <i>Qui nimis probat, nihil -probat!</i> If it be unworthy of God to multiply organic origins -in space, then monophyletic descent is the only possible alternative, -and polyphyletic transformism falls under the same -condemnation as fixism. Yet the polyphyletic theory of -descent is that to which both Wasmann and Dorlodot subscribe, -as it is, likewise, the only kind of transformism which -science can ever hope to plausibleize. Besides, too close a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</span> -shave with Occam’s Razor would eliminate creation altogether, -since all theologians cheerfully admit that it was the result -of a free and unnecessary act on the part of God. When we -apply our <i>rationes convenientiae</i> to the Divine operations, we -must not make the mistake of applying them to the Divine -action itself instead of the created effects of that action. We -may be competent to discern disorder and irregularity in finite -things, but we are wholly incompetent to prescribe rules for -Divine conduct. To say that God is constrained by His infinite -Wisdom to indirect, rather than direct, production, or -that He must evolve a variety of forms out of living, rather -than non-living, matter, is to be guilty of ridiculous anthropomorphism. -There is no <i>a priori</i> reason, founded upon the -Divine attributes, which restricts God’s creative action to the -production of this, or that, number of primordial organisms, -or which obliges him to endow primitive organisms with the -power of transmutation.</p> - -<p>But the fact that these <i>rationes convenientiae</i> fail to establish -the <i>a priori</i> necessity of a unification of organic origins -in space, does not imply that they are without value in suggesting -the unification of organic origins in time. Order and -regularity are not excluded by spatial multiplicity, but they -may easily be excluded by the incongruities of an irregular -succession of events. Indeterminism and chance are, indeed, -inseparable from the course of Nature. There is in matter an -unlimited potentiality, incommensurate with the limited efficacy -of natural agencies. Hence it evades the absolute control -of all finite factors and forces. But the anomalies and irregularities, -which are contingent upon the limitation or frustration -of second causes unable to impose an iron necessity -upon evasive matter, are not referable to the First Cause, but -rather to the finite efficacy of second causes. Such anomalies -in natural processes, consequently, are not inconsistent with infinite -wisdom and power on the part of the Creator. If, on the -contrary, the anomaly occurs, not in the form of an accidental -frustration of a natural agency, but in the form of an intrusive<span class="pagenum" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</span> -“new creation,” the irregularity in question would then be referable -to the Creator Himself, and such derogations of order -are inadmissible, except as manifestations of the supernatural. -In fact, the abrupt and capricious insertion of a “new creation” -into an order already constituted, say, for instance, the -sudden introduction of Angiosperms in the Comanchian period, -or of mammals in the Tertiary, would be out of harmony -with both reason and revelation. Unless there is a -positive reason for supposing the contrary, we must presume -that, subsequent to the primordial constitution of -things, the Divine influence upon the world has been -concurrent rather than revolutionizing. Hence a theory -of origins, compatible with the simultaneous “creation” of -primal organisms, is decidedly preferable to a theory, which -involves successive “creations” at random. That transformism -dispenses with the need of assuming a succession of “creative” -acts, is perfectly obvious, and, unless fixism can emulate -its rival system in this respect, it cannot expect to receive -serious attention.</p> - -<p>But once fixism assumes the simultaneousness of organic -origins, it encounters, in the absence of modern organic types -from ancient geological strata, a new and formidable difficulty. -Cuvier’s theory of numerous catastrophes followed by wholesale -migrations of the forms, which had escaped extinction, is -tantamount to an appeal to the extraordinary and the improbable -for purposes of explanation, and this, as we have seen, -is an expedient, which natural science is justified in refusing -to sanction. Nor does the appeal to the incompleteness of -the geological record offer a more satisfactory solution. It is -tax enough, as we shall see, upon our credulity, when the -transformist seeks to account thereby for the absence of intermediate -types, but to account in this fashion for the absence -of palæozoic Angiosperms and mammals is asking us to believe -the all-but-incredible. It would not, therefore, be advisable -for the fixist to appropriate the line of defense suggested -for him by Bateson—“It has been asked how do you<span class="pagenum" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</span> -<i>know</i> for instance that there were no mammals in Palæozoic -times? May there not have been mammals somewhere on -the earth though no vestige of them has come down to us? -We may feel confident there were no mammals then, but are -we sure? In very ancient rocks most of the great orders of -animals are represented. The absence of the others might -by no great stress of imagination be ascribed to accidental -circumstances.” But the sudden rise of the Angiosperms in -the early part of the Mesozoic era is an instance of <i>de novo</i> -origin that is not so easily explained away. Hence Bateson -continues: “Happily, however, there is one example of which -we can be sure. There were no Angiosperms—that is to say -‘higher plants’ with protected seeds—in the carboniferous -epoch. Of that age we have abundant remains of a worldwide -and rich flora. The Angiosperms are cosmopolitan. By -their means of dispersal they must immediately have become -so. Their remains are very readily preserved. If they had -been in existence on the earth in carboniferous times they -must have been present with the carboniferous plants, and -must have been preserved with them. Hence we may be sure -that they did appear on earth since those times. We are not -certain, using certain in the strict sense, that Angiosperms -are the lineal descendants of the carboniferous plants, but it is -much easier to believe that they are than that they are not.” -(<i>Science</i>, Jan. 20, 1922, p. 58.)</p> - -<p>It would thus appear, that not all the organic types of -either the plant, or the animal, kingdom are of equal antiquity, -and that the belated rise of unprecedented forms has -the status of an approximate certainty, wherewith every theory -of origins must inevitably reckon. How, then, is the fixist -to reconcile this successive appearance of organisms with the -simultaneous “creation” advocated by St. Augustine and St. -Thomas of Aquin? Unless there be some other gradual process -besides transmutation, to bridge the interval between the creative -fiat and the eventual appearance of modern types, there -seems to be no escape from the dilemma.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</span></p> - -<p>This brings us to St. Augustine’s theory of the evolution of -organic life from inorganic matter, which Dorlodot sophistically -construes as supporting the theory of descent. According -to St. Augustine, for whose view the Angelic Doctor expressed -a deliberate preference, the creation of the corporeal -world was the result of a single creative act, having an immediate -effect in the case of minerals, and a remote or postponed -effect in the case of plants and animals (cf. “De Genesi ad -litteram,” lib. V, c. 5). Living beings, therefore, were created, -not in actuality, but in germ. God imparted to the elements -the power of producing the various plants and animals -in their proper time and place. Hence living beings were created -causally rather than formally, by the establishment of -causal mechanisms or natural agencies especially ordained to -bring about the initial formation of the ancestral forms of life. -The Divine act initiating these “natural processes” (<i>rationes -seminales, rationes causales</i>) in inorganic, and not in living, -matter, was instantaneous, but the processes, which terminated -in the formation of plants and animals, in their appointed time -and place, were in themselves gradual and successive. Thus -by an influx of Divine power the earth was made pregnant -with the promise of every form of life—“<i>Sicut matres gravidae -sunt foetibus, sic ipse mundus est gravidus causis nascentium.</i>” -(Augustine, lib. III, “de Trinitate,” c. 9.)</p> - -<p>By reason of this doctrine, the Louvain professor claims -that St. Augustine was an evolutionist, and so, indeed, he was, -if by evolution is meant a gradual production of organisms -from inorganic matter. But if, on the contrary, by evolution -is meant a progressive differentiation and multiplication of -organic species by transmutation of preëxistent forms of life, -or, in other words, if evolution is taken in its usual sense as -synonym for transformism, then nothing could be more absurdly -anachronistic than to ascribe the doctrine to St. Augustine. -The subject of the gradual process postulated by the -latter was, not living, but <i>inorganic</i>, matter, and the process -was conceived as leading to the <i>formation</i>, and not the trans<span class="pagenum" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</span>formation, -of species. The idea of variable inheritance did not -occur to St. Augustine, and he conceived organisms, once they -were in existence, as being propagated exclusively by univocal -reproduction (<i>generatio univoca</i>). It is the fixist, therefore, -rather than the transformist, who is entitled to exploit the -Augustinian hypothesis. In fact, it is only the vicious ambiguity -and unlimited elasticity of the term evolution, which -avail to extenuate the astounding confusion of ideas and total -lack of historic sense, that can bracket together under a -common term the ideology of Darwin and the view of St. -Augustine.</p> - - -<h3>§ 2. The Argument in the Concrete</h3> - -<p>But it is our task to criticize the theory of transformism, -and not to throw a life-line to fixism, by advocating gradual -formation of species as the only feasible alternative to gradual -transformation of species. Perhaps, this particular life-line -will not be appreciated any way; for the fixist may, not without -reason, prefer to rest his case on the contention that the -intrinsic <i>time-value</i> of geological formations is far too problematic -for certain conclusions of any sort. In maintaining -this position, he will have the support of some present-day -geologists, and can point, as we shall see, to facts that seem -to bear out his contention. In fact, the cogency of the palæontological -argument appears to be at its maximum in the -abstract, and to evaporate the moment we carry it into the -concrete. The lute seems perfect, until we begin to play -thereon, and then we discover certain rifts that mar the effect. -It is to these rifts that our attention must now be turned.</p> - -<p>The first and most obvious flaw, in the evolutionary interpretation -of fossil series, is the confounding of succession -with filiation. Thinkers, from time immemorial, have commented -on the deep chasm of distinction, which divides historical -from causal sequence, and philosophers have never -ceased to inveigh against the sophistical snare of: <i>Post hoc, -ergo propter hoc.</i> That one form of life has been subsequent<span class="pagenum" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</span> -in time to another form of life is, in itself, no proof of descent. -“Let us suppose,” says Bather, “all written records to be -swept away, and an attempt made to reconstruct English -history from coins. We could set out our monarchs in true -order, and we might suspect that the throne was hereditary; -but if on that assumption we were to make James I, the son -of Elizabeth—well, but that’s just what palæontologists are -constantly doing. 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 Prof. H. F. Osborn -and his coadjutors. <i>Palæotherium</i>, which Huxley regarded as -a direct ancestor of the horse, is now held to be only a collateral, -as the last of the Tudors were collateral ancestors of -the Stuarts. The later <i>Ancitherium</i> must be eliminated from -the true line as a side branch—a Young Pretender. Sometimes -an apparent succession is due to immigration of a distant -relative from some other region—‘The glorious House of Hanover -and Protestant Succession.’ It was, you will remember, -by such migrations that Cuvier explained the renewal of life -when a previous fauna had become extinct. He admitted succession -but not descent.” (<i>Science</i>, Sept. 17, 1920, p. 261.)</p> - -<p>But, if succession does not imply descent, descent, at least, -implies succession, and the fact that succession is the necessary -corollary of descent, may be used as a corrective for the erroneous -allocations made by neontologists on the basis of purely -morphological considerations. The <i>priority</i> of a type is the -<i>sine qua non</i> condition of its being accepted as <i>ancestral</i>. It -is always embarrassing when, as sometimes happens, a “descendant” -turns out to be older than, or even coëval with, his -“ancestor.” If, however, the historical position of a form can -be made to coincide with its anatomical pretensions to ancestry, -then the inference of descent attains to a degree of logical -respectability that is impossible in the case of purely zoölogical -evidence. Recent years have witnessed a more drastic -application of the historical test to morphological speculations,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</span> -and the result has been a wholesale revision of former notions -concerning phylogeny. “I could easily,” says Bather, “occupy -the rest of this hour by discussing the profound changes -wrought by this conception on our classification. It is not -that orders and classes hitherto unknown have been discovered, -not that some erroneous allocations have been corrected, -but the whole basis of our system is being shifted. So long -as we were dealing with a horizontal section across the tree of -life—that is to say, with an assemblage of approximately -contemporaneous forms—or even with a number of such horizontal -sections, so long were we confined to simple description. -Any attempt to frame a causal connection was bound to be -speculative.” (<i>Ibidem</i>, p. 258.) Whether zoölogists will take -kindly to this “shifting of the whole basis” of classification, -remains to be seen. Personally, we think they would be very -ill-advised to exchange the solid observational basis of homology -for the scanty facts and fanciful interpretations of -palæontologists.</p> - -<p>The second stumbling block in the path of Transformism -is the occurrence of convergence. We have seen that, in the -palæontological argument, descent is inferred conjointly from -similarity and succession, and that, in the abstract, this argument -is very persuasive. One of the concrete phenomena, -however, that tend to make it inconsequential, is the undoubted -occurrence of convergence. Prof. H. Woods of Cambridge, in -the Introduction to the 5th edition of his “Palæontology” -(1919), speaks of three kinds of convergence (cf., pp. 14, 15, -16), which, as a matter of convenience, we may term the -parallelistic, the radical, and the adaptational, types of convergence. -A brief description of each type will serve to elucidate -its nature and its significance:</p> - -<p>(1) Parallelistic convergence implies the appearance of -parallel modifications in the homologous parts of organisms -regarded as diverging from common stock in two distinct collateral -lines, that were independent at the time of the appearance -in both of the said parallel modifications. Speaking<span class="pagenum" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</span> -of the fossil cœlenterates known as <i>Graptolites</i>, Professor -Woods says: “In some genera the hydrothecæ of different -species show great variety of form, those of one -species being often much more like those of a species belonging -to another genus than to other species of the same genus.” -(“Palæontology,” 5th ed., 1919, p. 69.) As another instance of -this phenomenon, the case of the fossil ungulates of South -America, spoken of as <i>Litopterna</i>, may be cited, and the case -is peculiarly interesting because of its bearing on that <i>pièce de -résistance</i> of palæontological evidence, the Pedigree of the -Horse. “The second family of Litopterna,” says Wm. B. Scott, -“the Proterotheriidæ, were remarkable for their many deceptive -resemblances to horses. Even though those who contend -that the Litopterna should be included in the Perissodactyla -should prove to be in the right, there can be no doubt that -the proterotheres were not closely related to the horses, but -formed a most striking illustration of the independent acquisition -of similar characters through parallel or convergent -development. The family was not represented in the Pleistocene, -having died out before that epoch, and the latest known -members of it lived in the upper Pliocene.... Not that this -remarkable character was due to grotesque proportions; on -the contrary, they looked far more like the ordinary ungulates -of the northern hemisphere than did any of their South American -contemporaries; it is precisely this resemblance that is so -notable.... The feet were three-toed, except in one genus -(<i>Thoatherium</i>) in which they were single-toed, and nearly or -quite the whole weight was carried upon the median digit, the -laterals being mere dew-claws. The shape of the hoofs and -the whole appearance of the foot was surprisingly like those -of the three-toed horses, but there were certain structural differences -of such great importance, in my judgment, as to forbid -the reference of these animals, not merely to the horses, but -even to the perissodactyls.” (“A History of Land Mammals -in the Western Hemisphere,” p. 499.)</p> - -<p>For this sort of parallelism, the Lamarckian and Darwinian<span class="pagenum" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</span> -types of evolution by addition can offer no rational explanation. -It could, perhaps, be accounted for upon the Batesonian -hypothesis of evolution by loss of inhibition, that is to -say, 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 genes, which had suppressed -the convergent feature in the primitive or common -stock. We say that the convergence <i>might</i> be so interpreted, -because the interpretation in question would, at best, be merely -optional and not at all necessary; for in the third, or adaptational, -type of convergence, we shall see instances of parallel -modifications occurring in completely independent races, whose -morphology and history alike exclude all possibility of hereditary -connection between them. Hence, even in the present -case, nothing constrains us to accept the genetic interpretation.</p> - -<p>(2) Radical convergence, which Woods styles heterogenetic -homœomorphy, is described by him as follows: “Sometimes -two groups of individuals resemble each other so closely that -they might be regarded as belonging to the same genus or -even to <i>the same species</i> (italics mine), but they have descended -from different ancestors since they are found to differ -in development (ontogeny) or in their palæontological history; -this phenomenon, of forms belonging to different stocks approaching -one another in character, is known as convergence or -heterogenetic homœomorphy, and may occur at the same geological -period or at widely separated intervals. Thus the form -of oyster known as <i>Gryphaea</i> has originated independently from -oysters of the ordinary type in the Lias, in the Oölites, and -again in the Chalk; these forms found at different horizons -closely resemble one another and have usually been regarded -as belonging to one genus (<i>Gryphaea</i>), but they have no direct -genetic connection with one another.” (“Palæontology,” 5th -ed., 1919, p. 15.) Comment is almost superfluous. If even -<i>specific</i> resemblance is no proof of common origin, then what -right have we to interpret any resemblance whatever in this -sense? With such an admission, the whole bottom drops out<span class="pagenum" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</span> -of the evolutionary argument. When the theory of descent -is forced to account for heterogenetic resemblance at expense -of all likelihood and consistency, when it cannot save itself -except by blowing hot and cold with one breath, one is tempted -to exclaim: “Oh, why bother with it!”</p> - -<p>(3) Adaptational convergence is the occurrence of parallel -modifications due to analogous specialization in unrelated -forms, whose phylogeny has been obviously diverse. “Also, -animals belonging to quite distinct groups,” says Woods, “may, -when living under similar conditions, come to resemble one -another owing to the development of adaptive modifications, -though they do not really approach one another in essential -characters; thus analogous or parallel modifications may occur -in independent groups—such are the resemblances between -flying reptiles (<i>Ornithosaurs</i>) and birds, and between sharks, -icthyosaurs and dolphins.” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, p. 16.) As this type of -convergence has been discussed in a previous article, with -reference to the mole and mole-cricket, it need not detain us -further.</p> - -<p>All these types of convergence, but especially the second type, -are factual evidence of the compatibility of resemblance with -independent origin, and the fact of their occurrence tends to -undermine the certainty of the phylogenetic inferences based on -fossil evidence; all the more so, that, thanks to its bad state of -preservation, and the impossibility of dissection, even superficial -resemblances may give rise to false interpretations. And, -as for the cases of radical convergence, there is no denying that -they strike at the very heart of the theory of descent.</p> - -<p>The third difficulty for Transformism arises from the discontinuity -of the geological record. It was one of the very -first discrepancies to be discovered between evolutionary expectation -and the actual results of research. The earliest explorations -revealed a state of affairs, that subsequent investigations -have failed to remedy: on the one hand, namely, a -notable absence of intermediate species to bridge the gaps -between the fossil genera, and on the other hand, the sudden<span class="pagenum" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</span> -and simultaneous appearance of numerous new and allied types -unheralded by transitional forms. Since Darwin had stressed -the gradualness of transmutation, the investigators expected -to find the transitional means more numerous than the terminal -extremes, and were surprised to find, in the real record of the -past, the exact reverse of their anticipation. They found that -the classes and families of animals and plants had always been -as widely separated and as sharply differentiated as they are -today, and that they had always formed distinct systems, unconnected -by transitional links. The hypothetical “generalized -types,” supposed to combine the features of two or three families, -have never been found, and most probably never will be; -for it is all but certain that they never existed. Occasionally, it -is true, palæontologists have discovered isolated types, which -they interpreted as annectant forms, but a single pier does -not make a bridge, and only too often it chanced that the -so-called annectant type, though satisfactory from the morphological -standpoint, was more recent than the two groups, -to which it was supposed to be ancestral. But it will make -matters plainer, if we illustrate what is meant by the discontinuity -or incompleteness of the fossil record, by reference to -some concrete series, such as the so-called Pedigree of the -Horse.</p> - -<p>Whenever a series of fossils, arranged in the order of their -historical sequence, exhibits a gradation of increasing resemblance -to the latest form, with which the series terminates, -such a series is called a palæontological pedigree, and is -said to represent so many stages in the racial development -or phylogeny of the respective modern type. The classical -example of this sort of “pedigree” is that of the Horse. It is, -perhaps, one of the most complete among fossil “genealogies,” -and yet, as has been frequently pointed out, it is, as it stands, -extremely incomplete. Modern representatives of the <i>Equidae</i>, -namely, the horse, the ass and the zebra, belong to a common -genus, and are separated from one another by differences -which are merely specific, but the differences which separate<span class="pagenum" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</span> -the various forms, that compose the “pedigree of the Horse,” -are generic. We have, to borrow Gerard’s simile, nothing more -than the piers of the evolutionary bridge, without the arches, -and we do not know whether there ever were any arches. -There is, indeed, a sort of progression, <i>e.g.</i>, from the four-toed -to a one-toed type, so that the morphological gradation -does, in some degree, coincide with temporal succession. But, -on the other hand, the fossil forms, interpreted as stages in the -phylogeny of the Horse, are separated from one another by -gaps so enormous, that, in the absence of intermediate species -to bridge the intervals, it is practically impossible, particularly -in the light of our experimental knowledge of Genetics, -to conceive of any transition between them. Nor is this -all. The difficulty is increased tenfold, when we attempt to -relate the <i>Equidae</i> to other mammalian groups. Fossil ungulates -appear suddenly and contemporaneously in the Tertiary -of North America, South America and Europe, without -any transitional precursors, to connect them with the hypothetical -proto-mammalian stock, and to substantiate their -collaterality with other mammalian stocks.</p> - -<p>To all such difficulties the evolutionist replies by alleging -the incompleteness of the geological record, and modern handbooks -on palæontology devote many pages to the task of -explaining why incompleteness of the fossil record is just -what we should expect, especially in the case of terrestrial -animals. The reasons which they assign are convincing, but -this particular mode of solving the difficulty is a rather precarious -one. Evolutionists should not forget that, in sacrificing -the substantial completeness of the record to account for -the absence of intermediate species, they are simultaneously -destroying its value as a proof of the relative position of -organic types in time. Yet this, as we have seen, is precisely -the feature of greatest strategic value in the palæontological -“evidence” for evolution. We must have absolute <i>certainty</i> -that the reputed “ancestor” was in existence prior to the appearance -of the alleged “descendant,” or the peculiar force of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</span> -the palæontological argument is lost. It would be preposterous -for the progeny to be prior to, or even coëval with, the -progenitor, and so we must be quite sure that what we call -“posterity” is really posterior in time. Now the sole argument -that palæontology can adduce for the posteriority of -one organic type as compared with another is the negative -evidence of its non-occurrence, or rather of its non-discovery, -in an earlier geological formation. The lower strata do not, so -far as is known, contain the type in question, and so it is concluded -that this particular form had no earlier history. Such -an inference, as is clear, is not only liable to be upset by later -discoveries, but has the additional disadvantage of implicitly -assuming the substantial completeness of the fossil record, -whereas the absence of intermediate species is only explicable -by means of the assumed incompleteness of the selfsame record. -The evolutionist is thus placed in the dilemma of choosing -between a substantially complete, and a substantially incomplete, -record. Which of the alternatives, he elects, matters -very little; but he must abide by the consequences of his decision, -he cannot eat his cake and have it.</p> - -<p>When the evolutionist appeals to the facts of palæontology, -it goes without saying that he does so in the hope of showing -that the differences, which divide modern species of plants and -animals, diminish as we go backward in time, until the stage -of identity is reached in the unity of a common ancestral -type. Hence from the very nature of the argument, which -he is engaged in constructing, he is compelled to resort to -intermediate types as evidence of the continuity of allied species -with the hypothetical ancestor, or common type, whence -they are said to have diverged. Now, even supposing that -his efforts in this direction were attended with a complete -measure of success, evidence of this kind would not of itself, as -we shall see, suffice to demonstrate the common origin of the -extremes, between which a perfect series of intergradent types -can be shown to mediate. Unquestionably, however, unless -such a series of intergradent fossil species can be adduced as<span class="pagenum" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</span> -evidence of the assumed transition, the presumption is totally -against the hypothesis of transformism.</p> - -<p>Now, as a matter of fact, the geological record rarely offers -any evidence of the existence in the past of intermediate -species. For those, who have implicit confidence in the <i>time-value</i> -of geological “formations,” there are indications of a -general advance from lower to higher forms, but, even so, -there is little to show that this seeming progress is to be -interpreted as an increasing divergence from common ancestral -types. With but few exceptions, the fossil record fails to show -any trace of transitional links. Yet pedigrees made up of -diverse genera are poor evidence for filiation or genetic continuity, -so long as no intermediate species can be found to -bridge the chasm of generic difference. By intermediate species, -we do not mean the fabulous “generalized type.” Annectants -of this kind are mere abstractions, which have never -existed, and never could have existed. We refer rather to -actual fossil types separated from one another by differences -not greater than specific; for “not until we have linked species -into lineages,” can fossil pedigrees lay claim to serious -attention.</p> - -<p>But let us suppose the case for evolution to be ideally favorable, -and assume that in every instance we possessed a perfect -gradation of forms between two extremes, such, for example, -as occurs in the Ammonite series, even then we would be far -from having a true demonstration of the point at issue. Bateson -has called our attention to the danger of confounding -sterile and instable <i>hybrids</i> with intergradent species. “Examine,” -he says, “any two thoroughly distinct species which -meet each other in their distribution, as for instance, <i>Lychnis -diurna</i> and <i>vespertina</i> do. In areas of overlap are many intermediate -forms. These used to be taken to be transitional -steps, and the specific distinctness of <i>vespertina</i> and <i>diurna</i> -was on that account questioned. Once it is known that these -supposed intergrades are merely mongrels between the two -species the transition from one to the other is practically be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</span>yond -our powers of imagination to conceive. If both these can -survive, why has their common parent perished? Why, when -they cross, do they not reconstruct it instead of producing -partially sterile hybrids? I take this example to show how -entirely the facts were formerly misrepresented.” (<i>Heredity</i>, -Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1915, p. 369.)</p> - -<p>Similarly, T. H. Morgan has shown, with reference to -<i>mutants</i>, the fallacy of inferring common descent from the -phenomenon of intergradence, and what holds true for a series -of intergradent mutants would presumably also hold true of -a series of intergradent species, could such a series be found -and critically distinguished from hybrid and mutational intermediates. -In short, the Darwinian deduction of common origin -from the existence of intergradence must now be regarded -as a thoroughly discredited argument. “Because we can -often arrange the series of structures in a line extending from -the very simple to the more complex, 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 complexity. -This conclusion is not necessarily correct.” (“A Critique of -the Theory of Evolution,” p. 9.) Having cited such a series -of gradational mutations ranging between the long-winged, -and completely wingless condition, in the case of the Vinegar -Fly (<i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>), as well as two similar graded -series based on pigmentation and eye color, he concludes: -“These types, with the fluctuations that occur within each type, -furnish a complete series of gradations; yet historically they -have arisen independently of each other. Many changes in -eye color have appeared. As many as thirty or more races -differing in eye color are now maintained in our cultures. -Some of them are so similar that they can scarcely be separated -from each other. It is easily possible beginning with -the darkest eye color, sepia, which is a deep brown, to pick -out a perfectly graded series ending with pure white eyes. -But such a serial arrangement would give a totally false idea<span class="pagenum" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</span> -of the way the different types have arisen; and any conclusion -based on the existence of such a series might very well -be entirely erroneous, for the fact that such a series exists -bears no relation to the order in which its members have appeared.” -(<i>Op. cit.</i>, pp. 12, 13.) Such facts must give us -pause in attaching undue importance to phenomena like the -occurrence of a gradual complication of sutures in the Chalk -Ammonites, particularly as parallel series of perfectly similar -sutures occurs “by convergence” in the fossil Ceratites, which -have no genetic connection with the Ammonites. (Cf. Woods’ -“Palæontology,” 5th ed., p. 16.)</p> - -<p>But, if even mutational and specific intergradents are not -sufficient evidence of common ancestry, what shall we say of -a discontinuous series, whose links are separate genera, orders, -or even classes, instead of species. 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 generic, to differences of the -specific, order, before that series can command any respect as -hypothetical “genealogy.” “You will have observed,” says F. -A. Bather, “that the precise methods of the modern palæontologist, -on which this proof is based, are very different from the -slap-dash conclusions of forty years ago. The discovery of <i>Archæopteryx</i>, -for instance, was thought to prove the evolution -of birds from reptiles. No doubt it rendered that conclusion -extremely probable, especially if the major promise—that evolution -was the method—were assumed. But the fact of evolution -is precisely what men were then trying to prove. These -jumpings from class to class or from era to era, by aid of a -few isolated stepping-stones, were what Bacon calls anticipations -“hasty and premature but very effective, because as -they are collected from a few instances, and mostly from those -which are of familiar occurrence, they immediately dazzle -the intellect and fill the imagination.” (<i>Nov. Org.</i>, I, 28.) -No secure step was taken until the modern palæontologist -began to affiliate mutation with mutation and species with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</span> -species, working his way back, literally inch by inch, through -a single small group of strata. Only thus could he base on -the laboriously collected facts a single true interpretation; -and to those who preferred the broad path of generality his -interpretations seemed, as Bacon says they always “must -seem, harsh and discordant—almost like mysteries of faith.” ... -Thus by degrees we reject the old slippery stepping-stones -that so often toppled us into the stream, and, foot by foot, we -build a secure bridge over the waters of ignorance.” (<i>Science</i>, -Sept. 17, 1920, pp. 263, 264.)</p> - -<p>We cannot share Bather’s confidence in the security of a -bridge composed of even linked species. Let such a series be -never so perfect, let the gradation be never so minute, as it -might conceivably be made, when not merely distinct species, -but also hybrids, mutants and fluctuants are available as stopgaps, -the bare fact of such intergradation tells nothing whatever -concerning the problem of genetical origin and specific -relationship. The species-by-species method does, however, -represent the very minimum of requirement imposed upon the -palæontologist, who professes to construct a fossil pedigree. -But, when all is said and done, such a method, even at its -best, falls considerably short of the mark. However perfectly -intergradent a series of fossils may be, the fact remains that -these petrified remnants of former life cannot be subjected -to breeding tests, and that, in the consequent absence of genetical -experimentation, we have no means of determining the real -bearing of these facts upon the problem of interspecific relationship. -Only the <i>somatic</i> characters of extinct floras and -faunas have been conserved in the rock record of the past, and -even these are often rendered dubious, as we shall see presently, -by their imperfect state of preservation. Now, it is solely -in conjunction with breeding experiments, that somatic characters -can give us any insight into the nature of the <i>germinal -constitution</i> of an organism, which, after all, is the cardinal -consideration upon which the whole question of interspecific relationship -hinges. All inferences, therefore, regarding the de<span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</span>scent -of fossil forms are irremediably speculative and conjectural. -When we are dealing with living forms, we can always -check up the inferences based on somatic characteristics by -means of genetical experiments, 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 cover; for, apart from the check of breeding tests, it -is impossible to say just which somatic characters are genetically -significant, and which are not. Forms externally alike -may be so unlike in germinal constitution as to be sexually -incompatible; forms externally unlike may be readily crossed -without any discernible diminution of fertility. “Who could -have foreseen,” exclaims Bateson, “that the apple and the pear—so -like each other that their botanical differences are evasive—could -not be crossed together, though species of <i>Antirrhinum</i> -(Snapdragon) so totally unlike each other as <i>majus</i> -and <i>molle</i> can be hybridized, as Baur has shown, without a -sign of impaired fertility?” (<i>Heredity</i>, Smithson. Inst. Rpt. -for 1915, p. 370.) We cannot distinguish between alleged specific, -and merely mutational (varietal), change, nor between -hybridizations and factorial, chromosomal, or pseudo-, mutations, -solely on the basis of such external characters as are -preserved for us in fossils. It is impossible, therefore, to -demonstrate trans-specific variation by any evidence that -Palæontology can supply. The palæontologist (<i>pace</i> Osborn) -is utterly incompetent to pass judgment on the problem -of interspecific relationship. As Bateson remarks: “In discussing -the physiological problem of interspecific relationship -evidence of a more stringent character is now required; 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 bottles.” (<i>Science</i>, April 17, 1922, p. 373.) -“When the modern student of variation and heredity,” says -T. H. Morgan, “looks over the different ‘continuous’<span class="pagenum" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</span> -series, from which certain ‘laws’ and ‘principles’ have been -deduced, he is struck by two facts: that the gaps, in some -cases, are enormous as compared with the single changes -with which he is familiar, and (what is more important) that -they involve numerous parts in many ways. The geneticist -says to the palæontologist, since you do not know, and from -the nature of your case can never know, whether your differences -are due to one change or to a thousand, you cannot -with certainty tell us anything about the hereditary units -which have made the process of evolution possible.” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, -pp. 26, 27.) And without accurate knowledge on this subject, -we may add, there is no possibility of demonstrating specific -change or genetic relationship in the case of any given fossil.</p> - -<p>In our discussion of the third defect in the fossil “evidence,” -allusion was made to a fourth, namely, its imperfect state of -preservation. The stone record of bygone days has been so -defaced by the metamorphism of rocks, by the solvent action -of percolating waters, by erosion, weathering and other factors -of destruction, that, like a faded manuscript, it becomes, even -apart from its actual <i>lacunae</i>, exceedingly difficult to decipher. -So unsatisfactory, indeed, is the condition of the partially obliterated -facts that human curiosity, piqued at their baffling -ambiguity, calls upon human imagination to supply what observation -itself fails to reveal. Nor does the invitation remain -unheeded. Romance hastens to the rescue of uncertain Science, -with an impressive display of “reconstructed fossils,” -and the hesitation of critical caution is superseded by the -dogmatism of arbitrary assumption. Scattered fragments of -fossilized bones are integrated into skeletons and clothed by -the magic of creative fancy with an appropriate musculature -and flesh, reënacting for us the marvelous vision of Ezekiel: -“And the bones came together, each one to its joint. And I -beheld and, lo, there were sinews upon them, and the flesh -came upon them: and the skin was stretched over them.” -(Chap. XXXVII, 7, 8.) “It is also true,” says Osborn (who, -like Haeckel, evinces a veritable mania for “retouching” in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</span>complete -facts), “that we know the mode of origin of the human -species; 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 predicated.” (<i>Science</i>, Feb. 24, 1922.) We will not -dispute his contention; for it is perfectly true, that, in each -and every case, all the missing details can be so exactly predicated -that the resulting description might well put to shame -the account of a contemporary eyewitness. The only difficulty -is that such predication is the fruit of pure imagination. -Scientific reconstructions, whether in the literary, plastic, or -pictorial, form, are no more scientific than historical novels are -historical. Both are the outcome of a psychological weakness -in the human makeup, namely, its craving for a “finished -picture”—a craving, however, that is never gratified save at -the expense of the fragmentary basis of objective fact.<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a></p> - -<p>In calling into question, however, the scientific value of the -so-called “scientific reconstruction,” so far as its pretensions -to precision and finality are concerned, it is not our intention -to discredit those tentative restorations based upon Cuvier’s -Law of Correlation, provided they profess to be no more than -provisional approximations. Many of the structural features -of organisms are physiologically interdependent, and there is -frequently a close correlation among organs and organ-systems, -between which no causal connection or direct physiological -dependence is demonstrable. In virtue of this principle, -one structural feature may connote another, in which case it -would be legitimate to supply by inference any missing structure -implied in the actual existence of its respective correlative. -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 finality, he greatly overestimates -the scope of the principle in question. At best it -is nothing more than an empirical generalization, which must -not be pressed to an extent unwarranted by the inductive -process, that first established it. “Certain relations of struc<span class="pagenum" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</span>ture,” -says Bather, “as of cloven hoofs and horns with a ruminant -stomach, were observed, but as Cuvier himself insisted, -the laws based on such facts were purely empirical.” (<i>Science</i>, -Sept. 17, 1920, p. 258.) The palæontologist, then, is -justified in making use of correlation for the purpose of reconstructing -a whole animal out of a few fragmentary remains, -but to look for anything like photographic precision in such -“restorations” of extinct forms is to manifest a more or less -complete ignorance of the nature and scope of the empirical -laws, upon which they are based.</p> - -<p>The imprudence of taking these “reconstructions” of extinct -forms too seriously, however, is inculcated not merely by theoretical -considerations, but by experience as well. Even in the -case of the mammoth, a comparatively recent form, whose -skeletal remains had been preserved more completely and perfectly -than those of other fossil types, the discovery of a complete -carcass buried in the ice of the Siberian “taiga” on the -Beresovka river showed the existing restorations to be false in -important respects. All, without exception, stood in need of -revision, proving, once and for all, the inadequacy of fossil -remains as a basis for exact reconstruction. E. Pfizenmayer, a -member of the investigating expedition, comments on the fact -as follows: “In the light of our present knowledge of the mammoth, -and especially of its exterior, the various existing attempts -at a restoration need important corrections. Apart from -the many fanciful sketches intended to portray the exterior of -the animal, all the more carefully made restorations show the -faults of the skeleton, hitherto regarded as typical, on which -they are based, especially the powerful semicircular and upward-curved -tusks, the long tail, etc.</p> - -<p>“As these false conceptions of the exterior of the mammoth, -both written and in the form of pictures, are contained in all -zoölogical and palæontological textbooks, and even in scientific -monographs, it seems necessary to construct a more nearly -correct picture, based on our present knowledge. I have ventured -on this task, because as a member of the latest expe<span class="pagenum" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</span>dition -for mammoth remains, 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 it, but also to -visit the zoölogical museum of St. Petersburg, which is so -rich in mammoth remains, for the purpose of studying the animal -more in detail.” (Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1906, pp. 321, -322.) The example is but one of many, which serve to emphasize -not merely the inadequacy of the generality of palæontological -restorations, but also the extreme difficulty which the -palæontologist experiences in interpreting aright the partially -effaced record of a vanished past.</p> - -<p>The fifth and most critical flaw in the fossil “evidence” for -evolution is to be found in the anomalies of the actual distribution -of fossils in time. It is the boast of evolutionary -Palæontology that it is able to enhance the cogency of the -argument from mere structural resemblance by showing, that, -of two structurally allied forms, one is more ancient than the -other, and may, therefore, be presumed to be ancestral to the -later form. Antecedence in time is the <i>sine qua non</i> qualification -of a credible ancestor, and, unless the relative priority of -certain organic types, as compared with others, can be established -with absolute certainty, the whole palæontological argument -collapses, and the boast of evolutionary geology becomes -an empty vaunt.</p> - -<p>Whenever the appearance of a so-called annectant type is -antedated by that of the two forms, which it is supposed to -connect, this fact is, naturally, a deathblow to its claim of -being the “common ancestor,” even though, from a purely morphological -standpoint, it should possess all the requisites of -an ancestral type. Commenting upon the statement that a -certain genus “is a truly annectant form uniting the Melocrinidae -and the Platycrinidae,” Bather takes exception as -follows: “The genus in question appeared, so far as we know, -rather late in the Lower Carboniferous, whereas both Platycrinidae -and Melocrinidae were already established in Middle -Silurian time. How is it possible that the far later form<span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</span> -should unite these two ancient families? Even a <i>mésalliance</i> -is inconceivable.” (<i>Science</i>, Sept. 17, 1920, p. 260.)</p> - -<p>Certainty, therefore, with respect to the comparative antiquity -of the fossiliferous strata is the indispensable presupposition -of any palæontological argument attempting to show -that there is a gradual approximation of ancient, to modern, -types. Yet, of all scientific methods of reckoning, none is -less calculated to inspire confidence, none less safeguarded -from the abuses of subjectivism and arbitrary interpretation, -than that by which the relative age of the sedimentary rocks -is determined!</p> - -<p>In order to date the strata of any given series with reference -to one another, the palæontologist starts with the principle -that, in an undisturbed area, the deeper sediments have been -deposited at an earlier period than the overlying strata. Such -a criterion, however, is obviously restricted in its application -to local areas, and is available only at regions of outcrop, -where a vertical section of the strata is visibly exposed. -To trace the physical continuity, however, of the strata -(if such continuity there be) from one continent to another, -or even across a single continent, is evidently out of the -question. Hence, to correlate the sedimentary rocks of a given -region with those of another region far distant from the former, -some criterion other than stratigraphy is required. To -supply this want, recourse has been had to <i>index fossils</i>, which -have now come into general use as age-markers and means -of stratigraphical correlation, where the criterion of <i>superposition</i> -is either absent or inapplicable. Certain fossil types -are assumed to be infallibly indicative of certain stratigraphical -horizons. In fact, when it comes to a decision as to the -priority or posteriority of a given geological formation, index -fossils constitute the court of last appeal, and even the evidences -of actual stratigraphical sequence and of physical texture -itself are always discounted and explained away, whenever -they chance to conflict with the presumption that certain fossil -forms are typical of certain geological periods. If, for ex<span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</span>ample, -the superposed rock contains fossils alleged to be typical -of an “earlier” stratigraphic horizon than that to which -the fossils of the subjacent rock belong, the former is pronounced -to be “older,” despite the fact that the actual stratigraphic -order conveys the opposite impression. “We still -regard fossils,” says J. W. Judd, “as the ‘medals of creation,’ -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 king.” (Cf. -Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1912, p. 356.) Thus it comes to pass, -in the last analysis, that fossils, on the one hand, are dated -according to the consecutive strata, in which they occur, and -strata, on the other hand, are dated according to the fossils -which they contain.</p> - -<p>Such procedure, if not actually tantamount to a <i>vicious -circle</i>, is, to say the least, in imminent danger of becoming so. -For, even assuming the so-called empirical generalization, that -makes certain fossils typical of certain definitely-aged geological -“formations,” to be based upon induction sufficiently complete -and analytic to insure certainty, at least, in the majority -of instances, and taking it for granted that we are dealing with -a case, where the actual evidence of stratigraphy is not in open -conflict with that of the index fossils, who does not see that -such a system of chronology lends itself only too readily to -manipulation of the most arbitrary kind, whenever the pet -preconceptions of the evolutionary chronologist are at stake? -How, then, can we be sure, in a given case, that a verdict -based exclusively on the “evidence” of index fossils will be -reliably <i>objective</i>? It is to be expected that the evolutionist -will refrain from the temptation to give himself the benefit -of every doubt? Will there not be an almost irresistible tendency -on the part of the convinced transformist to revise the -age of any deposit, which happens to contain fossils that, according -to his theory, ought not to occur at the time hitherto -assigned?</p> - -<p>The citation of a concrete example will serve to make our<span class="pagenum" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</span> -meaning clear. A series of fresh-water strata occur in India -known as the Siwalik beds. The formation in question was -originally classed as Miocene. Later on, however, as a result, -presumably, of the embarrassing discovery of the genus <i>Equus</i> -among the fossils of the Upper Siwalik beds, Wm. Blanford -saw fit to mend matters by distinguishing the Upper, from -the Lower, beds and assigning the former (which contain fossil -horses) to the Pliocene period. The title Miocene being -restricted by this ingenious step to beds destitute of equine -remains, namely the Nahun, or Lower Siwalik, deposits, all -danger of the horse proving to be older than his ancestors -was happily averted. A mere shifting of the conventional -labels, apparently, was amply sufficient to render groundless -the fear, to which Professor A. Sedgwick had given expression -in the following terms: “The genus <i>Equus</i> appears in the -upper Siwalik beds, which have been ascribed to the Miocene -age.... If <i>Equus</i> really existed in the Upper Miocene, it -was antecedent to some of its supposed ancestors.” (“Students’ -Textbook of Zoölogy,” p. 599.) Evidently, the Horse -must reconcile himself perforce to the pedigree assigned to -him by the American Museum of Natural History; for he is -to be given but scant opportunity of escaping it. This classic -genealogy has already entailed far too great an expenditure -of time, money and erudition to permit of any reconsideration; -and should it chance, in the ironic perversity of things, -that the Horse has been so inconsiderate as to leave indubitable -traces of himself in any formation earlier than the -Pliocene, it goes without saying that the formation in question -will at once be dated ahead, in order to secure for the “ancestors” -that priority which is their due. An elastic criterion -like the index fossil is admirably adapted for readjustments -of this sort, and the evolutionist who uses it need never fear -defeat. The game he plays can never be a losing one, because -he gives no other terms than: Heads I win, tails you lose.</p> - -<p>In setting forth the foregoing difficulties, we have purposely -refrained from challenging the cardinal dogma of orthodox<span class="pagenum" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</span> -palæontology concerning the unimpeachable time-value of index -fossils as age-markers. The force of these considerations, -therefore, must be acknowledged even by the most fanatical -adherents of the aforesaid dogma. Our forbearance in this -instance, however, must not be construed as a confession that -the dogma in question is really unassailable. On the contrary, -not only is it not invulnerable, but there are many and weighty -reasons for rejecting it lock, stock, and barrel.</p> - -<p>The palæontological dogma, to which we refer, is reducible -to the following tenets: (1) The earth is swathed with fossiliferous -strata, in much the same fashion that an onion is covered -with a succession of coats, and these strata are universal -over the whole globe, occurring always in the same invariable -order and characterized not by any peculiar uniformity of -external appearance, physical texture, or mineral composition, -but solely by peculiar groups of fossil types, which enable us -to distinguish between strata of different ages and to correlate -the strata of one continent with their counterparts in -another continent—“Even the minuter divisions,” says Scott, -“the substages and zones of the European Jura, are applicable -to the classification of the South American beds.” (“Introduction -to Geology,” p. 681.) (2) In determining the relative -age of a given geological formation, its characteristic fossils -form the exclusive basis of decision, and all other considerations, -whether lithological or stratigraphic, are subordinated -to this—“The character of the rocks,” says H. S. Williams, -“their composition or their mineral contents have nothing to -do with settling the question as to the particular system to -which the new rocks belong. The fossils alone are the means -of correlation.” (“Geological Biology,” pp. 37, 38.)</p> - -<p>To those habituated to the common notion that stratigraphical -sequence is the foremost consideration in deciding the -comparative age of rocks, the following statement of Sir Archibald -Geikie will come as a distinct shock: “We may even -demonstrate,” he avers, “that in some mountainous ground -the strata have been turned completely upside down, if we can<span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</span> -show that the fossils in what are now the uppermost layers -ought properly to lie underneath those in the beds below them.” -(“Textbook,” ed. of 1903, p. 837.) In fact, the palæontologist, -H. A. Nicholson, lays it down as a general principle that, wherever -the physical evidence (founded on stratigraphy and -lithology) is at variance with the biological evidence (founded -on the presence of typical fossil organisms), the latter must -prevail and the former must be ignored: “It may even be -said,” he tells us, “that in any case where there should appear -to be a clear and decisive discordance between the -physical and the palæontological evidence as to the age of -a given series of beds, it is the former that is to be distrusted -rather than the latter.” (“Ancient Life History of the Earth,” -p. 40.)</p> - -<p>George McCready Price, Professor of Geology at a denominational -college in Kansas, devotes more than fifty pages of -his recent work, “The New Geology” (1923), to an intensely -destructive criticism of this dogma of the supremacy of fossil -evidence as a means of determining the relative age of strata. -To cite Price as an “authority” would, of course, be futile. -All orthodox geologists have long since anathematized him, -and outlawed him from respectable geological society. Charles -Schuchert of Yale refers to him as “a fundamentalist harboring -a geological nightmare.” (<i>Science</i>, May 30, 1924, -p. 487.) Arthur M. Miller of Kentucky University speaks -of him as “the man who, while a member of no scientific body -and absolutely unknown in scientific circles, has ... had the -effrontery to style himself a ‘geologist.’” (<i>Science</i>, June 30, -1922, pp. 702, 703.) Miller, however, is just enough to admit -that he is well-informed on his subject, and that he possesses -the gift of persuasive presentation. “He shows,” says Miller, -“a wide familiarity with geological literature, quoting largely -from the most eminent authorities in this country and in -Europe. Any one reading these writings of Price, which possess -a certain charm of literary style, and indicate on the -part of the author a gift of popular presentation which makes<span class="pagenum" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</span> -one regret that it had not been devoted to a more laudable -purpose, 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 opinions.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, -p. 702.)</p> - -<p>In the present instance, however, our interest centers, not -on the unimportant question of his official status in geological -circles, but exclusively on the objective validity of his argument -against the chronometric value of the index fossil. All -citations, therefore, from his work will be supported, in the -sequel, by collateral testimony from other authors of recognized -standing. It is possible, of course, to inject irrelevant -issues. Price, for example, follows Sir Henry Howorth in his -endeavor to substitute an aqueous catastrophe for the glaciation -of the Quaternary Ice Age, and he adduces many interesting -facts to justify his preference for a deluge. But this -is neither here nor there; for we are not concerned with the -merits of his “new catastrophism.” It is his opportune revival -in modern form of the forgotten, but extremely effective, -objection raised by Huxley and Spencer against the alleged -universality of synchronously deposited fossiliferous sediments, -that constitutes our sole preoccupation here. It is Price’s -merit to have shown that, in the light of recently discovered -facts, such as “deceptive conformities” and “overthrusts,” this -objection is far graver than it was when first formulated by -the authors in question.</p> - -<p>Mere snobbery and abuse is not a sufficient answer to a difficulty -of this nature, and we regret that men, like Schuchert, -have replied with more anger than logic. The orthodox geologist -seems unnecessarily petulant, whenever he is called upon -to verify or substantiate the foundational principles of lithic -chronology. One frequently hears him make the excuse that -“geology has its own peculiar method of proof.” To claim exemption, -however, from the universal criterions of criticism and -logic is a subterfuge wholly unworthy of a genuine science, -and, if Price insists on discussing a subject, which the ortho<span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</span>dox -geologist prefers to suppress, it is the latter, and not the -former, who is really reactionary.</p> - -<p>Price begins by stating the issue in the form of a twofold -question: (1) How can we be sure, with respect to a given -fauna (or flora), say the Cambrian, that at one time it monopolized -our globe to the complete exclusion of all other typical -faunas (or floras), say the Devonian, or the Tertiary, of -which it is assumed that they could not, by any stretch of -imagination, have been contemporaneous, on either land or sea, -with the aforesaid “older” fauna (or flora)? (2) Do the formations -(rocks containing fossils) universally occur in such a -rigidly invariable order of sequence with respect to one another, -as to warrant our being sure of the starting-point in the -time-scale, or to justify us in projecting any given local order -of succession into distant localities, for purposes of chronological -correlation?</p> - -<p>His response to the first of these questions constitutes -what may be called an aprioristic refutation of -the orthodox view, by placing the evolutionary palæontologist -in the trilemma: (a) of making the awkward confession -that, except within limited local areas, he has no means -whatever of distinguishing between a geographical distribution -of coëval fossil forms among various habitats and a chronological -distribution of fossils among sediments deposited at -different times; (b) or of denying the possibility of geographical -distribution in the past, by claiming dogmatically that -the world during Cambrian times, for example, was totally -unlike the modern world, of which alone we have experimental -knowledge, inasmuch as it was then destitute of -zoölogical provinces, districts, zones, and other habitats peculiar -to various types of fauna, so that the whole world formed -but one grand habitat, extending over land and sea, for a -limited group of organisms made up exclusively of the lower -types of life; (c) or of reviving the discredited onion-coat theory -of Abraham Werner under a revised biological form, which asserts -that the whole globe is enveloped with fossiliferous rather<span class="pagenum" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</span> -than mineral strata, 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 space.</p> - -<p>In his response to the second question, Professor Price adduces -numerous factual arguments, which show that the -invariable order of sequence postulated by the theory of the -time-value of index fossils, not only finds no confirmation -in the actual or concrete sequences of fossiliferous rocks, but -is often directly contradicted thereby. “Older” rocks may -occur above “younger” rocks, the “youngest” may occur in -immediate succession to the “oldest,” Tertiary rocks may be -crystalline, consolidated, and “old in appearance,” while Cambrian -and even pre-Cambrian rocks sometimes occur in a soft, -incoherent condition, that gives them the physical appearance -of being as young as Pleistocene formations. These exceptions -and objections to the “invariable order” of the fossiliferous -strata accumulate from day to day, 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 -dogmas, which base geology upon evolution rather than -evolution upon geology.</p> - -<p>Price, then, 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 seas. -“Who,” he exclaims, “will have the hardihood, 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 earth?” Should we, nevertheless, make bold -enough to aver that for countless centuries a mere few of the -lower forms of life monopolized our globe, as one universal -habitat unpartitioned into particular biological provinces or -zones, we are thereupon confronted with two equally unwelcome -alternatives. We must either fly in the face of experience -and legitimate induction by denying the existence in the past of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</span> -anything analogous to our present-day geographical distribution -of plants and animals into various biological provinces, 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 -diversity, and consecutively deposited formations indicative of -comparative antiquity.</p> - -<p>The former alternative does not merit any consideration -whatever. The latter, as we shall presently see, involves us in -an assumption, for which no defense either aprioristic or factual -is available. We can, indeed, distinguish between spatial, and -temporal, distribution within the narrow limits of a single -locality by using the criterion of superposition; for in regions -of outcrop, where one sedimentary rock overlies another, the -obvious presumption is that the upper rock was deposited -at a later date than the lower rock. 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 discernible. Moreover the induction, -which projects any local order of stratigraphical -sequence into far distant localities on the sole basis of fossil -taxonomy, is logically unsound and leads to conclusions at -variance with the actual facts. Hence the alleged time-value -of index fossils becomes essentially problematic, and affords -no basis whatever for scientific certainty.</p> - -<p>As previously stated, the sequence of strata is visible only in -regions of outcrop, and nowhere are we able to see more than -mere parts of two or, at most, three systems associated together -in a single locality. Moreover, each set of beds is of -limited areal extent, and the limits are frequently visible to -the eye of the observer. In any case, their visible extent is -necessarily limited. It is impossible, therefore, to correlate the -strata of one continent with those of another continent by -tracing stratigraphic continuity. Hence, in comparing particular -horizons of various ages and in distinguishing them from -other horizons over large areas, we are obliged to sub<span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</span>stitute -induction for direct observation. Scientific induction, -however, is only valid when it rests upon some universal uniformity -or invariable sequence of nature. Hence, to be specific, -the assumption that the time-scale based on the European -classification of fossiliferous strata is applicable to the entire -globe as a whole, is based on the further assumption that we -are sure of the universality of fossiliferous stratification over -the face of the earth, and that, as a matter of fact, fossils are -always and everywhere found in the same order of invariable -sequence.</p> - -<p>But this is tantamount to reviving, under what Spencer calls -“a transcendental form,” the exploded “onion-coat” hypothesis -of Werner (1749-1817). Werner conceived the terrestrial -globe as encircled with successive mineral envelopes, basing -his scheme of universal stratification upon that order -of sequence among rocks, which he had observed within the -narrow confines of his native district in Germany. His hypothesis, -after leading many scientists astray, was ultimately -discredited and laughed out of existence. For it finally became -evident to all observers that Werner’s scheme did not -fit the facts, and men were able to witness with their own eyes -the simultaneous deposition, in separate localities, of sediments -which differed radically in their mineral contents and -texture. 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-scale, while the theory itself -was relegated to the status of a curious and amusing episode -in the history of scientific fiascos.</p> - -<p>Thanks, however, to Wm. Smith and to Cuvier, the discarded -onion-coat hypothesis did not perish utterly, but was -rehabilitated and bequeathed to us in a new and more subtle -form. Werner’s fundamental idea of the universality of a given -kind of deposit was retained, but his mineral strata were replaced -by fossiliferous strata, the lithological onion-coats of -Werner being superseded by the biological onion-coats of our -modern theory. The geologist of today discounts physical<span class="pagenum" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</span> -appearance, and classifies strata according to their fossil, -rather than their mineral, contents, but he stands committed -to the same old postulate of universal deposits. He has no hesitation -in synchronizing such widely-scattered formations as -the Devonian deposits of New York State, England, Germany, -and South America. He pieces them all together as parts of -a single system of rocks. He has no misgiving as to the universal -applicability of the European scheme of stratigraphic -classification, but assures us, in the words of the geologist, -Wm. B. Scott, that: “Even the minuter divisions, the subdivisions -and zones of the European Jura, are applicable to -the classification of the South American beds.” (“Introduction -to Geology,” p. 681f.) The limestone and sandstone -strata of Werner are now things of the past, but, in their -stead, we have, to quote the criticism of Herbert Spencer, -“groups of formations which everywhere succeed each other -in a given order, and are severally everywhere of the same -age. Though it may not be asserted that these successive -systems are universal, yet it seems to be tacitly assumed that -they are so.... Though probably no competent geologist -would contend that the European classification of strata is -applicable to the globe as a whole, yet most, if not all geologists, -write as though it were so.... Must we not say -that though the onion-coat hypothesis is dead, its spirit is -traceable, under a transcendental form, even in the conclusions -of its antagonists.” (“Illustrations of Universal Progress,” -pp. 329-380, ed. of 1890.)</p> - -<p>But overlooking, for the moment, the mechanical absurdity -involved in the notion of a regular succession of universal -layers of sediment, and conceding, for the sake of argument, -that the substitution of fossiliferous, for lithological, strata -may conceivably have remedied the defects of Werner’s geological -time-scale, let us confine ourselves to the one question, -which, after all, is of prime importance, whether, namely, -without the aid of Procrustean tactics, the actual facts of -geology can be brought into alignment with the doctrine of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</span> -an invariable order of succession among fossil types, and its -sequel, the intrinsic time-value of index fossils. The question, -in other words, 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 concrete. Price’s answer is negative, -and he formulates several empirical laws to express the concrete -facts, on which he bases his contention. The laws and -facts to which he appeals may be summarized as follows:</p> - -<p>1. The concrete facts of geology do not warrant our singling -out any fossiliferous deposit as unquestionably the oldest, and -hence we have no reliable <i>starting-point</i> for our time-scale, -because:</p> - -<p>(<i>a</i>) We may lay it down as an empirical law that “any -kind of fossiliferous rock (even the ‘youngest’), that is, strata -belonging to any of the systems or other subdivisions, may -rest directly upon the Archæan or primitive crystalline rocks, -without any other so-called ‘younger’ strata intervening; also -these rocks, Permian, Cretaceous, Tertiary, or whatever thus -reposing directly on the Archæan may be themselves crystalline -or wholly metamorphic in texture. And this applies not -alone to small points of contact, but to large areas.”</p> - -<p>(<i>b</i>) Conversely: any kind of fossiliferous strata (even the -“oldest”) may not only constitute the surface rocks over wide -areas,<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> but may consist of loose, unconsolidated materials, -thus in both position and texture resembling the “late” Tertiaries -or the Pleistocene—“In some regions, notably in the -Baltic province and in parts of the United States,” says John -Allen Howe, alluding to the Cambrian rocks around the Baltic<span class="pagenum" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</span> -Sea and in Wisconsin, “the rocks still retain their original -horizontality of deposition, the muds are scarcely indurated, -and the sands are incoherent.” (Encycl. Brit., vol. V, p. 86.)</p> - -<p>A large number of striking instances are cited by Price to -substantiate the foregoing rule and its converse. The impression -left is that not only is the starting-point of the time-scale -in doubt, but that, if we were to judge the age of the -rocks by their physical appearance and position, we could -not accept the conventional verdicts of modern geology, -which makes fossil evidence prevail over every other consideration.</p> - -<p>2. When two contiguous strata are parallel to each other, -and there is no indication of disturbance in the lower bed, nor -any evidence of erosion along the plane of contact, the two -beds are said to exhibit conformity, and this is ordinarily -interpreted by geologists as a sign that the upper bed has -been laid down in immediate sequence to the lower, and that -there has been a substantial continuity of deposition, with -no long interval during which the lower bed was exposed -as surface to the agents of erosion. When such a conformity -exists, as it frequently does, between a “recent” stratum, -above, and what is said (according to the testimony of the -fossils) to be a very “ancient” stratum, below, and though -the two are so alike lithologically as to be mistaken for one -and the same formation, nevertheless, such a conformity is -termed a “non-evident disconformity,” or “deceptive conformity,” -implying that, inasmuch as the “lost interval,” representing, -perhaps, a lapse of “several million years,” is entirely -unrecorded by any intervening deposition, or any erosion, -or any disturbance of the lower bed, we should not have -suspected that so great a hiatus had intervened, were it not -for the testimony of the fossils. Price cites innumerable examples, -and sums them up in the general terms of the following -empirical law: “Any sort of fossiliferous formation -may occur on top of any other ‘older’ fossiliferous formation, -with all the physical evidences of perfect conformity, just<span class="pagenum" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</span> -as if these alleged incongruous or mismated formations had -in reality followed one another in quick succession.”</p> - -<p>A quotation from Schuchert’s “Textbook of Geology,” -(1920), may be given by way of illustration: “The imperfection,” -we read, “of the geologic column is greatest in the -interior of North America and more so in the north than in -the south. This imperfection is in many places very marked, -since an entire period or several periods may be absent. With -such great breaks in the local sections the natural assumption -is that these gaps are easily seen in the sequence of the strata, -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 plane.... Stratigraphers -are, as a rule, now fully aware of the imperfections in the -geologic record, but the rocks of two unrelated formations may -rest upon each other with such absolute conformability as to -be completely deceptive. For instance, in the Bear Grass -quarries at Louisville, Ky., a face of limestone is exposed in -which the absolute conformability of the beds can be traced -for nearly a mile, and yet within 5 feet of vertical thickness -is found a Middle Silurian coral bed overlain by another -coral zone of Middle Devonian. The parting between these -two zones is like that between any two limestone beds, but -this insignificant line represents a stratigraphic hiatus the -equivalent of the last third of Silurian and the first of Devonian -time. But such disconformities are by no means rare, -in fact are very common throughout the wide central basin -area of North America.” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, II, pp. 586-588.)</p> - -<p>In such cases, the stratigraphical relations give no hint of -any enormous gap at the line of contact. On the contrary, -there is every evidence of unbroken sequence, and the physical -appearances are as if these supposed “geological epochs” -had never occurred in the localities, of which there is question. -Everything points to the conclusion that the alleged long -intervals of time between such perfectly conformable, and,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</span> -often, lithologically identical, formations are a pure fiction -elaborated for the purpose of bolstering up the dogma of the -universal applicability of the European classification of fossiliferous -rocks. Why not take the facts as we find them? -Why resort to tortuous explanations for the mere purpose of -saving an arbitrary time-scale? Why insist on a definite -time-value for fossils, when it drives us to the extremity -of discrediting the objective evidence of physical facts in -deference to the preconceptions of orthodox geology? Were -it not for theoretical considerations, these stratigraphic facts -would be taken at their face value, 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 evidence.</p> - -<p>3. The third class of facts militating against the time-value -of index fossils, are what Price describes as “deceptive conformities -turned upside down,” and what orthodox geology -tries to explain away as “thrusts,” “thrust faults,” “overthrusts,” -“low-angle faulting,” etc.<a id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> In instances of this -kind we find the accepted order of the fossiliferous strata -reversed in such a way that the “younger” strata are conformably -overlain by “older” strata, and the “older” strata -are sometimes interbedded between “younger” strata. “In -many places all over the world,” says Price, “fossils have -been found in a relative order which was formerly thought -to be utterly impossible. That is, the fossils have been found -in the ‘wrong’ order, and on such a scale that there can -be no mistake about it. For when an area 500 miles long<span class="pagenum" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</span> -and from 20 to 50 miles wide is found with Palæozoic rocks -on top, or composing the mountains, and with Cretaceous -beds underneath, or composing the valleys, and running under -these mountains all around, as in the case of the Glacier National -Park and the southern part of Alberta, the old notion -about the exact and invariable order of the fossils has to be -given up entirely.”</p> - -<p>Price formulates his third law as follows: “Any fossiliferous -formation, ‘old’ or ‘young,’ may occur conformably on any -other fossiliferous formation, ‘younger’ or ‘older.’” The corollary -of this empirical law is that we are no longer justified in -regarding any fossils as intrinsically older than other fossils, -and that our present classification of fossiliferous strata has -a <i>taxonomic</i>, rather than a <i>historical</i>, value.</p> - -<p>Low-angle faulting is the phenomenon devised by geologists -to meet the difficulty of “inverted sequence,” when all -other explanations fail. Immense mountain masses are said -to have been detached from their roots and pushed horizontally -over the surface (without disturbing it in the least), -until they came finally to rest in perfect conformity upon -“younger” strata, so that the plane of slippage ended by being -indistinguishable from an ordinary horizontal bedding plane. -These gigantic “overthrusts” or “thrust faults” are a rather -unique phenomenon. Normal faulting is always at a high -angle closely approaching the vertical, but “thrust faults” -are at a low angle closely approximating the horizontal, and -there is enormous displacement along the plane of slippage. -The huge mountain masses are said to have been first -lifted up and then thrust horizontally for vast distances, -sometimes for hundreds of miles, over the face of the -land, being thus pushed over on top of “younger” rocks, -so as to repose upon the latter in a relation of perfectly -conformable superposition. R. G. McConnell, of the -Canadian Survey, comments on the remarkable similarity -between these alleged “thrust planes” and ordinary stratification -planes, and he is at a loss to know why the surface soil<span class="pagenum" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</span> -was not disturbed by the huge rock masses which slid over -it for such great distances. Speaking of the Bow River Gap, -he says: “The fault plane here is nearly horizontal, and the -two formations, viewed from the valley appear to succeed one -another conformably,” and then having noted that the underlying -Cretaceous shales are “very soft,” he adds that they -“have suffered little by the sliding of the limestones over -them.” (<i>An. Rpt. 1886</i>, part D., pp. 33, 34, 84.) <i>Credat -Iudaeus Apella, non ego!</i></p> - -<p>Schuchert describes the Alpine overthrust as follows: “The -movement was both vertical and thrusting from the south -and southeast, from the southern portion of Tethys, elevating -and folding the Tertiary and older strata of the northern -areas of this mediterranean into overturned, recumbent, and -nearly horizontal folds, and pushing the southern or Lepontine -Alps about 60 miles to the northward into the Helvetic region. -Erosion has since carved up these overthrust sheets, leaving -remnants lying on foundations which belong to a more northern -portion of the ancient sea. Most noted of these residuals -of overthrust masses is the Matterhorn, a mighty mountain -without roots, a stranger in a foreign geologic environment,” -(Pirsson & Schuchert’s “Textbook of Geology,” 1920, II, -p. 924.)</p> - -<p>With such a convenient device as the “overthrust” at his -disposal, it is hard to see how any possible concrete sequence -of fossiliferous strata could contradict the preconceptions of -an evolutionary geologist. The hypotheses and assumptions -involved, however, are so tortuous and incredible, that nothing -short of fanatical devotion to the theory of transformism -can render them acceptable. “Examples,” says Price, “of -strata in the ‘wrong’ order were first reported from the Alps -nearly half a century ago. Since that time, whole armfuls of -learned treatises in German, in French, and in English have -been written to explain the wonderful conditions there found. -The diagrams that have been drawn to account for the strange -order of the strata are worthy to rank with the similar ones<span class="pagenum" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</span> -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 prevailing.... In Scandinavia, a district some 1,120 -miles long by 80 miles wide is alleged to have been pushed -horizontally eastward ‘at least 86 miles.’ (Schuchert.) In -Northern China, one of these upside down areas is reported -by the Carnegie Research Expedition to be 500 miles long.” -(“The New Geology,” 1923, pp. 633, 634.)</p> - -<p>Nor are the epicyclic subterfuges of the evolutionary geologist -confined to “deceptive conformities” and “overthrusts.” -His inventive genius has hit upon other methods of explaining -away inconvenient facts. When, for example, -“younger” fossils are found interbedded with “older” fossils, -and the discrepancy in time is not too great, he rids himself -of the difficulty of their premature appearance by calling them -a “pioneer colony.” Similarly, when a group of “characteristic” -fossils occur in one age, skip another “age,” and recur -in a third, he recognizes the possibility of “recurrent faunas,” -some of these faunas having as many as five successive “recurrences.” -Clearly, the assumption of gradual approximation -and the dogma that the lower preceded the higher forms -of life are things to be saved at all costs, and it is a foregone -conclusion that no facts will be suffered to conflict with these -irrevisable articles of evolutionary faith. “What is the use,” -exclaims Price, “of pretending that we are investigating a -problem of natural science, if we already know beforehand that -the lower and more generalized forms of animals and plants -came into existence first, and the higher and the more specialized -came only long afterwards, and that specimens of all -these successive types have been pigeonholed in the rocks in -order to help us illustrate this wonderful truth?” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, pp. -667, 668.)</p> - -<p>The predominance of extinct species in certain formations -is said to be an independent argument of their great age. -Most of the species of organisms found as fossils in Cambrian,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</span> -Ordovician, and Silurian rocks are extinct, whereas modern -types abound in Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks. Hence it is -claimed that the former must be vastly older than the latter. -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 catastrophe, -of which our present species are the fortunate survivors. 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 complete, and -we have in the abundant fossil remains of tropical plants -and animals, found in what are now the frozen arctic regions, -unmistakable evidence of a sudden catastrophic change by -which a once genial climate “was abruptly terminated. For -carcasses of the Siberian elephants were frozen so suddenly -and so completely that the flesh has remained untainted.” -(Dana.) Again, the mere <i>fact</i> of extinction tells us nothing -about the <i>time</i> of the extinction. 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 stratigraphy. Hence -the argument from extinct species is not an independent -argument.</p> - -<p>To sum up, therefore, the aprioristic evolutional series of -fossils is not a genuine time-scale. The only safe criterion of -comparative age is that of stratigraphic superposition, and -this is inapplicable outside of limited local areas.<a id="FNanchor_10" href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> 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 evolution, but for the unbiased inquirer it is -destitute of any inherent time-value. In other words, we can -no longer be sure that a given formation is old merely because -it happens to contain Cambrian fossils, nor that a rock -is young merely because it chances to contain Tertiary<span class="pagenum" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</span> -fossils. Our present classification of rocks according to their -fossil contents is purely arbitrary and artificial, being tantamount -to nothing more than a mere taxonomical classification -of the forms of ancient life on our globe, irrespective of -their comparative antiquity. This scheme of classification is, -indeed, universally applicable, and places can usually be found -in it for new fossiliferous strata, whenever and wherever discovered. -Its universal applicability, however, is due not -to any prevalent order of invariable sequence among fossiliferous -strata, but solely to the fact that the laws of biological -taxonomy and ecology are universal laws which transcend -spatial and temporal limitation. If a scheme of taxonomy is -truly scientific, all forms of life, whether extant or extinct, -will fit into it quite readily.</p> - -<p>The anomalies of spatial distribution constitute a sixth difficulty -for transformistic palæontology. In constructing a phylogeny -the most diverse and widely-separated regions are put -under tribute to furnish the requisite fossils, no heed being -paid to what are now at any rate impassable geographical -barriers, not to speak of the climatic and environmental limitations -which restrict the migrations of non-cosmopolitan species -within the boundaries of narrow habitats. 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 expanses. -When taxed with failure to plausibleize this procedure, -the evolutionist meets the difficulty by hypothecating -wholesale and devious migrations to and fro, and by raising up -alleged land bridges to accommodate plants and animals in -their suppositional migrations from one continent to another, -etc.</p> - -<p>The European horse, with his so-called ancestry interred, -partly in the Tertiary deposits of Europe, but mostly in those -of North America, is a typical instance of these anomalies in -geographical distribution. It would, of course, be preposterous -to suppose that two independent lines of descent could<span class="pagenum" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</span> -have fortuitously terminated in the production of one and the -same type, namely, the genus <i>Equus</i>. Moreover, to admit for -a moment that the extinct American <i>Equus</i> and the extant -European <i>Equus</i> had converged by similar stages from distinct -origins would be equivalent, as we have seen, to a surrender -of the basic postulate that structural similarity rests on the -principle of inheritance. Nothing remains, therefore, but to -hypothecate a Tertiary land bridge between Europe and North -America.</p> - -<p>Modern geologists, however, are beginning to resent these -arbitrary interferences with their science in the interest of -biological theories. Land bridges, they rightly insist, should -be demonstrated by means of positive geological evidence and -not by the mere exigencies of a hypothetical genealogy. Whosoever -postulates a land bridge between continents should be -able to adduce solid reasons, and to assign a mechanism -capable of accomplishing the five-mile uplift necessary to bring -a deep-sea bottom to the surface of the hydrosphere. Such -an idea is extravagant and not to be easily entertained in -our day, when geologists are beginning to understand the -principle of <i>isostasy</i>. To-day, the crust of the earth, that is, -the entire surface of the lithosphere, is conceived as being -constituted of earth columns, all of which rest with equal -weight upon the level of complete compensation, which exists -at a depth of some 76 miles below land surfaces. At this depth -viscous flows and undertows of the earth take place, compensating -all differences of gravitational stress. Hence the -materials constituting a mountain column are thought to be -less dense than those constituting the surrounding lowland -columns, and for this reason the mountains are buoyed up -above the surrounding landscape. The columns under ocean -bottoms, on the contrary, are thought to consist of heavy -materials like basalt, which tend to depress the column. To -raise a sea floor, therefore, some means of producing a dilatation -of these materials would have to be available. Arthur -B. Coleman called attention to this difficulty in his Presidential<span class="pagenum" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</span> -Address to the Geological Society of America (December 29, -1915), and we cannot do better than quote his own statement -of the matter here:</p> - -<p>“Admitting,” he says, “that in the beginning the lithosphere -bulged up in places, so as to form continents, and -sagged in other places, so as to form ocean beds, there are -interesting problems presented as to the permanence of land -and seas. All will admit marginal changes affecting large -areas, but these encroachments of the sea on the continents -and the later retreats may be of quite a subordinate kind, -not implying an interchange of deep-sea bottoms and land surfaces. -The essential permanence of continents and oceans has -been firmly held by many geologists, notably Dana among -the older ones, and seems reasonable; but there are geologists, -especially palæontologists, who display great recklessness in -rearranging land and sea. The trend of a mountain range, or -the convenience of a running bird, or a marsupial afraid to -wet his feet seems sufficient warrant for hoisting up any sea -bottom to connect continent with continent. A Gondwana -Land arises in place of an Indian Ocean and sweeps across to -South America, so that a spore-bearing plant can follow up -an ice age; or an Atlantis ties New England to Old England -to help out the migrations of a shallow-water fauna; or a -‘Lost Land of Agulhas’ joins South Africa and India.</p> - -<p>“It is curious to find these revolutionary suggestions made -at a time when geodesists are demonstrating that the earth’s -crust over large areas, and perhaps everywhere, approaches a -state of isostatic equilibrium, and that isostatic compensation -is probably complete at a depth of only 76 miles” ... and -(having noted the difference of density that must exist between -the continental, and submarine, earth columns) Coleman -would have us bear in mind “that 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 rock, such as basalt, by lighter materials, such as granite. -There is no obvious way in which the rock beneath a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</span> -sea bottom can be expanded enough to lift it 20,000 feet, as -would be necessary in parts of the Indian Ocean, to form a -Gondwana land; so one must assume that light rocks replace -heavy ones beneath a million square miles of ocean -floor. Even with unlimited time, it is hard to imagine a -mechanism that could do the work, and no convincing geological -evidence can be brought forward to show that such a thing -ever took place.... 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 them.” -(Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1916, pp. 269-271.)</p> - -<p>A seventh anomaly of palæontological phylogeny is what -may be described as contrariety of direction. We are asked to -believe, for example, that in mammals racial development resulted -in dimensional increase. The primitive ancestor of -mammoths, mastodons, and elephants is alleged to have been -the <i>Moeritherium</i>, “a small tapirlike form, from the Middle -Eocene Qasr-el-Sagha beds of the Fayûm in Egypt.... -<i>Moeritherium</i> measured about 3½ feet in height.” (Lull: -Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1908, pp. 655, 656.) The ancestor of -the modern horse, we are told, was “a little animal less than -a foot in height, known as <i>Eohippus</i>, from the rocks of the -Eocene age.” (Woodruff: “Foundations of Biology,” p. 361.) -In the case of insects, on the other hand, we are asked to -believe the exact reverse, namely, that racial development -brought about dimensional reduction. “In the middle of the -Upper Carboniferous periods,” says Anton Handlirsch, “the -forest swamps were populated with cockroaches about as long -as a finger, dragonfly-like creatures with a wing spread of about -2½ feet, while insects that resemble our May flies were as -big as a hand.” (“Die fossilen Insekten, und die Phylogenie -der recenten Formen,” 1908, L. c., p. 1150.) Contrasting one -of these giant palæozoic dragonflies, <i>Meganeura monyi</i> Brongn., -with the largest of modern dragonflies, <i>Aeschna grandis</i> L., -Chetverikov exclaims with reference to the latter: “What a -pitiful pigmy it is and its specific name (<i>grandis</i>) sounds like<span class="pagenum" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</span> -such a mockery.” (Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1918, p. 446.) -Chetverikov, it is true, proposes a teleological reason for this -progressive diminution, but the fact remains that for dysteleological -evolutionism, which dispenses with the postulate of a -Providential coördination and regulation of natural agencies, -this <i>diminuendo</i> of the “evolving” insects stands in irreconcilable -opposition to the <i>crescendo</i> of the “evolving” mammals, -and constitutes a difficulty which a purely mechanistic philosophy -can never surmount.</p> - -<p>Not to prolong excessively this already protracted enumeration -of discrepancies between fossil fact and evolutionary assumption, -we shall mention, as an eighth and final difficulty, -the indubitable persistence of <i>unchanged</i> organic types from -the earliest geological epochs down to the present time. This -phenomenon is all the more wonderful in view of the fact that -the decision as to which are to be the “older” and which the -“younger” strata rests with the evolutionary geologist, who is -naturally disinclined to admit the antiquity of strata containing -modern types, and whose position as arbiter enables him -to date formations aprioristically, according to the exigencies -of the transformistic theory. Using, as he does, the absence -of modern types as an express criterion of age, and having, -as it were, his pick among the various fossiliferous deposits, -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 forms. -Since, however, even the most ingenious sort of geological -gerrymandering fails to make this elimination complete, we -must conclude that the evidence for persistence of type is inescapable -and valid under any assumption.</p> - -<p>When we speak of persistent types, we mean generic and -specific, rather than phyletic, types, although it is assuredly -true that the persistence of the great phyla, from their abrupt -and contemporaneous appearance in Cambrian and pre-Cambrian -rocks down to the present day, constitutes a grave -difficulty for progressive evolution in general and monophy<span class="pagenum" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</span>letic -evolution in particular. All the great invertebrate types, -such as the protozoa, the annelida, the brachiopoda, and large -crustaceans called eurypterids, are found in rocks of the Proterozoic -group, despite the damaged condition of the Archæan -record, while in the Cambrian they are represented by a great -profusion of forms. “The Lower Cambrian species,” says -Dana, “have not the simplicity of structure that would naturally -be looked for in the earliest Palæozoic life. They are perfect -of their kind and highly specialized structures. No steps -from simple kinds leading up to them have been discovered; -no line from the protozoans up to corals, echinoderms, or -worms, or from either of these groups up to brachiopods, mollusks, -trilobites, or other crustaceans. This appearance of -abruptness in the introduction of Cambrian life is one of the -striking facts made known by geology.” (“Manual,” p. 487.) -Thus, as we go backward in time, 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 -types. For this reason, as we shall see presently, geologists -are beginning to relegate the evolutionary process to unknown -depths below the explored portion of the “geological column.” -What may lurk in these unfathomed profundities, it is, of -course, impossible to say, but, if we are to judge by that part -of the column which is actually exposed to view, there is no -indication whatever of a steady progression from lower, to -higher, degrees of organization, and it takes all the imperturbable -idealism of a scientific doctrinaire to discern in -such random, abrupt, and unrelated “origins” any evidence of -what Blackwelder styles “a slow but steady increase in complexity -of structure and in function.” (<i>Science</i>, Jan. 27, 1922, -p. 90.)</p> - -<p>But, while the permanence of phyletic types excludes progress, -that of generic and specific types excludes change, and -hence it is in the latter phenomenon, especially, that the theory -of transformism encounters a formidable difficulty. Palæobotany -furnishes numerous examples of the persistence of un<span class="pagenum" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</span>changed -plant forms. Ferns identical with the modern genus -<i>Marattia</i> occur in rocks of the Palæozoic group. Cycads indistinguishable -from the extant genera <i>Zamia</i> and <i>Cycas</i> are found -in strata belonging to the Triassic system, etc., etc.</p> - -<p>The same is true of animal types. In all the phyla some -genera and even species have persisted unchanged from the -oldest strata down to the present day. Among the Protozoa, for -example, we have the genus <i>Globigerina</i> (one of the Foraminifera), -some modern species of which are identical with those -found in the Cretaceous. To quote the words of the Protozoologist, -Charles A. Kofoid: “The Protozoa are found in the -oldest fossiliferous rocks and the genera of <i>Radiolaria</i> therein -conform rather closely to genera living today, while the fossil -<i>Dinoflagellata</i> of the flints of Delitzsch are scarcely distinguishable -from species living in the modern seas. 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 young.” -(<i>Science</i>, April 6, 1923, p. 397.)</p> - -<p>The Metazoa offer similar examples of persistence. Among -the Cœlenterata, we have the genus <i>Springopora</i>, whose representatives -from the Carboniferous limestones closely resemble -some of the present-day reef builders of the East Indies. -Species of the brachiopod genera <i>Lingula</i> and <i>Crania</i> occurring -in the Cambrian rocks are indistinguishable from species living -today, while two other modern genera of the Brachiopoda, -namely, <i>Rhynchonella</i> and <i>Discina</i>, are represented among the -fossils found in Mesozoic formations. <i>Terebratulina striata</i>, a -fossil species of brachiopod occurring in the rocks belonging to -the Cretaceous system, is identical with our modern species -<i>Terebratulina caput serpentis</i>. Among the Mollusca such -genera as <i>Arca</i>, <i>Nucula</i>, <i>Lucina</i>, <i>Astarte</i>, and <i>Nautilus</i> have -had a continuous existence since the Silurian, while the genera -<i>Lima</i> and <i>Pecten</i> can be traced to the Permian. One genus -<i>Pleurotomaria</i> goes back to pre-Cambrian times. As to Tertiary -fossils, Woods informs us that “in some of the later Cain<span class="pagenum" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</span>ozoic -formations as many as 90 per cent of the species of -mollusks are still living.” (“Palæontology,” 1st ed., p. 2.) -Among the Echinodermata, two genera, <i>Cidaris</i> (a sea urchin) -and <i>Pentacrinus</i> (a crinoid) may be mentioned as being persistent -since the Triassic (“oldest” system of the Mesozoic -group). Among the Arthropoda, the horseshoe crab <i>Limulus -polyphemus</i> has had a continuous existence since the Lias (<i>i.e.</i> -the lowest series of the Jurassic system). Even among the -Vertebrata we have instances of persistence. The extant Australian -genus <i>Ceratodus</i>, a Dipnoan, has been in existence since -the Triassic. Among the fossils of the Jurassic (middle system -of the Mesozoic group), <i>Sharks</i>, <i>Rays</i>, and <i>Chimaeroids</i> occur -in practically modern forms, while some of the so-called -“ganoids” are extremely similar to our present sturgeons and -gar pikes—“Some of the Jurassic fishes approximate the teleosts -so closely that it seems arbitrary to call them ganoids.” -(Scott.)</p> - -<p>The instances of persistence enumerated above are those acknowledged -by evolutionary palæontologists themselves. This -list could be extended somewhat by the addition of several -other examples, but even so, it would still be small and insufficient -to tip the scales decisively in favor of fixism. On -the other hand, 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 “ancient” beds. Moreover, orthodox -palæontology has minimized the facts of persistence to an -extent unwarranted even by its own premises. As the following -considerations indicate, the actual number of persistent -types is far greater, even according to the evolutionary time-scale, -than the figure commonly assigned.</p> - -<p>First of all, we must take into account the deplorable, if not -absolutely dishonest, practice, which is in vogue, of inventing -new names for the fossil duplicates of modern species, in -order to mask or obscure an identity which conflicts with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</span> -evolutionary preconceptions. When a given formation fails -to fit into the accepted scheme by reason of its fossil anachronisms, -or when, to quote the words of Price, “species are found -in kinds of rock where they are not at all expected, and where, -according to the prevailing theories, it is quite incredible that -they should be found ... the not very honorable expedient -is resorted to of inventing a new name, specific or even generic, -to disguise and gloss over the strange similarity between them -and the others which have already been assigned to wholly -different formations.” (“The New Geology,” p. 291.) The -same observation is made by Heilprin. “It is practically certain,” -says the latter, “that numerous forms of life, exhibiting -no distinctive characters of their own, are constituted into -distinct species for no other reason than that they occur in -formations widely separated from those holding their nearest -kin.” (“Geographical and Geological Distribution of Animals,” -pp. 183, 184.) An instance of this practice occurs in the foregoing -list, where a fossil brachiopod identical with a modern -species receives the new specific name “<i>striata</i>.” Its influence -is also manifest in the previously quoted apology of Scott for -calling teleost-like fish “ganoids.”</p> - -<p>We must also take into account the imperfection of the fossil -record, which is proved by the fact that most of the acknowledged -“persistent types” listed above “skip” whole -systems and even groups of “later” rocks (which are said to -represent enormous intervals of time), only to reappear, at -last, in modern times. It is evident that their existence has -been continuous, and yet they are not represented in the intervening -strata. Clearly, then, the fossil record is imperfect, -and we must conclude that many of our modern types actually -did exist in the remote past, without, however, leaving behind -any vestige of their former presence.</p> - -<p>Again, we must frankly confess our profound ignorance with -respect to the total number and kinds of species living in our -modern seas. Hence our conventional distinction between “extinct” -and “extant” species has only a provisory value. Future<span class="pagenum" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</span> -discoveries will unquestionably force us to admit that many -of the species now classed as “extinct” are in reality living -forms, which must be added to our list of “persistent types.” -“It is by no means improbable,” says Heilprin, “that many -of the older genera, now recognized as distinct by reason of -our imperfect knowledge concerning their true relationships, -have in reality representatives in the modern sea.” (<i>Op. cit.</i> -pp. 203, 204.)</p> - -<p>Finally, the whole of our present taxonomy of plants and -animals, both living and fossil, stands badly in need of revision. -Systematists, as we have seen in the second chapter, base -their classifications mainly on what they regard as basic or -homologous structures, in contradistinction to superficial or -adaptive characters. Both kinds of structure, however, are -purely somatic, and somatic characters, as previously observed, -are not, by themselves, a safe criterion for discriminating -between varieties and species. In the light of recent -genetical research, we cannot avoid recognizing that there has -been far too much “splitting” of organic groups on the basis -of differences that are purely fluctuational, or, at most, mutational. -Moreover, the distinction between homologous and -adaptive structures is often arbitrary and largely a matter -of personal opinion, especially when numerous specimens are -not available. What the “Cambridge Natural History” says -in allusion to the Asteroidea is of general application. “While -there is considerable agreement,” we read, “amongst authorities -as to the number of families, or minor divisions of unequivocal -relationship, to be found in the class Asteroidea, -there has been great uncertainty both as to the number and -limits of the orders into which the class should be divided, -and also as to the limits of the various species. The -difficulty about the species is by no means confined to -the group Echinodermata; 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 uncertainty; the -more so, as it becomes increasingly evident that there is no<span class="pagenum" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</span> -sharp line to be drawn between local varieties and species. In -Echinodermata, however, there is the additional difficulty that -the acquisition of ripe genital cells does not necessarily mark -the termination of growth; the animals can continue to grow -and at the same time slightly alter their characters. For this -reason many of the species described may be merely immature -forms....</p> - -<p>“The disputes, however, as to the number of orders included -in the Asteroidea proceed from a different cause. The attempt -to construct detailed phylogenies involves the assumption -that one set of structures, which we take as the mark of -the class, has remained constant, whilst the others which are -regarded as adaptive, may have developed twice or thrice. -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 questions.” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, -vol. I, pp. 459, 460.)</p> - -<p>In dealing with fossil forms, these difficulties of the taxonomist -are intensified: (1) by the sparse, badly-preserved, and -fragmentary character of fossil remains; (2) by the fact that -here breeding experiments are impossible, and hence the diagnosis -based on external characters cannot be supplemented -by a diagnosis of the germinal factors. Fossil taxonomy is, in -consequence, extremely arbitrary and unreliable. Many fossil -forms classed as distinct species, or even as distinct genera, -may be nothing more than fluctuants, mutants, hybrids, or immature -stages of well-known species living today. Again, -many fossils mistaken for distinct species are but different -stages in the life-history of a single species, a mistake, which is -unavoidable, when specimens are few and the age of the specimens -unknown. 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-cycle. When due allowance is -made for mutation, hybridization, metagenesis, polymorphism,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</span> -age and metamorphosis, the number of distinct fossil species -will undergo considerable shrinkage. Nor must we overlook -the possibility of environmentally-induced modifications. -Many organisms, such as mollusks, undergo profound alteration -as a result of some important, and, perhaps, relatively -permanent, change in their environmental conditions, though -such alterations affect only the phenotype, and do not involve -a corresponding change in the specific genotype, <i>i.e.</i> the -germinal constitution of the race.</p> - -<p>In the degree that these considerations are taken into account -the number of “extinct” fossil species will diminish and -the number of “persistent” species will increase. This is a consummation -devoutly to be wished for, but it means that -hundreds of thousands of described species must needs -be reviewed for the purpose of weeding out the duplicates, -and who will have the knowledge, the courage, or even -the span of life, necessary to accomplish so gigantic a task?</p> - -<p>But so far as the practical purposes of our argument are concerned, -the accepted list of persistent types needs no amplification. -It suffices, as it stands, to establish the central fact -(which, for the rest, is admitted by everyone) 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 -age. Our current theories, far from diminishing the significance -of this fact, tend to intensify it by computing the duration of -such persistence in millions, rather than in thousands, of -years. Now, whatever one’s views may be on the subject of -transformism, this prolonged permanence of certain genera and -species is an indubitable <i>fact</i>, which is utterly irreconcilable -with a <i>universal law</i> of organic evolution. The theory of -transformism is impotent to explain an exception so palpable -as this; for persistence and transmutation cannot be subsumed -under one and the same principle. That which accounts for -change cannot account for <i>unchange</i>. Yet unchange is an -observed fact, while the change, in this case, is an inferred<span class="pagenum" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</span> -hypothesis. Hence, even if we accept the principle of transformism, -there will always be scope for the principle of permanence. -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 it. To -the latter it may seem of little consequence, but, to the genuine -scientist, the actual persistence of types should be of no less -interest than their possible variability.</p> - -<p>With these reflections, our criticism of the palæontological -argument terminates. The enumeration of its various deficiencies -was not intended as a refutation. To disprove the -theory of organic evolution is a feat beyond our power to -accomplish. We can only adduce negative evidence, whose -scope is to show that the various evolutionary arguments are -inconsequential or inconclusive. We cannot rob the theory of -its intrinsic possibility, and sheer justice compels us to confess -that certain facts, like those of symbiotic preadaptation, -lend themselves more readily to a transformistic, than to a -fixistic, interpretation. On the other hand, nothing is gained -by ignoring flaws so obvious and glaring as those which mar -the cogency of palæontological “evidence.” The man who -would gloss them over is no true friend either of Science or -of the scientific theory of Evolution! They represent so many -real problems to be frankly faced and fully solved, before the -palæontological argument can become a genuine demonstration. -But until such time as a demonstration of this sort is forthcoming, -the evolutionist must not presume to cram his unsubstantiated -theory down our reasonably reluctant throats. -To accept as certain what remains unproved, is to compromise -our intellectual sincerity. True certainty, which rests on the -recognition of objective necessity, will never be attainable so -long as difficulties that sap the very base of evolutionary argumentation -are left unanswered; and, as for those who, in -the teeth of discordant factual evidence, profess, nevertheless, -to have certainty regarding the “fact” of evolution, we can<span class="pagenum" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</span> -only say that such persons cannot have a very high or exacting -conception of what scientific certainty really means.</p> - -<p>For the rest, it cannot even be said that the palæontological -record furnishes good circumstantial evidence that our globe -has been the scene of a process of organic evolution. In fact, -so utterly at variance with this view is the total impression -conveyed by the visible portion of the geological column, that -the modern geologist proposes, as we have seen, to probe -depths beneath its lowest strata for traces of that alleged -transmutation, which higher horizons do not reveal. There are -six to eight thick terranes below the Cambrian, we are told, -and igneous masses that were formerly supposed to be basal -have turned out to be intrusions into sedimentary accumulations, -all of which, of course, is fortunate for the theory of -organic evolution, as furnishing it with a sadly needed new -court of appeal. The bottom, so to speak, has dropped out of -the geological column, and Prof. T. C. Chamberlin announces -the fact as follows: “The sharp division into two parts, a lifeless -igneous base and a sedimentary fossiliferous superstructure, -has given place to the general concept of continuity with -merely minor oscillations in times and regions of major activity. -Life has been traced much below the Cambrian, but its -record is very imperfect. The recent discoveries of more ample -and varied life in the lower Palæozoic, particularly the Cambrian, -implies, under current evolutional philosophy, a very -great downward extension of life. In the judgment of some -biologists and geologists, this extension probably reaches below -all the pre-Cambrian terranes as yet recognized, though this -pre-Cambrian extension is great. The ‘Azoic’ bottom has retired -to depths unknown. This profoundly changes the life -aspect of the ‘column.’” (<i>Science</i>, Feb. 8, 1924, p. 128.) All this -is doubtless true, but such an appeal, from the known to the -unknown, from the actual to the possible, is not far-removed -from a confession of scientific insolvency. Life must, of course, -have had an earlier history than that recorded in the pre-Cambrian -rocks. But even supposing that some portion of an<span class="pagenum" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</span> -earlier record should become accessible to us, it could not be -expected to throw much light on the problem of organic -origins. Most of the primordial sediments have long since -been sapped and engulfed by fiery magmas, while terranes -less deep have, in all probability, been so metamorphosed that -every trace of their fossil contents has perished. The sub-Archæan -beginnings of life will thus remain shrouded forever -in a mystery, which we have no prospect of penetrating. -Hence it is the exposed portion of the geological column which -continues and will continue to be our sole source of information, -and it is preëminently on this basis that the evolutionary -issue will have to be decided.</p> - -<p>Yet what could be more enigmatic than the rock record as -it stands? For in nature it possesses none of that idealized -integrity and coherence, with which geology has invested it -for the purpose of making it understandable. Rather it is a -mighty chaos of scattered and fragmentary fossiliferous formations, -whose baffling complexity, discontinuity, and ambiguity -tax the ingenuity of the most sagacious interpreters. Transformism -is the key to one possible synthesis, which might -serve to unify that intricate mass of facts, but it is idle to -pretend that this theory is the unique and necessary corollary -of the facts as we find them. The palæontological argument -is simply a theoretical construction which presupposes evolution -instead of proving it. Its classic pedigrees of the horse, -the camel, and the elephant are only credible when we have -assumed the “fact” of evolution, and even then, solely upon condition -that they claim to approximate, rather than assign, the -actual ancestry of the animals in question. In palæontology, -as in the field of zoölogy, evolution is not a conclusion, but an -interpretation. In palæontology, otherwise than in the field of -genetics, evolution is not amenable to the check of experimental -tests, because here it deals not with that which is, but -with that which <i>was</i>. Here the sole objective basis is the mutilated -and partially obliterated record of a march of events, -which no one has observed and which will never be repeated.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</span> -These obscure and fragmentary vestiges of a vanished past, -by reason of their very incompleteness, lend themselves quite -readily to all sorts of theories and all sorts of speculations. -Of the “Stone Book of the Universe” we may say with truth -that which Oliver Wendell Holmes says of the privately-interpreted -Bible, namely, that its readers take from it the same -views which they had previously brought to it. “I am, however, -thoroughly persuaded,” say the late Yves Delage, “that -one is or is not a transformist, not so much for reasons deduced -from natural history, as for motives based on personal -philosophic opinions. If there existed some other scientific -hypothesis besides that of descent to explain the origin of -species, many transformists would abandon their present opinion -as not being sufficiently demonstrated.... If one takes -his stand upon the exclusive ground of the facts, it must be -acknowledged that the formation of one species from another -species has not been demonstrated at all.” (“L’herédité et les -grands problèmes de la biologie générale,” Paris, 1903, pp. -204, 322.)</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="PART_II">II<br /> - -THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS</h2></div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_I2">CHAPTER I<br /> - -THE ORIGIN OF LIFE</h3></div> - - -<h3>§ 1. The Theory of Spontaneous Generation</h3> - -<p>Strictly speaking, the theory of Transformism is not concerned -with the initial production of organic species, but rather -with the subsequent differentiation and multiplication of such -species by transmutation of the original forms. This technical -sense, however, is embalmed only in the term transformism -and not in its synonym evolution. The signification -of the latter term is less definite. It may be used to denote -any sort of development or origination of one thing from -another. 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 evolution.</p> - -<p>This extension of the evolutionary concept, in its widest -sense, to the problem of the origin of life on our globe is known -as the hypothesis of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation. -It regards inorganic matter as the source of organic life not -merely in the sense of a <i>passive cause</i>, out of which the primordial -forms of life were produced, but in the sense of an -<i>active cause</i> inasmuch as it ascribes the origin of life to -the exclusive agency of dynamic principles inherent in inorganic -matter, namely, the physicochemical energies that are -native to mineral matter. Life, in other words, is assumed -to have arisen spontaneously, that is, by means of a synthesis<span class="pagenum" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</span> -and convergence of forces resident in inorganic matter, and -not through the intervention of any exterior agency.</p> - -<p>The protagonists of spontaneous generation, therefore, assert -not merely a passive, but an active, evolution of living, -from lifeless matter. As to the fact of the origin of the -primal organisms from inorganic matter, there is no controversy -whatever. All agree that, at some time or other, the primordial -plants and animals emanated from inorganic matter. The sole -point of dispute is whether they arose from inorganic matter -by active evolution or simply by passive evolution. The passive -evolution of mineral matter into plants and animals is an -everyday occurrence. The grass assimilates the nitrates of the -soil, and is, in turn, assimilated by the sheep, whose flesh becomes -the food of man, and mineral substance is thus finally -transformed into human substance. In the course of metabolic -processes, the inorganic molecule may doff its mineral -type and don, in succession, the specificities of plant, animal, -and human protoplasm; and this transition from lower to -higher degrees of perfection may be termed an evolution. It -is an ascent of matter from the lowermost grade of an inert -substance, through the intermediate grades of vegetative and -animal life, up to the culminating and ultimate term of material -perfection, in the partial constitution of a human nature -and personality, in the concurrence as a coagent in vegetative -and sensile functions, and in the indirect participation, as instrument, -in the higher psychic functions of rational thought -and volition.</p> - -<p>At the present time, the inorganic world is clearly the exclusive -source of all the matter found in living beings. All -living beings construct their bodies out of inorganic substances -in the process of nutrition, and render back to the -inorganic world, by dissimilation and death, whatever they -have taken from it. We must conclude, therefore, the matter -of the primordial organisms was likewise derived from the -inorganic world. But we are not warranted in concluding that -this process of derivation was an active evolution. On the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</span> -contrary, all evidence is against the supposition that brute -matter is able to evolve of itself into living matter. It can, -indeed, be transformed into plants, animals, and men through -the action of an appropriate external agent (<i>i.e.</i> solely through -the agency of the living organism), but it cannot acquire the -perfections of living matter by means of its own inherent -powers. It cannot vitalize, or sensitize, itself through the unaided -activity of its own physicochemical energies. Only when -it comes under the superior influence of preëxistent life can it -ascend to higher degrees of entitive perfection. It does not -become of itself life, sensibility, and intelligence. It must -first be drawn into communion with what is already alive, -before it can acquire life and sensibility, or share indirectly -in the honors of intelligence (as the substrate of the cerebral -imagery whence the human mind abstracts its conceptual -thought). Apart from this unique influence, inorganic matter -is impotent to raise itself in the scale of existence, but, -if captured, molded, and transmuted by a living being, it may -progress to the point of forming with the human soul one -single nature, one single substance, one single person. The -evolution of matter exemplified in organic metabolism is obviously -passive, and such an evolution of the primal organisms -out of non-living matter even the opponents of the hypothesis -of spontaneous generation concede. But spontaneous -generation implies an active evolution of the living from the -lifeless, and this is the point around which the controversy -wages. It would, of course, be utterly irrational to deny to -the Supreme Lord and Author of Life the power of vivifying -matter previously inanimate and inert, and hence the origin -of organic life from inorganic matter by a formative (not -creative) act of the Creator is the conclusion to which the -denial of abiogenesis logically leads.</p> - -<p>The hypothesis of spontaneous generation is far older than -the theory of transformism. It goes back to the Greek predecessors -of Aristotle, at least, and may be of far greater antiquity. -It was based, as is well known, upon an erroneous<span class="pagenum" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</span> -interpretation of natural facts, which was universally accepted -up to the close of the 17th century. As we can do no more -than recount a few outstanding incidents of its long and interesting -history here, the reader is referred to the VII chapter -of Wasmann’s “Modern Biology” and the VIII chapter of -Windle’s “Vitalism and Scholasticism” for the details which -we are obliged to omit.</p> - - -<h3>§ 2. The Law of Genetic Continuity—</h3> - -<p>From time immemorial the sudden appearance of maggots -in putrescent meat had been a matter of common knowledge, -and the ancients were misled into regarding the phenomenon -as an instance of a <i>de novo</i> origin of life from dead matter. -The error in question persisted until the year 1698, when it was -decisively disproved by a simple experiment of the Italian -physician Francesco Redi. He protected the meat from flies -by means of gauze. Under these conditions, no maggots appeared -in the meat, while the flies, unable to reach the meat, -deposited their eggs on the gauze. Thus it became apparent -that the maggots were larval flies, which emerged from fertilized -eggs previously deposited in decaying meat by female -flies. Antonio Vallisnieri, another Italian, showed that the -fruit-fly had a similar life-history. As a result of these discoveries, -Redi rejected the theory of spontaneous generation -and formulated the first article of the Law of Genetic Vital -Continuity: <i>Omne vivum ex vivo</i>.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile, the first researches conducted by means of the -newly invented compound microscope disclosed what appeared -to be fresh evidence in favor of the discarded hypothesis. The -unicellular organisms known as infusoria were found to appear -suddenly in hay infusions, and their abrupt appearance -was ascribed to spontaneous generation. Towards the end -of the 18th century, however, 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 cysts. After the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</span> -infusions had been boiled for a sufficient time and then sealed, -no organisms could be found in them, no matter how long they -were kept. We now know that protozoa and protophytes do -not originate <i>de novo</i> in infusions. Their sudden appearance -in cultures is due to the deposition of spores or cysts from -the air, etc.</p> - -<p>The possibility that the non-germination of life in sterilized -infusions kept in sealed containers might be due to the absence -of oxygen, removed by boiling and excluded by sealing, left -open a single loophole, of which the 19th century defenders -of abiogenesis proceeded to avail themselves. Pasteur, however, -by employing sterilized cultures, which he aerated with -filtered air exclusively, succeeded in depriving his opponents -of this final refuge, and thereby completely demolished the -last piece of evidence in favor of spontaneous generation. Prof. -Wm. Sydney Thayer, in an address delivered at the Sorbonne, -May 22, 1923, gives the following account of Pasteur’s -experiments in this field: “Then, naturally (1860-1876) came -the famous studies on spontaneous generation undertaken -against the advice of his doubting masters, Biot and Dumas. -On the basis of careful and well-conceived experiments he -demonstrated the universal presence of bacteria in air, water, -dust; he showed the variation in different regions of the -bacterial content of the air; he demonstrated the permanent -sterility of media protected from contamination, and he insisted -on the inevitable derivation of every living organism -from one of its kind. ‘No,’ he said, ‘there is no circumstance -known today which justifies us in affirming that microscopic -organisms have come into the world, without parents like -themselves. 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 -avoid.’ In the course of these experiments he demonstrated -the necessity of reliable methods of sterilization for instruments -or culture media, of exposure for half an hour to moist -heat at 120° or to dry air at 180°. And behold! our modern<span class="pagenum" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</span> -procedures of sterilization and the basis of antiseptic surgery.” -(<i>Science</i>, Dec. 14, 1923, p. 477.) Pasteur brought to a successful -completion the work of Redi and Spallanzani. Henceforth -spontaneous generation was deprived of all countenance -in the realm of biological fact.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile, the cytologists and embryologists of the last -century were adding article after article to the law of genetic -cellular continuity, thus forging link by link the fatal chain of -severance that inexorably debars abiogenesis from the domain -of natural science. With the formulation of the great Cell -Theory by Schleiden and Schwann (1838-1839), it became -clear that the cell is the fundamental unit of organization in -the world of living matter. It has proved to be, at once, the -simplest organism capable of independent existence and the -basic unit of structure and function in all the more complex -forms of life. The protists (unicellular protozoans and protophytes) -consist each of a single cell, and no simpler type of -organism is known to science. The cell is the building brick -out of which the higher organisms or metists (<i>i.e.</i> the multicellular -and tissued metazoans and metaphytes) are constructed, -and all multicellular organisms are, at one time or -other in their career, reduced to the simplicity of a single -cell (<i>v.g.</i> in the zygote and spore stages). The somatic or -tissue cells, which are associated in the metists to form one -organic whole, are of the same essential type as germ cells -and unicellular organisms, although the parallelism is more -close between the unicellular organism and the germ cell. -The germ cell, like the protist, is equipped with all the potentialities -of life, whereas tissue cells are specialized for one -function rather than another. The protist is a generalized and -physiologically-balanced cell, one which performs all the vital -functions, and in which the suppression of one function leads -to the destruction of all the rest; while the tissue cell is a -specialized and physiologically-unbalanced cell limited to a -single function, with the other vital functions in abeyance -(though capable of manifesting themselves under certain cir<span class="pagenum" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</span>cumstances). -Normally, therefore, the tissue cell is functionally -incomplete, a part and not a whole, whereas the protist -is an independent individual, being, at once, the highest type -of cell and the lowest type of organism.</p> - -<p>According to the classic definition of Franz Leydig and Max -Schultze, the cell is a mass of protoplasm containing a nucleus, -both protoplasm and nucleus arising through division of the -corresponding elements of a preëxistent cell. In this form the -definition is quite general and applies to all cells, whether -tissue cells, germ cells, or unicellular organisms. Moreover, it -embodies two principles which still further determine the law -of genetic cellular continuity, namely: <i>Omnis cellula ex cellula</i>, -enunciated by Virchow in 1855, and Flemming’s principle: -<i>Omnis nucleus ex nucleo</i>, proclaimed in 1882. In this way, -Cytology supplemented Redi’s formula that every living being -is from a preëxistent living being, by adding two more articles, -namely, that every living cell is from a preëxistent cell, -and every new cellular nucleus is derived by division from a -preëxistent cellular nucleus. Now neither the nucleus nor the -cell-body (the cytoplasm or extranuclear area of the cell) is -capable of an independent existence. The cytoplasm of the -severed nerve fibre, when it fails to reëstablish its connection -with the neuron nucleus, degenerates. The enucleated amœba, -though capable of such vital functions as depend upon destructive -metabolism, can do nothing which involves constructive -metabolism, and is, therefore, doomed to perish. The sperm -cell, which is a nucleus that has sloughed off most of its cytoplasm, -disintegrates, unless it regains a haven in the cytoplasm -of the egg. Life, accordingly, cannot subsist in a unit more -simply organized than the cell. No organism lives which is -simpler than the cell, and the origin of all higher forms of life -is reducible, as we shall see, to the origin of the cell. Consequently, -new life can originate in no other way than by a -process of cell-division. All generation or reproduction of new -life is dependent upon the division of the cell-body and nucleus -of a preëxistent living cell.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</span></p> - -<p>Haeckel, it is true, has attempted to question the status -of the cell as the simplest of organisms, by alleging the existence -of cytodes (non-nucleated cells) among the bacteria and -the blue-green algæ. Further study, however, has shown that -bacteria and blue-green algæ have a distributed nucleus, like -that of certain ciliates, such as <i>Dileptus gigas</i> and <i>Trachelocerca</i>. -In such forms the entire cell body is filled with scattered -granules of chromatin called chromioles, and this diffuse -type of nucleus seems to be the counterpart of the concentrated -nuclei found in the generality of cells. At any rate, there is -a temporary aggregation of the chromioles at critical stages in -the life-cycle (such as cell-division), and these scattered -chromatin granules undergo division, although their distribution -to the daughter-cells is not as regular as that obtaining -in mitosis. All this is strongly suggestive of their nuclear nature, -and cells with distributed nuclei cannot, therefore, be -classified as cytodes. In fact, the polynuclear condition is by -no means uncommon. <i>Paramœcium aurelia</i>, for example, has -a macronucleus and a micronucleus, and the <i>Uroleptus mobilis</i> -has eight macronuclei and from two to four micronuclei. The -difference between the polynuclear and diffuse condition seems -to be relatively unimportant. In fact, the distributed nucleus -differs from the morphological nucleus mainly in the absence of -a confining membrane. From the functional standpoint, the two -structures are identical. Hence the possession of a nucleus or -its equivalent is, to all appearances, a universal characteristic -of cells. Haeckel’s “cytodes” have proved to be purely imaginary -entities. The verdict of modern cytologists is that -Shultze’s definition of the cell must stand, and that the status -of the cell as the simplest of organic units capable of independent -existence is established beyond the possibility of -prudent doubt.</p> - -<p>With the progressive refinement of microscopic technique, -it has become apparent that the law of genetic continuity applies -not merely to the cell as a whole and to its major parts, -the nucleus and the cell-body, but also to the minor com<span class="pagenum" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</span>ponents -or organelles, which are seen to be individually self-perpetuating -by means of growth and division. The typical cell -nucleus, as is well known, is a spherical vesicle containing -a semisolid, diphasic network of basichromatin (formerly -“chromatin”) and oxychromatin (linin) suspended in more -fluid medium or ground called nuclear sap. When the cell is -about to divide, the basichromatin resolves itself into a definite -number of short threads called chromosomes. Now, -Boveri found that, in the normal process of cell-division known -as mitosis, these nuclear threads or chromosomes are each -split lengthwise and divided into two exactly equivalent halves, -the resulting halves being distributed in equal number to the -two daughter-cells produced by the division of the original -cell. Hence, in the year 1903, Boveri added a fourth article -to the law of genetic vital continuity, namely: <i>Omne chromosoma -ex chromosomate</i>.</p> - -<p>But the law in question applies to cytoplasmic as well as -nuclear components. In physical appearance, 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 microsomes, all of which, together with -numerous other formed bodies, are suspended in the clear -hyaloplasm (hyaline ground-substance). Now certain of -these cytoplasmic components have long been known to be -<i>self-perpetuating</i> by means of growth and division, maintaining -their continuity from cell to cell. The plastids -of plant cells, for example, divide at the time of cell-division, -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 chromosomes. Similarly, the centrioles or -division-foci of animal cells are self-propagating by division, -but here the distribution to the daughter-cells is exactly equivalent -and not at random as in the case of plastids. In the -light of recent research it looks as though two other types of -cytoplasmic organelles must be added to the list of cellular<span class="pagenum" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</span> -components, which are individually self-perpetuating by -growth and division, namely, the chondriosomes and the Golgi -bodies—“both mitochondria and Golgi bodies are able to -assimilate, grow, and divide in the cytoplasm.” (Gatenby.) -Wilson is of opinion that the law of genetic continuity may -have to be extended even to those minute granules and particles -of the cytosome, which were formerly thought to arise -<i>de novo</i> in the apparently structureless hyaloplasm. Speaking -of the emulsified appearance of the starfish and sea urchin -eggs, he tells us that their protoplasm shows “a structure somewhat -like that of an emulsion, consisting of innumerable -spheroidal bodies suspended in a clear continuous basis or -hyaloplasm. These bodies are of two general orders of magnitude, -namely: larger spheres or macrosomes rather closely -crowded and fairly uniform in size, and much smaller microsomes -irregularly scattered between the macrosomes, and -among these are still smaller granules that graduate in size -down to the limit of vision with any power (<i>i.e.</i> of microscope) -we may employ.” (<i>Science</i>, March 9, 1923, p. 282.) -Now, 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 light, that is, about 200 submicrons -(the submicron being one millionth of a millimeter). Particles -whose diameter is less than this cannot reflect a wave -of light, and are, therefore, invisible so far as the microscope -is concerned. By the aid of the ultramicroscope, however, -we are enabled to see the halos formed by particles not -more than four submicrons in diameter, which, however, represents -the limit of the ultramicroscope, and is the diameter hypothetically -assigned to the protein multimolecule. Since, -therefore, we find the particles in the protoplasm of the cell -body graduating all the way down to the limit of this latter -instrument, and since on the very limit of microscopic vision -we find such minute particles as the centrioles “capable of -self-perpetuation by growth and division, and of enlargement -to form much larger bodies,” we cannot ignore the possibility<span class="pagenum" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</span> -that the ultramicroscopic particles may have the same powers -and may be the sources or “formative foci” of the larger -formed bodies, which were hitherto thought to arise <i>de novo</i>.</p> - -<p>Certainly, pathology, as we shall see, tells us of ultramicroscopic -disease-germs, which are capable of reproduction and -maintenance of a specific type, and experimental genetics -makes us aware of a linear alignment of submicroscopic -genes in the nuclear chromosomes, each gene undergoing periodic -division and perpetual transmission from generation to -generation. The cytologist, therefore, to quote the words of -Wilson, “cannot resist the evidence that the appearance of -a simple homogeneous colloidal substance is deceptive; that -it is in reality a complex, heterogeneous, or polyphasic system. -He finds it difficult to escape the conclusion, therefore, -that the visible and the invisible components of the -protoplasmic system differ only in their size and degree of -dispersion; that they belong to a single continuous series, -and that the visible structure of protoplasm may give us -a rough magnified picture of the invisible.” (<i>Ibidem</i>, p. 283.)</p> - -<p>It would seem, therefore, that we must restore to honor, as -the fifth article of the law of cellular continuity, the formula, -which Richard Altmann enunciated on purely speculative -grounds in 1892, but which the latest research is beginning to -place on a solid factual basis, namely: <i>Omne granulum ex -granulo</i>. “For my part,” says the great cytologist, Wilson, “I -am disposed to accept the probability that many of these particles, -as if they were submicroscopical plastids, may have a -persistent identity, perpetuating themselves by growth and -multiplication without loss of their specific individual type.” -And he adds that the facts revealed by experimental embryology -(<i>e.g.</i>, the existence of differentiated zones of specific -composition in the cytoplasm of certain eggs) “drive -us to the conclusion that the submicroscopical components -of the hyaloplasm are segregated and distributed according -to an ordered system.” (<i>Ibidem</i>, p. 283.) The structure of -the cell has often been likened to a heterogeneous solution,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</span> -that is, to a complex polyphasic colloidal system, 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 system, -and is never found in any of the colloidal systems known -to physical chemistry, be they organic or inorganic.</p> - -<p>Cells, then, originate solely by division of preëxistent cells -and even the minor components of the cellular system originate -in like fashion, namely: by division of their respective -counterparts in the preëxistent living cell. Here we have -the sum and substance of the fivefold law of genetic continuity, -whose promulgation has relegated the hypothesis of -spontaneous generation to the realms of empty speculation. -Waiving the possibility of an <i>a priori</i> argument, by which -abiogenesis might be positively excluded, there remains this -one consideration, which alone is scientifically significant, -that, so far as observation goes and induction can carry us, -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 matter. If organic life -exists in simpler terms than the cell, science knows nothing -of it, and no observed process, simple or complicated, of -inorganic nature, nor any artificial synthesis of the laboratory, -however ingenious, has ever succeeded in duplicating -the wonders of the simplest living cell.</p> - - -<h3>§ 3. Chemical Theories of the Origin of Life</h3> - -<p>In fact, the very notion of a chemical synthesis of living -matter is founded on a misconception. It would, indeed, be -rash to set limits to the chemist’s power of synthesizing -organic compounds, but living protoplasm is not a single -chemical compound. Rather it is a complex system of compounds, -enzymes and organelles, coördinated and integrated -into an organized whole by a persistent principle of unity -and finality. Organic life, to say nothing at all of its unique -dynamics, is a morphological as well as a chemical problem;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</span> -and, while it is conceivable that the chemist might synthesize -all the compounds found in dead protoplasm, to -reproduce a single detail of the ultramicroscopic structure -of a living cell lies wholly beyond his power and province. -“Long ago,” says Wilson (in the already quoted address on -the “Physical Basis of Life”), “it became perfectly plain that -what we call protoplasm is not chemically a single substance. -It is a mixture of many substances, a mixture in high degree -complex, the seat of varied and incessant transformations, -yet one which somehow holds fast for countless generations -to its own specific type. The evidence from every source -demonstrates that the cell is a complex organism, a microcosm, -a living system.” (<i>Science</i>, March 9, 1923, p. 278.)</p> - -<p>With the chemist, analysis must precede synthesis, and -it is only after a structural formula has been determined -by means of quantitative analysis supplemented by analogy -and comparison, that a given compound can be successfully -synthesized. But living protoplasm and its structures elude -such analysis. Intravitous staining is inadequate even as a -means of qualitative analysis, and tests of a more drastic -nature destroy the life and organization, which they seek -to analyze. “With one span,” says Amé Pictet, Professor -of Chemistry at the University of Geneva, “we will now -bridge the entire distance separating the first products of -plant assimilation from its final product, namely, living -matter. And it should be understood at the outset that I -employ this term ‘living matter’ only as an abbreviation, -and to avoid long circumlocution. You should not, in reality, -attribute life to matter itself; it has not, it cannot have both -living molecules and dead molecules. Life requires an organization, -which is that of cellular structure, but it remains, -in contradistinction to it, outside the domain of strict chemistry. -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 cell. It is entirely from this point of view that the -phenomenon of life pertains to my subject.... A living<span class="pagenum" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</span> -cell, both in its chemical composition and in its morphological -structure, is an organism of extraordinary complexity. -The protoplasm that it incloses is a mixture of very diverse -substances. 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 nutrition, and -which are in the process of elimination, there remain the -protein or albuminous substances, and these must be considered, -if not the essential factor of life, at least the theater -of its manifestations.... Chemistry, however, is totally -ignorant, or nearly so, of the constitution of living albumen, -for chemical methods of investigation at the very outset kill -the living cell. The slightest rise in temperature, contact -with the solvent, the very powerful effect of even the mildest -reactions cause the transformation that needs to be prevented, -and the chemist has nothing left but dead albumen.” -(Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1916, pp. 208, 209.)</p> - -<p>Chemical analysis associated with physical analysis by -means of the polariscope, spectroscope, x-rays, ultramicroscope, -etc. is extremely useful in determining the structure -of inorganic units like the atom and the molecule. Both, -too, throw valuable light on the problem of the structure of -non-living multimolecules such as the crystal units of crystalloids -and the ultramicrons of colloids, but they furnish no -clue to the submicroscopical morphology of the living cell. -Such methods do not enable us to examine anything more -than the “physical substrate” of life, and that, only after it -has been radically altered; for it is not the same after life -has flown. At all events, the integrating principle, the formative -determinant, which binds the components of living protoplasm -into a unitary system, which makes of them a single -totality instead of a mere sum or fortuitous aggregate of -disparate and uncoördinated factors, 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 energy, this is forever inaccessible to the chemist, and con<span class="pagenum" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</span>stitutes -a phenomenon of which the inorganic world affords no -parallel.</p> - -<p>With these facts in mind, we can hardly fail to be amused -whenever certain simple chemical reactions obtained <i>in vitro</i> -are hailed as “clue to the origin of life.” When it was found, -for instance, that, under certain conditions, an aldehyde -(probably formaldehyde) is formed in a colloidal solution of -chlorophyll in water, if exposed to sunlight, the discovery -gave rise to Bach’s formaldehyde-hypothesis; for Alexis Bach -saw in this reaction “a first step in the origin of life.” As formaldehyde -readily undergoes aldol condensation into a syrupy -fluid called formose, when a dilute aqueous solution of formaldehyde -is saturated with calcium hydroxide and allowed -to stand for several days, there was no difficulty in conceiving -the transition from formaldehyde to the carbohydrates; for -formose is a mixture containing several hexose sugars, and -Fischer has succeeded in isolating therefrom acrose, a simple -sugar having the same formula as glucose, namely: C<sub>6</sub>H<sub>12</sub>O<sub>6</sub>. -Glyceraldehyde undergoes a similar condensation. In view -of these facts, carbohydrate-production in green plants was -interpreted as a photosynthesis of these substances from water -and carbon dioxide, with chlorophyll acting a sensitizer to -absorb the radiant energy necessary for the reaction. The -first step in the process was thought to be a reduction of -carbonic acid to formic acid and then to formaldehyde, the -latter being at once condensed into glucose, which in turn -was supposed to be dehydrated and polymerized into starch. -From the carbohydrates thus formed and the nitrates of the -soil the plant could then synthesize proteins, while oxidation -of the carbohydrates into fatty acids would lead to the formation -of fats. Hence Bach regarded the formation of formaldehyde -in the presence of water, carbon dioxide, chlorophyll, -and sunlight as the “first step in the production of life.” -Bateson, however, does not find the suggestion a very -helpful one, and evaluates it at its true worth in the following -contemptuous aside: “We should be greatly helped,” he says,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</span> -“by some indication as to whether the origin of life has been -single or multiple.” Modern opinion is, perhaps, inclined to -the multiple theory, but we have no real evidence. Indeed, -the problem still stands outside the range of scientific -investigation, and when we hear the spontaneous formation -of formaldehyde mentioned as a possible first step in the -origin of life, we think of Harry Lauder in the character of -a Glasgow schoolboy pulling out his treasures from his pocket—“That’s -a wassher—for makkin’ motor cars.” (“Presidential -Address,” cf. Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1915, p. 375.)</p> - -<p>Bach, moreover, takes it for granted that the formation -of formaldehyde is really the first step in the synthesis performed -by the green plant, and he claims that formaldehyde -is formed when carbon dioxide is passed through a solution -of a salt of uranium in the presence of sunlight. Fenton -makes a similar claim in the case of magnesium, asserting -that traces of formaldehyde are discernible when metallic -magnesium is immersed in water saturated with carbon dioxide. -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 -plants. Certain chemists, while admitting that an aldehyde -is formed when chlorophyll, water, and air are brought together -in the presence of sunlight, deny that the aldehyde in -question is formaldehyde, and they also draw attention to -the fact that this aldehyde may be formed in an atmosphere -entirely destitute of carbon dioxide. In fact, the researches -conducted by Willstätter and Stoll, and later (in 1916) by -Jörgensen and Kidd tend to discredit the common notion that -carbohydrate-production in plants is the result of a direct -union of water and carbon dioxide. Botany textbooks still -continue to parrot the traditional view. We cannot any -longer, however, be sure but that the term photosynthesis -may be a misnomer.</p> - -<p>Carbohydrate-formation in plants seems to be more analogous -to carbohydrate-formation in animals than was for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</span>merly -thought to be the case. In animals, as is well known, -glycogen or animal starch is formed not by direct synthesis, -but by deämination and reduction of proteins. In a similar -way, it is thought that the production of carbohydrates in -plants may be due to a breaking down of the phytyl ester -in chlorophyll, the chromogen group functioning (under the -action of light) alternately as a dissociating enzyme in the -formation of sugars and a synthesizing enzyme in the reconstruction -of chlorophyll. Phytol is an unsaturated alcohol -obtained when chlorophyll is saponified by means of caustic -alkalis. Its formula is C<sub>20</sub>H<sub>39</sub>OH, and chlorophyll consists of -a chromogen group containing magnesium (MgN<sub>4</sub>C<sub>32</sub>H<sub>30</sub>O) -united to a diester of phytyl and methyl alcohols.</p> - -<p>Experimental results are at variance with the theory that -chlorophyll acts as a sensitizer in bringing about a reduction -of carbonic acid, after the analogy of eosin, which in the -presence of light accelerates the decomposition of silver salts -on photographic plates. Willstätter found that, when a colloidal -solution of the pure extract of chlorophyll in water is -exposed to sunlight and an atmosphere consisting of carbon -dioxide exclusively, no formaldehyde is formed, but the -chlorophyll is changed into yellow phæophytin owing to the -removal of the magnesium from the chromogen group by the -action of the carbonic acid. Jörgensen, on the other hand, -discovered that in an atmosphere of pure oxygen, formaldehyde -is formed, apparently by the splitting off and reduction -of the phytyl ester of chlorophyll. Soon, however, -the formaldehyde is oxidized to formic acid, which replaces -the chlorophyllic magnesium with hydrogen, thus causing -the green chlorophyll to degenerate into yellow phæophytin -and finally to lose its color altogether. The dissociation of -the chromogen group may be due to the fact that the reaction -takes place <i>in vitro</i>, and may not occur in the living plant. -At all events, it would seem that plants, like animals, manufacture -carbohydrates by a destructive rather than a constructive -process, and that water and carbon dioxide serve<span class="pagenum" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</span> -rather as materials for the regeneration of chlorophyll than -as materials out of which sugars are directly synthesized.</p> - -<p>A new theory has been proposed by Dr. Oskar Baudisch, -who seems to have sensed the irrelevance of the formaldehyde -hypothesis, and to have sought another solution in connection -with the chromogen group of chlorophyll. He finds a more -promising starting-point in formaldoxime, which, he claims, -readily unites with such metals as magnesium and iron and -with formaldehyde, in the presence of light containing ultra-violet -rays, to form organic compounds analogous to the -chromogen complexes in chlorophyll and hæmoglobin. Oximes -are compounds formed by the condensation of one molecule -of an aldehyde with one molecule of hydroxylamine -(NH<sub>2</sub>OH) and the elimination of a molecule of water. Hence -Dr. Baudisch imagines that, given formaldoxime (H<sub>2</sub>C:N·OH), -magnesium, and ultra-violet rays, we might expect a spontaneous -formation of chlorophyll leading eventually to the -production of organic life. “It is his theory that life may -have been caused through the direct action of sunlight upon -water, air, and carbon dioxide in the ancient geologic past -when, he believes, sunlight was more intense and contained -more ultra-violet light and the air contained more water -vapor and carbon dioxide than at the present time.” (<i>Science</i>, -April 6, 1923, Supplement XII.)</p> - -<p>This is the old Spencerian evasion, the fatuous appeal to -“conditions unlike those we know,” the unverified and unverifiable -assumption that an unknown past must have been -more favorable to spontaneous generation than the known -present. In archæozoic times, the temperature was higher, -the partial pressure of atmospheric carbon dioxide greater, -the percentage of ultra-violet rays in sunlight larger. Such -contentions are interesting, if true, but, for all that, they -may, “like the flowers that bloom in the spring,” have nothing -to do with the case. Nature does not, and the laboratory -cannot, reproduce the conditions which are said to have brought -about the spontaneous generation of formaldoxime and its pro<span class="pagenum" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</span>gressive -transmutation into phycocyanin, chlorophyll and the -blue-green algæ. What value, then, have these conjectures? -If it be the function of natural science to discount actualities -in favor of possibilities, to draw arguments from ignorance, -and to accept the absence of disproof as a substitute for -demonstration, then the expedient of invoking the unknown -in support of a speculation is scientifically legitimate. But, -if the methods of science are observation and induction, if -it proceeds according to the principle of the uniformity of -nature, and does not utterly belie its claim of resting upon -factual realities rather than the figments of fancy, then all -this hypothecation, which is so flagrantly at variance with -the actual data of experience and the unmistakable trend of -inductive reasoning, is not science at all, but sheer credulity -and superstition.</p> - -<p>When we ask by what right men of science presume to -lift the veil of mystery from a remote past, which no one -has observed, we are told that the justification of this procedure -is the principle of the uniformity of nature or the -invariability of natural laws. Nature’s laws are the same -yesterday, today, and forever. Hence the scientist, who -wishes to penetrate into the unknown past, has only to “prolong -the methods of nature from the present into the past.” -(Tyndall.) If we reject the soundness of this principle, we -automatically cut ourselves off from all certainty regarding -that part of the world’s history which antecedes human observation. -Either nature’s laws change, or they do not. If -they never change, then Spontaneous Generation is quite as -much excluded from the past as it is from the present. If, -however, as Hamann and Fechner explicitly maintain, nature’s -laws do change, then, obviously, no knowledge whatever is -possible respecting the past, since it is solely upon the assumption -of the immutable constancy of such laws that we -can venture to reconstruct prehistory.</p> - -<p>The puerile notion that the synthesis of organic substances -in the laboratory furnishes a clue to the origin of organic<span class="pagenum" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</span> -life on earth is due to a confusion of organic, with living -and organized, substances. It is only in the production of -organic substances that the chemist can vie with the plant -or animal. These are lifeless and unorganized carbon compounds, -which are termed organic because they are elaborated -by living organisms as a metaplastic by-product of -their metabolism. Such substances, however, are not to be -confounded with animate matter, <i>e.g.</i> a living cell and its -organelles, or even with organized matter, <i>e.g.</i> dead protoplasm. -These the chemist cannot duplicate; for vitality and -organization, as we have seen, are things that elude both -his analysis and his synthesis. Even with respect to the production -of organic substances, the parallelism between the -living cell and the chemical laboratory is far from being a -perfect one. Speaking of the metaplastic or organic products -of cells, Benjamin Moore says: “Most of these are so complex -that they have not yet been synthesized by the organic -chemist; nay, even of those that have been synthesized, 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 laboratory. The conditions in -the cell are widely different, 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 tissue.” (“Recent -Advances in Physiology and Bio-Chemistry,” p. 10.) Be -that as it may, however, the prospect of a laboratory synthesis -of an organic substance like chlorophyll affords no -ground whatever for expecting a chemical synthesis of living -matter. The chlorophyllic tail is inadequate to the task of -wagging the dog of organic life. In this connection, Yves -Delage’s sarcastic comment on Schaaffhausen’s theory is -worthy of recall. The latter had suggested (in 1892) that life -was initiated by a chemical reaction, in which water, air, and -mineral salts united under the influence of light and heat<span class="pagenum" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</span> -to produce a colorless <i>Protococcus</i>, which subsequently acquired -chlorophyll and became a <i>Protococcus viridis</i>. “If -the affair is so simple,” writes Delage, “why does not the -author produce a few specimens of this <i>protococcus</i> in his -laboratory? We will gladly supply him with the necessary -chlorophyll.” (“La structure du protoplasma et les théories -sur l’hérédité,” p. 402.)</p> - -<p>Another consideration, which never appears to trouble the -visionaries who propound theories of this sort, is the fact -that the inert elements and blind forces of inorganic nature -are, if left to themselves, utterly impotent to duplicate even -so much as the feats of the chemical laboratory, to say nothing -at all of the more wonderful achievements possible only -to living organisms. In the laboratory, the physicochemical -forces of the mineral world are coördinated, regulated, and -directed by the guiding intelligence of the chemist. In that -heterogeneous conglomerate, which we call brute matter, no -such guiding principle exists, and the only possible automatic -results are those which the fortuitous concurrence of blind -factors avails to produce. Chance of this kind may vie with -art in the production of relatively simple combinations or -systems, but where the conditions are as complex as those, -which the synthesis of chlorophyll presupposes, chance is -impotent and regulation absolutely imperative. How much -more is this true, when there is question of the production -of an effect so complicatedly telic as the living organism! -“I venture to think,” says Sir William Tilden, in a letter -to the London <i>Times</i> (Sept. 10, 1912), “that no chemist will -be prepared to suggest a process by which, from the interaction -of such materials (viz., inorganic substances), anything -approaching a substance of the nature of a proteid could be -formed or, if by a complex series of changes a compound of -this kind were conceivably produced, that it would present -the characters of living protoplasm.” In the concluding sentence -of his letter, the great chemist seems to deprecate even -the discussion of a chemical synthesis of living matter, whether<span class="pagenum" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</span> -spontaneous or artificial. “Far be it from any man of science,” -he says, “to 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 investigation. -In the present instance, however, it appears to me that -this is not a field for the chemist nor one in which chemistry -is likely to afford any assistance whatever.” In any -case, the idea that a chaos of unassorted elements and undirected -forces could succeed where the skill of the chemist -fails is preposterous. No known or conceivable process, or -group of processes, at work in inorganic nature, is equal to -the task. Chance is an explanation only for minds insensible -to the beauty and order of organic life.</p> - -<p>Darwin inoculated biological science with this Epicurean -metaphysics, when, in his “Origin of Species,” he ascribed -discriminating and selective powers of great delicacy and -precision to the blind factors of a heterogeneous and variable -environment. He compared natural selection to artificial selection, -and in so doing, he was led astray by a false implication -of his own analogy—“I have called this principle,” -he says, “by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, -by the term natural selection, in order to mark its -relation to man’s power of selection.” (“Origin of Species,” -6th ed., c. III, p. 58.) 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 horticulturists, he pressed -the analogy to the unwarranted extent of attributing to a -blind, lifeless, and impersonal aggregate of minerals, liquids, -and gases superhuman powers of discretion. To preserve -even the semblance of parity, he ought first to have expurgated -the process of artificial selection by getting rid of the -element of human intelligence, which lurks therein, and vitiates -its parallelism with the unconscious and purposeless -havoc wrought at random by the blind and uncoördinated -agencies of the environment. If inorganic nature were a vast<span class="pagenum" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</span> -and multifarious mold, a preformed sieve with holes of different -sizes, a separator for sorting coins of various denominations, -Darwin’s idea would be, in some degree, defensible, -but this would only transfer the problem of cosmic order -and intelligence from the organism to the environment. As -a matter of fact, the mechanism of the environment is far -too <i>simple</i> in its structure and too <i>general</i> in its influence -to account for the complexities and specificities of organisms, -that is, for the morphology and specific differences of plants -and animals. Hence the selective work of the environment is -negligible in the positive sense, and consists, for the most -part, in a tendency to eliminate the abnormal and the subnormal. -On the other hand, the environment as well as the -organism is fundamentally teleological, and the environmental -mechanism, though simple and general, is nevertheless -expressly preadapted for the maintenance of organic life. -Henderson, the bio-chemist of Harvard, has shown conclusively, -in his “Fitness of the Environment” (1913), that the -environment itself has been expressly selected with this finality -in view, and that the inorganic world, while not the active -cause, is, nevertheless, the preördained complement of organic -life.</p> - -<p>Simple constructions may, indeed, be due to pure accident -as well as deliberate art, inasmuch as they presuppose but few -and easy conditions. Complex constructions, on the contrary, -provided they be systematic and not chaotic, are not producible -by accident, but only by art, because they require -numerous and complicated conditions. Operating individually, -the unconscious factors of inorganic nature can produce -simple and homogeneous constructions such as crystals. Operating -in uncoördinated concurrence with one another, these -blind and unrelated agencies produce complex chaotic formations -such as mountains and islands, mere heterogeneous -conglomerates, destitute of any determinate size, shape, or -symmetry, constructions in which every single item and detail -is the result of factors each of which is independent of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</span> -other. In short, the efficacy of the unconscious and uncoordinated -physicochemical factors of inorganic nature is limited -to fortuitous results, which serve no purpose, embody -no intelligible law, convey no meaning nor idea, and afford no -æsthetic satisfaction, being mere aggregates or sums rather than -natural units and real totalities. But it does not extend to the -production of complex systematic formations such as living organisms -or human artefacts. Left to itself, therefore, inorganic -nature might conceivably duplicate the simplest artefacts -such as the chipped flints of the savage, and it might -also construct a complex heterogeneous chaos of driftwood, -mud, and sand like the Great Raft of the Red River, but -it would be utterly impotent to construct a complicated telic -system comparable to an animal, a clock, or even an organic -compound, like chlorophyll.</p> - -<p>In this connection, it is curious to note how extremely -myopic the scientific materialist can be, when there is question -of recognizing a manifestation of Divine intelligence in -the stupendous teleology of the living organism, and how incredibly -lynx-eyed he becomes, when there is question of detecting -evidences of human intelligence in the eoliths alleged -to have been the implements of a “Tertiary Man.” In the -latter case, he is never at a loss to determine the precise -degree of chipping, at which an eolith ceases to be interpretable -as the fortuitous product of unconscious processes, -and points infallibly to the intelligent authorship of man, but -he grows strangely obtuse to the psychic implications of -teleology, when it comes to explaining the symmetry of a -starfish or the beauty of a Bird of Paradise.</p> - -<p>In conclusion, 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 probability, -but is, on the contrary, ruled out of court by the whole force -of the scientific principle of induction. To recapitulate, there -are no subcellular organisms, and all cellular organisms (which -is the same as saying, all organisms), be they unicellular or<span class="pagenum" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</span> -multicellular, originate exclusively by reproduction, that is, -by generation from living parents of the same organic type or -species. This is the law of genetic vital continuity, which, by -the way, Aristotle had formulated long before Harvey, when he -said: “It appears that all living beings come from a germ, and -the germ from parents.” (“De Generatione Animalium,” lib. I, -cap. 17.) All reproduction, however, is reducible to a process -of cell-division. That such is the case with unicellular organisms -is evident from the very definition of a cell. That -it is also true of multicellular organisms can be shown by -a review of the various forms of reproduction occurring among -plants and animals.</p> - - -<h3>§ 4. <b>Reproduction and Rejuvenation</b></h3> - -<p>Reproduction, the sole means by which the torch of life -is relayed from generation to generation, the exclusive process -by which living individuals arise and races are perpetuated, -consists in the separation of a germ from the parent organism -as a physical basis for the development of a new organism. -The germ thus separated may be many-celled or one-celled, -as we shall see presently, but the separated cells, be -they one or many, have their common and exclusive source in -the process of mitotic cell-division. In a few cases, this divisional -power or energy of the cell seems to be perennial -by virtue of an inherent inexhaustibility. In most cases, -however, it is perennial by virtue of a restorative process -involving nuclear reorganization. In the former cases, which -are exceptional, the cellular stream of life appears to flow -onward forever with steady current, but as a general rule it -ebbs and flows in cycles, which involve a periodic rise and -fall of divisional energy. The phenomena of the life-cycle -are characteristic of most, perhaps all, organisms. The complete -life-cycle consists of three phases or periods, namely: -an adolescent period of high vitality, a mature period of -balanced metabolism, and a senescent period of decline. Each -life-cycle begins with the germination of the new organism<span class="pagenum" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</span> -and terminates with its death, and it is reproduction which -constitutes the connecting link between one life-cycle and -another.</p> - -<p>Reproduction, as previously intimated, is mainly of two -kinds, namely: somatogenic reproduction, which is less general -and confined to the metists, and cytogenic reproduction, -which is common to metists and protists, and which is the -ordinary method by which new organisms originate. Reproduction -is termed somatogenic, 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 purposes. Reproduction is termed cytogenic, -when the germ separated from the parent or parents consists -of a single cell (<i>e.g.</i> a spore, gamete, or zygote) dedicated -especially to reproductive purposes.</p> - -<p>Cytogenic reproduction may be either nonsexual (agamic) -or sexual, according as the cell which constitutes the germ is -an agamete or a gamete. An agamete is a germ cell not -specialized for union with another complementary cell, or, -in other words, it is a reproductive cell incapable of syngamy, -<i>e.g.</i> a spore. A gamete, on the other hand, is a reproductive -cell (germ cell) specialized for the production of a zygote -(a synthetic or diploid germ cell) by union with a complementary -cell, <i>e.g.</i> an egg, or a sperm.</p> - -<p>Nonsexual cytogenic reproduction is of three kinds, according -to the nature of the agamete. When a unicellular -organism gives rise to two new individuals by simple cell-division, -we have fissiparation or binary fission. When a -small cell or bud is formed and separated by division from -a larger parent cell, we have budding (gemmation) or unequal -fission. When the nucleus of the parent cell divides -many times to form a number of daughter-nuclei, which -then partition the cytoplasm of the parent cell among themselves -so as to form a large number of reproductive cells -called spores, we have what is known as sporulation or -multiple fission. The first and second kind of nonsexual<span class="pagenum" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</span> -reproduction are confined to the protists, but the third kind -(sporulation) also occurs among the metists.</p> - -<p>Sexual cytogenic reproduction is based upon gametes or -mating germ cells. Since complementary gametes are specialized -for union with each other to form a single synthetic -cell, the zygote, the number of their nuclear threads or chromosomes -is reduced to one half (the <i>haploid number</i>) at the -time of maturation, so that the somatic or tissue cells of the -parent organism have double the number (the <i>diploid number</i>) -of chromosomes present in the reduced or mature gametes. -Hence, when the gametes unite to form a zygote, 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 union. The process -by which the number of chromosomes is reduced in gametes -is called <i>meiosis</i>, and, among the metists, it is distinct from -syngamy, which, in their case, is a separate process called -fertilization. Among the protists, we have, besides fertilization, -another type of syngamy called conjugation, which -combines meiosis with fertilization.</p> - -<p>In sexual reproduction, we have three kinds of gametes, -namely: isogametes, anisogametes, and heterogametes. In -the type of sexual reproduction known as isogamy, the complementary -gametes are exactly alike both in size and shape. -There is no division of labor between them. Each of the -fusing gametes is equally fitted for the double function which -they must perform, namely, the kinetic function, which enables -them to reach each other and unite by means of movement, -and the trophic function which consists in laying up -a store of food for the sustenance of the developing embryo. -In anisogamy, the complementary gametes are alike in shape, -but unlike in size, and here we have the beginning of that -division of labor, upon which the difference of gender or sex -is based. The larger or female gamete is called a macrogamete. -It is specialized for the trophic rather than the -kinetic function, being rendered more inert by having a large<span class="pagenum" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</span> -amount of yolk or nutrient material stored up within it. -The smaller or male gamete is called a microgamete. It is -specialized for the kinetic function, since it contains less yolk -and is the more agile of the two. In anisogamy, however, the -division of labor is not complete, because both functions are -still retained by either gamete, albeit in differing measure. -In the heterogamy, the differentiation between the male and -female gametes is complete, and they differ from each other -in structure as well as size. The larger or female gamete -has no motor apparatus and retains only the trophic function. -The kinetic function is sacrificed to the task of storing -up a food supply for the embryo. Such a gamete is called -a hypergamete or egg. The smaller or male gamete is known, -in this case, as a hypogamete or sperm. It has a motor -apparatus, but no stored-up nutrients, and has even sloughed -off most of its cytoplasm, in its exclusive specialization for the -motor function. In heterogamy, accordingly, the division -of labor is complete.</p> - -<p>We may distinguish two principal kinds of sexual reproduction, -namely: unisexual reproduction and bisexual reproduction. -When a single gamete such as an unfertilized egg -gives rise (with, or without, chromosomal reduction) to a new -organism, we have unisexual reproduction or parthenogenesis. -Parthenogenesis from a reduced egg gives rise to an organism -having only the haploid number of chromosomes, as is the -case with the drone or male bee, but unreduced eggs give -rise to organisms having the diploid number of chromosomes. -Parthenogenesis, as we shall see presently, can, in some cases, -be induced by artificial means. When reproduction takes place -from a zygote or diploid germ cell formed by the union of two -gametes, we have what is known as bisexual reproduction or -syngamy. It is, perhaps, permissible to distinguish a third -or intermediate kind of sexual reproduction, for which we -might coin the term autosexual. What we refer to as -autosexual reproduction is usually known as autogamy, -and occurs when a diploid nucleus is formed in a germ<span class="pagenum" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</span> -cell by the union (or, we might say, reunion) of two -daughter-nuclei derived from the same mother-nucleus. Autogamy -occurs not only among the protists (<i>e. g.</i> <i>Amœba -albida</i>), but also among the metists, as is the case with the -brine shrimp, <i>Artemia salina</i>, 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 egg. Autogamy is somewhat akin to kleistogamy, -which occurs among hermaphroditic metists of both the plant -and animal kingdoms. The violet is a well-known example. -In kleistogamy or self-fertilization, the zygote is formed -by the union of two gametes derived from the same parent -organism. Strictly speaking, however, kleistogamy is not -autogamy, but syngamy, and must, therefore, be classed as -bisexual reproduction. It is, of course, necessarily confined -to hermaphrodites.</p> - -<p>Loeb’s experiments in artificial parthenogenesis have been -sensationally misinterpreted by some as an artificial production -of life. What Jacques Loeb really did was to initiate development -in an unfertilized egg by the use of chemical and physical -excitants. The writer has repeated these experiments with -the unfertilized eggs of the common sea urchin, <i>Arbacia punctulata</i>, -using very dilute butyric acid and hypertonic sea -water as stimulants. Cleavage had started within an hour -and a half after the completion of the aforesaid treatment, -and the eggs were in the gastrula stage by the following morning -(9 hours later). In three days, 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 solution. Since mature sea urchin -eggs undergo reduction before insemination takes place, 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 larvæ arising -from eggs activated by the sperm. For, in fertilization, the -sperm not only activates the egg, but is also the means of secur<span class="pagenum" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</span>ing -biparental inheritance, by contributing its quota of chromosomes -to the zygotic complex. Hence, it is only in the former -function, <i>i. e.</i> of initiating cleavage in the egg, that a chemical -excitant can replace the sperm. In any case, it is evident that -these experiments do not constitute an exception to the law of -genetic cellular continuity. The artificially activated egg comes -from the ovaries of a living female sea urchin, and in this there -is small consolation for the exponent of abiogenesis. The -terse comment of an old Irish Jesuit sizes up the situation -very aptly: “The Blue Flame Factory,” he said, “has announced -another discovery of the secret of life. A scientist -made an egg and hatched an egg. The only unfortunate -thing was that the egg he hatched was not the egg he made.” -How an experiment of this sort could be interpreted as an -artificial production of life is a mystery. The only plausible -explanation is that given by Professor Wilson, who traces it -to the popular superstition that the egg is a lifeless substrate, -which is animated by the sperm. The idea owes its origin to -the spermists of the 17th century, who defended this doctrine -against the older school of preformationists known as ovists. -It is now, however, an embryological commonplace that egg -and sperm are both equally cellular, equally protoplasmic, -and equally vital.</p> - -<p>The phenomena of the life-cycle in organisms find their explanation -in what, perhaps, is inherent in all living matter, -namely, a tendency to involution and senescence. This tendency, -in the absence of a remedial process of rejuvenation, -leads inevitably to death. Living matter seems to “run down” -like a clock, and to stand in similar need of a periodic “rewinding.” -This reinvigoration of protoplasm is accomplished by -means of several different types of nuclear reorganization. -Since no nuclear reorganization occurs in somatogenic reproduction, -there seem to be limits to this type of propagation. -Plants, like the potato and the apple, cannot be propagated -indefinitely by means of tubers, shoots, stems, etc. The -stock plays out in time, and, ever and anon, recourse must<span class="pagenum" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</span> -be had to seedlings. Hence a process of nuclear reorganization -seems, in most cases, at least, to be essential for -the restoration of vitality and the continuance of life. Whether -this need of periodic renewal is absolutely universal, we cannot -say. The banana has been propagated for over a century -by the somatogenic method, and there are a few other instances -in which there appears to be no limit to this type of -reproduction. Nevertheless, the tendency to decline is so -common among living beings that the rare exceptions serve -only to confirm (if they do not follow) the general rule.</p> - -<p>In cytogenic reproduction three kinds of rejuvenation by -means of nuclear reorganization are known: (1) amphimixis -or syngamy; (2) automixis or autogamy; (3) endomixis. In -amphimixis or syngamy, two gametic (haploid) nuclei of different -parental lineage are commingled to form the diploid -nucleus of the zygote, which is consequently of biparental origin. -In automixis or autogamy, two reduced or haploid nuclei -of the same parental lineage unite to form a diploid nucleus, -the uniting nuclei being daughter-nuclei derived from a common -parent nucleus. In endomixis, the nucleus of the exhausted -cell disintegrates and fuses with the cytoplasm, out -of which it is reformed or reconstructed as the germinal nucleus -of a rejuvenated cellular series. Endomixis occurs as -a periodic phenomenon among the protists, and it appears to -be homologous with parthenogenesis among metists. In certain -ciliates, like the Paramœcium, endomixis and syngamy -are facultative methods of rejuvenation. This has been proved -most conclusively by Professor Calkins’ work on <i>Uroleptus -mobilis</i>, an organism in which both endomixis and conjugation -are amenable to experimental control. Nonsexual reproduction -in this protozoan (by binary fission) is attended with -a gradual weakening of metabolic activity, which increases -with each successive generation. The initial rate of division -and metabolic energy can, however, be restored -either by conjugation (of two individuals), or by endomixis, -which takes place (in a single individual) during encyst<span class="pagenum" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</span>ment. -The race, however, inevitably dies out, if both -encystment and conjugation are prevented. Even in -such protists as do not exhibit the phenomenon of nuclear -reorganization through sexual reproduction, 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 organisms, -which do not conjugate. This process of nuclear reorganization -manifested by periodic spurts of renewed divisional -energy is, according to Kofoid, a more primitive mode of -rejuvenation than endomixis. “The phenomenon of endomixis,” -he says, “appears to be somewhat more like that of -parthenogenesis than a more primitive form of nuclear reorganization.” -(<i>Science</i>, April 6, 1923, p. 403.) At all events, -it seems safe to conclude that the tendency to senescence is -pretty general among living organisms, and that this tendency, -unless counteracted by a periodic reorganization of the nuclear -genes, results inevitably in the deterioration and final extinction -of the race.</p> - -<p>In this inexhaustible power of self-renewal inherent in all -forms of organic life, the mechanist and the upholder of -abiogenesis encounter an insuperable difficulty. In inorganic -nature, where the perpetual-motion device is a chimera, and -the law of entropy reigns in unchallenged supremacy, nothing -analogous to it can be found. The activity of all non-living -units of nature, from the hydrogen atom to the protein -multimolecule, is rigidly determined by the principle of the -degradation of energy. The inorganic unit cannot operate -otherwise than by externalizing and dissipating irreparably its -own energy-content. 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 unit. In order to pay Paul a little, -Peter must be robbed of much. Wheresoever atoms are built -up into complex endothermic molecules, the constructive<span class="pagenum" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</span> -process is rigidly dependent upon the administration thereto -of external energy, which in the process of absorption must -of necessity fall from a higher level of intensity. And when -the energy thus absorbed by the complex molecule is again -set free by combustion, it is degraded to a still lower potential, -from which, without external intervention, it can never -rise again to its former plane of intensity. The phenomena -of radioactivity tell the same tale. All the heavier atoms, -at least, are constantly disintegrating with a concomitant -discharge of energy. There is no compensating process, however, -enabling such an atom to re-integrate and recharge itself -at stated intervals; and, once it has broken down into its component -protons and electrons, “not all the king’s horses nor -all the king’s men can ever put Humpty-Dumpty together -again.” In a word, 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 endomixis. The inorganic world knows -of no constructive process comparable to this. It is only in -living beings that we find what James Ward describes as the -“tendency to disturb existing equilibria, to reverse the dissipative -processes which prevail throughout the inanimate -world, to store and build up where they are ever scattering -and pulling down, the tendency to conserve individual existence -against antagonistic forces, to grow and to progress, -not inertly taking the easier way but seemingly striving for -the best, retaining every vantage secured, and working for -new ones.” (“On the Conservation of Energy,” I, p. 285.)</p> - -<p>Summing up, then, we have seen that the reproductive -process, whereby the metists or multicellular organism originate, -resolves itself ultimately into a process of cell-division. -The same is true of the protists or unicellular organisms. For -all cells, whether they be protists, germ cells, or somatic cells, -originate in but one way, and that is, from a preëxistent living -cell by means of cell-division. Neither experimentation<span class="pagenum" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</span> -nor observation has succeeded in revealing so much as a single -exception to the universal law of genetic cellular continuity, and -the hypothesis of spontogenesis is outlawed, in consequence, by -the logic of scientific induction. 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 world. “Whatever position we -take on this question,” says Edmund B. Wilson, in the conclusion -of his work on the Cell, “the same difficulty is encountered; -namely, the origin of that coördinated fitness, that -power of active adjustment between internal and external -relations, which, as so many eminent biological thinkers have -insisted, overshadows every manifestation of life. The nature -and origin of this power is the fundamental problem of biology. -When, after removing the lens of the eye in the larval -salamander, we see it restored in perfect and typical form -by regeneration from the posterior layer of the iris, we behold -an adaptive response to changed conditions of which -the organism can have no antecedent experience either ontogenetic -or phylogenetic, and one of so marvelous a character -that we are made to realize, as by a flash how far we -still are from a solution of this problem.” Then, after discussing -the attempt of evolutionists to bridge the enormous -gap that separates living, from lifeless nature, he continues: -“But when all these admissions are made, and when the conserving -action (<i>sic</i>) of natural selection is in the fullest degree -recognized, we cannot close our eyes to two facts: first, -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 variation; -and second, 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 world.” -(“The Cell,” 2nd edit., pp. 433, 434.)</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</span></p> - - -<h3>§ 5. A “New” Theory of Abiogenesis</h3> - -<p>Since true science is out of sympathy with baseless conjectures -and gratuitous assumptions, one would scarcely expect to -find scientists opposing the inductive trend of the known -facts by preferring mere possibilities (if they are even such) to -solid actualities. As a matter of fact, however, there are not -a few who obstinately refuse to abandon preconceptions for -which they can find no factual justification. The bio-chemist, -Benjamin Moore, while conceding the bankruptcy of the old -theory of spontaneous generation, which looked for a <i>de novo</i> -origin of living cells in sterilized cultures, has, nevertheless, -the hardihood to propose what he is pleased to term a <i>new</i> one. -Impressed by the credulity of Charlton Bastian and the autocratic -tone of Schäfer, he sets out to defend as plausible the -hypothesis that the origination of life from inert matter may -be a contemporaneous, perhaps, daily, phenomenon, going -on continually, but invisible to us, because its initial stages -take place in the submicroscopic world. By the time life has -emerged into the visible world, it has already reached the -stage at which the law of genetic continuity prevails, but at -stages of organization, which lie below the limit of the microscope, -it is not impossible, he thinks, that abiogenesis may occur. -To plausibleize this conjecture, he notes that the cell is -a natural unit composed of molecules as a molecule is a natural -unit composed of atoms. He further notes, that, in addition to -the cell, there is in nature another unit higher than the monomolecule, -namely, the <i>multimolecule</i> occurring in both crystalloids -and colloids. The monomolecule consists of atoms held -together by atomic valence, whereas the multimolecule consists -of molecules whose atomic valence is completely saturated, -and which are, consequently, held together by what -is now known as <i>molecular</i> or <i>residual valence</i>. Moore cites -the crystal units of sodium bromide and sodium iodide as instances -of multimolecules. The crystal unit of ordinary salt, -sodium chloride, is an ordinary monomolecule, with the for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</span>mula -NaCl. In the case of the former salts the crystal units -consist of multimolecules of the formula NaB·(H<sub>2</sub>O)<sub>2</sub> and -NaI·(H<sub>2</sub>O)<sub>2</sub>, the water of crystallization not being mechanically -confined in the crystals, but combined with the respective -salt in the exact ratio of two molecules of water to -one of the salt. Judged by all chemical tests, such as heat -of formation, the law of combination in fixed ratios, the manifestation -of selective affinity, etc., the multimolecule is quite -as much entitled to be considered a natural unit as is the -monomolecule.</p> - -<p>But it is not in the crystalloidal multimolecule, but in the -larger and more complex multimolecule of colloids (viscid substances -like gum arabic, gelatine, agar-agar, white of egg, -etc.), that Moore professes to see a sort of intermediate between -the cell and inorganic units. Such colloids form with -a dispersing medium (like water) an emulsion, in which the -dispersed particles, known as ultramicrons or “solution aggregates,” -are larger than monomolecules. It is among these -multimolecules of colloids that Moore would have us search -for a transitional link connecting the cell with the inorganic -world. Borrowing Herbert Spencer’s dogma of the complication -of homogeneity into heterogeneity, he asserts that such -colloidal multimolecules would tend to become more and more -complex, and consequently more and more instable, so that -their instability would gradually approach the chronic instability -or constant state of metabolic fluxion manifest in living -organisms. The end-result would be a living unit more simply -organized than the cell, and evolution seizing upon this submicroscopic -unit would, in due time, transform it into cellular -life of every variety and kind. <i>Ce n’est que le premier pas -qui coûte!</i></p> - -<p>It should be noted that this so-called law is a mere vague -formula like the “law” of natural selection and the “law” of -evolution. The facts which it is alleged to express are not -cited, and its terms are far from being quantitative. It is -certainly not a law in the sense of Arrhénius, who says:<span class="pagenum" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</span> -“Quantitative formulation, that is, the establishing of a connection, -expressed by a formula, between different quantitatively -measurable magnitudes, is the peculiar feature of a -law.” (“Theories of Chemistry,” Price’s translation, p. 3.) -Now, chemistry, as an exact science, has no lack of laws -of this kind, but no branch of chemistry, whether physical, -organic, or inorganic, knows of any <i>law of complexity</i>, that -can be stated in either quantitative, or descriptive, terms. -We will, however, let Moore speak for himself:</p> - -<p>“It may then be summed up as a general law universal in -its application to all matter, ... a law which might be -called the Law of Complexity, that matter so far as its energy -environment will permit tends to assume more and more -complex forms in labile equilibrium. Atoms, molecules, colloids, -and living organisms, arise as a result of the operations -of this law, and in the higher regions of complexity it induces -organic evolution and all the many thousands of living -forms....</p> - -<p>“In this manner we can conceive that the hiatus between -non-living and living things can be bridged over, and there -awakens in our minds the conception of a kind of spontaneous -production of life of a different order from the old. The -territory of this spontaneous generation of life lies not at -the level of bacteria, or animalculæ, springing forth into life -from dead organic matter, but at a level of life lying deeper -than anything the microscope can reveal, and possessing a -lower unit than the living cell, as we form our concept of -it from the tissues of higher animals and plants.</p> - -<p>“In the future, the stage at which colloids begin to be -able to deal with external energy forms, such as light, and -build up in chemical complexity, 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 gave, with the -development of the microscope, about a century ago.” (“Origin -and Nature of Life,” pp. 188-190.)</p> - -<p>Having heard out a rhapsody of this sort, one may be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</span> -pardoned a little impatience at such a travesty on science. -Again we have the appeal from realities to fancies, from the -seen to unseen. Moore sees no reason to doubt and is therefore -quite sure that an unverified occurrence is taking place -“at a level of life lying deeper than anything the microscope -can reveal.” The unknown is a veritable paradise for irresponsible -speculation and phantasy. It is well, however, -to keep one’s feet on the <i>terra firma</i> of ascertained facts -and to make one’s ignorance a motive for caution rather than -an incentive to reckless dogmatizing.</p> - -<p>To begin with, it is not to a single dispersed particle or -ultramicron that protoplasm has been likened, but to an emulsion, -comprising both the dispersed particles and the dispersing -medium, or, in other words, to the colloidal system as a whole. -Moreover, even there the analogy is far from being perfect, and -is confined exclusively, as Wilson has pointed out, to a rough -similarity of structure and appearance. The colloidal system -is obviously a mere <i>aggregate</i> and not a <i>natural unit</i> like the -cell, and its dispersed particles (ultramicrons) do not multiply -and perpetuate themselves by growth and division as do -the living components or formed bodies of the cell. As for -the single ultramicron or multimolecule of a colloidal solution, -it may, indeed, be a natural unit, but it only resembles -the cell in the sense that, like the latter, it is a complex of -constituent molecules. Here, however, all resemblance -ceases; for the ultramicron does not display the typically -vital power of self-perpetuation by growth and division, which, -as we have seen, is characteristic not only of the cell as a whole, -but of its single components or organelles. Certainly, the distinctive -phenomena of colloidal systems cannot be interpreted -as processes of multiplication. There is nothing suggestive of -this vital phenomenon in the reversal of phase, which is caused -by the addition of electrolytes to oil emulsions, or in gelation, -which is caused by a change of temperature in certain hydrophilic -colloids. Thus the addition of the salt of a bivalent -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</span>cation (<i>e.g.</i> CaCl<sub>2</sub> or BaCl<sub>2</sub>) to an oil-in-water emulsion (if -soap is used as the emulsifier) will cause the external or -continuous phase (water) to become the internal or discontinuous -phase. Vice versa, a water-in-oil emulsion can be -reversed into an oil-in-water emulsion, under the same conditions, -by the addition of the salt of a monovalent cation -(<i>e. g.</i> NaOH). Solutions of hydrophilic colloids, like gelatine -or agar-agar, can be made to “set” from the semifluid state -of a hydrosol into the semisolid state of a hydrogel, by lowering -the temperature, after which the opposite effect can -be brought about by again raising the temperature. In white -of egg, however, once gelation has taken place, through the -agency of heat, it is impossible to reconvert the “gel” into a -“sol” (solution). In such phenomena, it is, perhaps, possible -to see a certain parallelism with some processes taking place -in the cell, <i>e. g.</i> the osmotic processes of absorption and excretion, -but to construe them as evidence of propagation by -growth and division would be preposterous.</p> - -<p>Nor is the subterfuge of relegating the question to the -obscurity of the submicroscopic world of any avail; for, as -a matter of fact, submicroscopic organisms actually do exist, -and manage, precisely by virtue of this uniquely vital power -of multiplication or reproductivity, to give indirect testimony -of their invisible existence. The microörganisms, for example, -which cause the disease known as Measles are so minute -that they pass through the pores of a porcelain filter, and -are invisible to the highest powers of the microscope. Nevertheless, -they can be bred in the test tube cultures of the -bacteriologist, where they propagate themselves for generations -without losing the definite specificity, which make them -capable of producing distinctive pathological effects in the organisms -of higher animals, including man. Each of these -invisible disease germs communicates but one disease, with -symptoms that are perfectly characteristic and definite. -Moreover, they are specific in their choice of a host, and -will not infect any and every organism promiscuously. -Finally, they never arise <i>de novo</i> in a healthy host, but must<span class="pagenum" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</span> -always be transmitted from a diseased to a healthy individual. -The microscopist is tantalized, to quote the words -of Wilson, “with visions of disease germs which no eye has -yet seen, so minute as to pass through a fine filter, yet beyond -a doubt self-perpetuating and of specific type.” (<i>Science</i>, -March 9, 1923, p. 283.) Submicroscopic dimensions, -therefore, are no obstacle to the manifestation of such vital -properties as reproduction, genetic continuity, and typical -specificity; and we must conclude that, if any of the ultramicrons -of colloids possessed them, their minute size would -not debar them from manifesting the fact. As it is, they fail -to show any vital quality, whereas the submicroscopic disease -germs give evidence of possessing all the characteristics -of visible cells.</p> - -<p>In fine, the radical difference between inorganic units, like -atoms, molecules, and multimolecules, and living units, like -protozoans and metazoans, is so obvious that it is universally -admitted. Not all, however, are in accord when it comes -to assigning the fundamental reason for the difference in -question. Benjamin Moore postulates a unique physical energy, -peculiar to living organisms and responsible for all distinctively -vital manifestations. This unique form of energy, -unlike all other forms, he calls “biotic energy,” denying at -the same time that it is a vital force. (Cf. <i>op. cit.</i>, pp. 224-226.) -Moore seems to be desirous of dressing up vitalism in -the verbal vesture of mechanism. He wants the game, without -the name. But, if his “biotic energy” is unlike all other -forms of energy, it ought not to parade under the same -name, but should frankly call itself a “vital force.” 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 Bion. (Cf. “The Origin -and Evolution of Life,” 1917, p. 6.) Now, a chemical element -unlike other chemical elements is not a chemical element at -all. Osborn’s Bion, like Moore’s biotic energy, ought, by all -means, to make up its mind definitely on Hamlet’s question<span class="pagenum" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</span> -of “to be, or not to be.” The policy of “It is, and it is -not,” is not likely to win the approval of either mechanists -or vitalists.</p> - - -<h3>§ 6. Hylomorphism versus Mechanism and Neo-vitalism</h3> - -<p>Mechanism and Neo-vitalism represent two extreme solutions -of this problem of accounting for the difference between -living and lifeless matter. Strictly speaking, it is an abuse -of language to refer to mechanism as a solution at all. Its -first pretense at solving the problem is to deny that there -is any problem. But facts are facts and cannot be disposed -of in this summary fashion. Forced, therefore, to face the -actual fact of the uniqueness of living matter, mechanists -concede the inadequacy of their physicochemical analogies, -but obstinately refuse to admit the legitimacy of any other -kind of explanation. Confronted with realities, which simply -must have <i>some</i> explanation, they prefer to leave them unexplained -by their own theory than have them explained by -any other. They recognize the difference between a living animal -and a dead animal (small credit to them for their perspicacity!), -but deny that there is anything present in the -former which is not present in the latter.</p> - -<p>Neo-vitalism, on the other hand, is, at least, an attempt -at solving the problem in the positive sense. It ascribes the -unique activities of living organisms to the operation of a -superphysical and superchemical energy or force resident in -living matter. This unique dynamic principle is termed <i>vital -force</i>. It is not an entitive nor a static principle, but belongs -to the category of efficient or active causes, being variously described -as an agent, energy, or force. To speak precisely, the -term agent denotes an active being or substance; the term -energy denotes the proximate ground in the agent of a specific -activity; while the term force denotes the activity or -free, kinetic, or activated phase of a given energy. In practice, -however, these terms are often used interchangeably. Thus -Driesch, who, like all other Neo-vitalists, makes the vital prin<span class="pagenum" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</span>ciple -a dynamic factor rather than an entitive principle, -refers to the vital principle as a “non-material,” “non-spatial” -<i>agent</i>, though the term <i>energy</i> would be more precise. To -this active or dynamic vital principle Driesch gives a name, -which he borrowed from Aristotle, that is, <i>entelechy</i>. In -so doing, however, he perverted, as he himself confesses, the -true Aristotelian sense of the term in question: “The term,” -he says, “ ... is not here used in the proper Aristotelian -sense.” (“History and Theory of Vitalism,” p. 203.) His -admission is quite correct. At the critical point, Driesch, for -all his praise of Aristotle, deserts the Stagirite and goes over -to the camp of Plato, Descartes, and the Neo-vitalists!</p> - -<p>Driesch’s definition is as follows: “Entelechy is an agent -<i>sui generis</i>, non-material and non-spatial, but acting ‘into’ -space.” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, p. 204.) Aristotle’s use of the term in this -connection is quite different. He uses it, for example, in a -static, rather than a dynamic, sense: “The term ‘entelechy,’” -he says, “is used in two senses; in one it answers to knowledge, -in the other to the exercise of knowledge. Clearly in -this case it is analogous to knowledge.” (“Peri Psyches,” -Bk. II, c. 1.) Knowledge, however, is only a <i>second</i> or static -<i>entelechy</i>. Hence, in order to narrow the sense still further -Aristotle refers to the <i>soul</i> as a <i>first</i> entelechy, by which -he designates a purely <i>entitive</i> principle, that is, a constituent -of being or substance (cf. <i>op. cit.</i> <i>ibidem</i>). The <i>first</i>, or -entitive, entelechy, therefore, is to be distinguished from all -secondary entelechies, whether of the <i>dynamic</i> order corresponding -to kinetic energy or force, or of the <i>static</i> order corresponding -to potential energy. Neither is it an <i>agent</i>, because -it is only a partial constituent of the total agent, that is, -of the total active being or substance. Hence, generally -speaking, <i>that which acts</i> (the agent) is not entelechy, but the -total composite of entelechy and matter, <i>first entelechy</i> being -consubstantial with matter and not a separate existent or being. -In fine, according to Aristotelian philosophy, entelechy (that -is, “first” or “prime” entelechy) is not an agent nor an energy<span class="pagenum" id="Page_173">[Pg 173]</span> -nor a force. In other words, it is totally removed from the -category of efficient or active causes. 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 principle, whereas, according -to Aristotle, <i>entelechy is common to the non-living units of inorganic -nature as well as the living units</i> (organisms) <i>of the -organic world</i>. All vital principles or souls are entelechies, but -not all entelechies are vital principles. All material beings -or substances, whether living or lifeless, are reducible, -in the last analysis, to two consubstantial principles or -complementary constituents, namely, entelechy and matter. -Entelechy is the binding, type-determining principle, -the source of unification and specification, which makes -of a given natural unit (such as a molecule or a protozoan) -a single and determinate whole. Matter is the determinable -and potentially-multiple element, the principle -of divisibility and quantification, which can enter indifferently -into the composition of this or that natural unit, and which -owes its actual unity and specificity to the entelechy which -here and now informs it. It is entelechy which makes a -chemical element distinct from its isobare, a chemical compound -distinct from its isomer, a paramœcium distinct from an -amœba, a maple distinct from an oak, and a bear distinct -from a tiger.</p> - -<p>The molecular entelechy finds expression in what the organic -chemist and the stereochemist understand by valence, -that is, the static aspect of valence considered as the structural -principle of a molecule. Hence it is entelechy which -makes a molecule of urea [O:C:(NH<sub>2</sub>)<sub>2</sub>] an entirely different -substance from its isomer ammonium cyanate -[NH<sub>4</sub>·O·C:N], although the material substrate of each of these -molecular units consists of precisely the same number and -kinds of atoms. Similarly, it is the atomic entelechy which -gives to the isotopes of Strontium chemical properties different -from those of the isotopes of Rubidium, although the mass<span class="pagenum" id="Page_174">[Pg 174]</span> -and corpuscular (electronic and protonic) composition of their -respective atoms are identical. It is the vital entelechy or -soul, 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 Dileptus.</p> - -<p>In all the tridimensional units of nature, both living and -non-living, the hylomorphic analysis of Aristotle recognizes -an essential dualism of matter and entelechy. Hence it is not -in the presence and absence of an entelechy (as Driesch contends) -that living organisms differ from inorganic units. The -sole difference between these two classes of units is one of -autonomy and inertia. The inorganic unit is inert, not in the -sense that it is destitute of energy, but in the sense that it is -incapable of self-regulation and rigidly dependent upon external -factors for the utilization of its own energy-content. -The living unit, on the other hand, is endowed with dynamic -autonomy. Though dependent, in a general way, upon environmental -factors for the energy which it utilizes, nevertheless -the determinate form and direction of its activity is not -imposed in all its specificity by the aforesaid environmental -factors. The living being possesses a certain degree of independence -with respect to these external forces. It is autonomous -with a special law of immanent finality or reflexive -orientation, by which all the elements and energies of the -living unit are made to converge upon one and the same -central result, namely, 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 type.</p> - -<p>The entelechies of the inert units of inorganic nature turn -the forces of these units in an <i>outward direction</i>, so that they -are incapable of operating upon themselves, of modifying themselves, -or of regulating themselves. They are only capable of -operating upon other units outside themselves, and in so doing -they irreparably externalize their energy-contents. All physicochemical -action is <i>transitive</i> or <i>communicable</i> in character,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_175">[Pg 175]</span> -whereas vital action is of the <i>reflexive</i> or <i>immanent</i> type. -Mechanical action, for example, is intermolar (<i>i.e.</i> an exchange -between large masses of inorganic matter); physical action is -intermolecular; chemical action is interatomic; while in radioactive -and electrical phenomena we have intercorpuscular action. -Hence all the forms of activity native to the inorganic -world are reducible to <i>interaction</i> between discontinuous and -unequally energized masses or particles. Always it is a case of -one mass or particle operating upon another mass or particle -distinct from, and spatially external to, itself. The effect or -positive change produced by the action is received into another -unit distinct from the agent or active unit, which can never become -the receptive subject of the effect generated by its own -activity. The living being, on the contrary, is capable of operating -upon itself, so that what is modified by the action is not -outside the agent but within it. The reader does not modify the -book, but modifies himself by his reading. The blade of grass -can nourish not only a horse, but its very self, whereas a -molecule of sodium nitrate is impotent to nourish itself, and -can only nourish a subject other than itself, such as the -blade of grass. Here the active source and receptive subject -of the action is one and the same unit, namely, the living -organism, which can operate upon itself in the interest of its -own perfection. In chemical synthesis two substances interact -to produce a third, but in vital assimilation one substance is -incorporated into another without the production of a third. -Thus hydrogen unites with oxygen to produce water. But in -the case of assimilation the reaction may be expressed thus: -Living protoplasm plus external nutriment equals living protoplasm -increased in quantity but unchanged in specificity. -Addition or subtraction alters the nature of the inorganic -unit, but does not change the nature of the living unit. In -chemical change, entelechy is the variant and matter is the -constant, but in metabolic change, matter is the variant and -entelechy the constant. “Living beings,” says Henderson, -“preserve, or tend to preserve, an ideal form, while through<span class="pagenum" id="Page_176">[Pg 176]</span> -them flows a steady stream of energy and matter which is -ever changing, yet momentarily molded by life; organized, -in short.” (“Fitness of the Environment,” 1913, pp. 23, 24.) -The living unit maintains its own specific type amid a constant -flux of matter and flow of energy. It subjugates the -alien substances of the inorganic world, eliminates their mineral -entelechies and utilizes their components and energies for -its own purposes. The soul or vital entelechy, therefore, is more -powerful than the entelechies of inorganic units which it supplants. -It turns the forces of living matter <i>inward</i>, so that the -living organism becomes capable of <i>self-regulation</i> and of striving -for the attainment of self-perfection. It is this <i>reflexive -orientation</i> of all energies towards self-perfection that is the -unique characteristic of the living being, and not the nature of -the energies themselves. The energies by which vital functions -are executed are the ordinary physicochemical energies, 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 -action. There is, in short, no such thing as a special vital -force. The radical difference between living and non-living -units does not consist in the possession or non-possession of an -entelechy, nor yet in the peculiar nature of the forces displayed -in the execution of vital functions, but solely in the -orientation of these forces towards an inner finality.</p> - - -<h3>§ 7. The Definition of Life</h3> - -<p>Life, then, may be defined as the capacity of reflexive or -self-perfective action. In any action, we may distinguish four -things: (1) the agent, or source of the action; (2) the activity -or internal determination differentiating the agent in the active -state from the selfsame agent in the inactive state; (3) -the patient or receptive subject; (4) the effect or change -produced in the patient by the agent. Let us suppose that -a boy named Tom kicks a door. Here Tom is the agent, the -muscular contraction in his leg is the activity, the door is the -patient or recipient, while the dent produced in the door is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_177">[Pg 177]</span> -the effect or change of which the action is a production. In -this action, the effect is produced not in the cause or agent, -but in a patient outside of, and distinct from, the agent, and -the otherness of cause and effect is consequently complete. -Such an action is termed transitive, which is the characteristic -type of physicochemical action. In another class of -actions, however, (those, namely, that are peculiar to living -beings) the otherness of cause and effect is only partial and -relative. When the agent becomes ultimately the recipient -of the effect or modification wrought by its own activity, that -is, when the positive change produced by the action remains -within the agent itself, the action is called immanent or reflexive -action. Since, however, action and passion are opposites, -they can coëxist in the same subject only upon condition that -said subject is differentiated into partial otherness, that is, -organized into a plurality of distinct and dissimilar parts or -components, one of which may act upon another. Hence only -the organized unit or organism, which combines unity or continuity -of substance with multiplicity and dissimilarity of -parts is capable of immanent action. The inorganic unit is -capable only of transitive action, whose effect is produced in -an exterior subject really distinct from the agent. The living -unit or organism, however, is capable of both transitive action -and immanent (reflexive) action. In such functions as -thought and sensation, the living agent modifies itself and not -an exterior patient. In the nutritive or metabolic function -the living being perfects itself by assimilating external substances -to itself. It develops, organizes, repairs, and multiplies -itself, holding its own and perpetuating its type from -generation to generation.</p> - -<p>Life, accordingly, is the capacity of tending through any -form of reflexive action to an ulterior perfection of the agent -itself. This capacity of an agent to operate of, and upon, -itself for the acquisition of some perfection exceeding its -natural equilibrial state is the distinctive attribute of the -living being. Left to itself, the inorganic unit tends ex<span class="pagenum" id="Page_178">[Pg 178]</span>clusively -to conservation or to loss, never to positive acquisition -in excess of equilibrial exigencies; what it acquires -it owes exclusively to the action of external factors. The -living unit, on the contrary, strives in its vital operations to -acquire something for itself, so that what it gets it owes to -itself and not (except in a very general sense) to the action -of external factors. All the actions of the living unit, both -upon itself and upon external matter, result sooner or later -in the acquisition on the part of the agent of a positive perfection -exceeding and transcending the mere exigencies of -equilibration. The inorganic agent, on the contrary, when in -the state of tension, tends only to return to the equilibrial state -by alienation or expenditure of its energy; otherwise, it -tends merely to conserve, by virtue of inertia, the state of -rest or motion impressed upon it from without. In the -chemical changes of inorganic units, the tendency to loss is -even more in evidence. Such changes disrupt the integrity of -the inorganic unit and dissipate its energy-content, and the -unit cannot be reconstructed and recharged, except at the -expense of a more richly endowed inorganic unit. The living -organism, however, as we see in the case of the paramæcium -undergoing endomixis, is capable of counteracting exhaustion -by recharging itself.</p> - -<p>The difference between transitive and reflexive action is -not an accidental difference of <i>degree</i>, but an essential difference -of <i>kind</i>. In reflexive actions, the source of the action -and the recipient of the effect or modification produced by -it are one and the same substantial unit or being. In transitive -actions, the receptive subject of the positive change is -an alien unit distinct from the unit, which puts forth the -action. Hence a reflexive action is not an action which is -<i>less</i> transitive; it is an action which is <i>not at all</i> transitive, -but intransitive. The difference, therefore, between the living -organism, which is capable of both reflexive and transitive -action, and the inorganic unit, which is only capable of transitive -action, is <i>radical</i> and <i>essential</i>. This being the case, an<span class="pagenum" id="Page_179">[Pg 179]</span> -evolutionary transition from an inert multimolecule to a reflexively-operating -cell or cytode, becomes inconceivable. Evolution -might, at the very most, bring about intensifications -and combinations of the transitive agencies of the physicochemical -world, but never the <i>volte face</i>, 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 -action, self-regulation, and self-renewal. The idea, -therefore, of a spontaneous derivation of living units from lifeless -colloidal multimolecules must be rejected, not merely -because it finds no support in the facts of experience, but -also because it is excluded by aprioristic considerations.</p> - - -<h3>§ 8. An Inevitable Corollary</h3> - -<p>But, if inorganic matter is impotent to vitalize itself by -means of its native physicochemical forces, the inevitable -alternative is that the initial production of organisms from -inorganic matter was due to the action of some supermaterial -agency. Certain scientists, like Henderson of Harvard, while -admitting the incredibility of abiogenesis, prefer to avoid open -conflict with mechanism and materialism by declaring their -neutrality. “But while biophysicists like Professor Schäfer,” -says Henderson, “follow Spencer in assuming a gradual evolution -of the organic from the inorganic, biochemists are -more than ever unable to perceive how such a process is possible, -and without taking any final stand prefer to let the -riddle rest.” (“Fitness of the Environment,” p. 310, footnote.) -Not to take a decisive stand on this question, however, is -tantamount to making a compromise with what is illogical -and unscientific; for both logic and the inductive trend of -biological facts are arrayed against the hypothesis of spontaneous -generation.</p> - -<p>In the first place, it is manifest that organic life is neither -self-explanatory nor eternal. Hence it must have had its -origin in the action of some external agency. Life as it exists<span class="pagenum" id="Page_180">[Pg 180]</span> -today depends upon the precedence of numerous unbroken -chains of consecutive cells that extend backward into a remote -past. It is, however, a logical necessity to put an end -to this retrogradation of the antecedents upon which the -actual existence of our present organisms depends. The infinite -cannot be spanned by finite steps; the periodic life-process -could not be relayed through an unlimited temporal -distance; and a cellular series which never started would -never arrive. Moreover, we do not account for the existence -of life by extending the cellular series interminably backward. -Each cell in such a series is derived from a predecessor, -and, consequently, no cell in the series is self-explanatory. -When it comes to accounting for its own existence, each cell -is a zero in the way of explanation, and adding zeros together -indefinitely will never give us a positive total. Each -cell refers us to its predecessor for the explanation of why -it exists, and none contains within itself the sufficient explanation -of its own existence. Hence increasing even to infinity -the number of these cells (which fail to explain themselves) -will give us nothing else but a zero in the way of explanation. -If, therefore, the primordial cause from which these cellular -chains are suspended is not the agency of the physicochemical -forces of inorganic nature, it follows that the first active cause -of life must have been a <i>supermaterial</i> and <i>extramundane -agency</i>, namely, the Living God and Author of Life.</p> - -<p>As a matter of fact, no one denies that life has had a beginning -on our globe. The physicist teaches that a beginning -of our entire solar system is implied in the law of the degradation -of energy, and various attempts have been made to -determine the time of this beginning. The older calculations -were based on the rate of solar radiation; the more recent ones, -however, are based on quantitative estimates of the disintegration -products of radioactive elements. Similarly, the geologist -and the astronomer propound theories of a gradual -constitution of the cosmic environment, which organic life requires -for its support, and all such theories imply a <i>de novo</i><span class="pagenum" id="Page_181">[Pg 181]</span> -origin or beginning of life in the universe. Thus the old <i>nebular -hypothesis</i> of Laplace postulated a hot origin of our solar -system incompatible with the coëxistence of organic life, which, -as the experiments of Pasteur and others have shown, is -destroyed, in all cases, at a temperature just above 45° Centigrade -(113° Fahrenheit). Even the enzymes or organic catalysts, -which are essential for bio-chemical processes, are destroyed -at a temperature between 60° and 70° Centigrade. -This excludes the possibility of the contemporaneousness of -protoplasm and inorganic matter, and points to a beginning -of life in our solar system. Moreover, independently of this -theory, the geologist sees in the primitive crystalline rocks -(granites, diorites, basalts, etc.) and in the extant magmas -of volcanoes evidences of an azoic age, during which temperatures -incompatible with the survival of even the blue-green -algæ or the most resistent bacterial spores must have prevailed -over the surface of the globe. In fact, it is generally -recognized by geologists that the igneous or pyrogenic rocks, -which contain no fossils, preceded the sedimentary or fossiliferous -rocks. The new <i>planetesimal hypothesis</i>, it is true, -is said to be compatible with a cold origin of the universe. -Nevertheless, this theory assumes a very gradual condensation -of our cosmos out of dispersed gases and star dust, whereas -life demands as the <i>sine qua non</i> condition of its existence a -differentiated environment consisting of a lithosphere, a hydrosphere, -and an atmosphere. Hence, it is clear that life did not -originate until such an appropriate environment was an accomplished -fact. All theories of cosmogony, therefore, point -to a beginning of life subsequent to the constitution of the -inorganic world.</p> - -<p>Now, it is impossible for organic life to antecede itself. -If, therefore, it has had a beginning in the world, it must have -had a first active cause distinct from itself; and the active -cause, in question, must, consequently, have been either something -intrinsic, or something extrinsic, to inorganic matter. -The hypothesis, however, of a spontaneous origin of life<span class="pagenum" id="Page_182">[Pg 182]</span> -through the agency of forces intrinsic to inorganic matter is -scientifically untenable. Hence it follows that life originated -through the action of an immaterial or spiritual agent, namely, -God, seeing that there is no other assignable agency capable -of bringing about the initial production of life from lifeless -matter.</p> - - -<h3>§ 9. Futile Evasions</h3> - -<p>Many and various are the efforts made to escape this issue. -One group of scientists, for example, 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 habitat. This legerdemain -has resulted in the theories of <i>cosmozoa</i> or <i>panspermia</i>, -according to which life originates in a favorable environment, -not by reason of spontaneous generation, but by reason of -importation from other worlds. This view has been presented -in two forms: (1) the “meteorite” theory, which represents -the older view held by Thomson and Helmholtz; (2) -the more recent theory of “cosmic panspermia” advocated -by Svante Arrhénius, with H. E. Richter and F. J. Cohn as -precursors. Sir Wm. 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 -collision. These meteorites discharged from bursting planets -might carry germs to distant planets like the earth, causing -them to become covered with vegetation. 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 60,000,000 years. It is incredible that life could -be maintained through such an enormous lapse of time. Even -from the nearest planet to our earth the duration of the -journey would be 150 years. Besides, meteorites are heated to -incandescence while passing through the atmosphere, and -any seeds they might contain would perish by reason of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_183">[Pg 183]</span> -heat thus generated, not to speak of the terrific impact, which -terminates the voyage of a meteorite.</p> - -<p>Arrhénius suggests a method by which microörganisms -might be conveyed through intersidereal space with far greater -dispatch and without any mineral vehicle such as a meteorite. -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 (viz. at a height of 100 kilometers from -the surface of the latter), where they become the electrically -charged dust particles of polar auroras (<i>v.g.</i> the aurora -borealis). The motor force, in this case, is the same as that -which moves the vanes of a Crookes’ radiometer. Lebedeff has -verified Clerk-Maxwell’s conceptions of this force and has -demonstrated its reality by experiments. 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 centimeter. -On a nontransparent particle having a diameter of 1.5 microns, -the pressure of radiation would just counterbalance the force -of universal gravitation, while on particles whose diameter was -0.16 of a micron, the pressure of radiation would be ten times -as great as the pull of gravitation. Now bacterial spores having -a diameter of O.3 to O.2 of a micron are known to bacteriologists, -and the ultramicroscope reveals the presence of -germs not more than O.1 of a micron in size.<a id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> Hence it is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_184">[Pg 184]</span> -conceivable that germs of such dimensions might be wafted to -limits of our atmosphere, and might then be transported by -the pressure of radiation to distant planets or stellar systems, -provided, of course, they could escape the germicidal -action of oxidation, desiccation, ultra-violet rays, etc. Arrhénius -calculates that their journey from the earth to Mars -would, under such circumstances, occupy a period of only -20 days. Within 80 days they could reach Jupiter, and they -might arrive at Neptune on the confines of our solar system -after an interval of 3 weeks. The transit to the constellation -of the Centaur, which contains the solar system nearest to our -own (the one, namely, whose central sun is the star Alpha), -would require 9,000 years.</p> - -<p>Arrhénius’ theory, however, that “life is an eternal rebeginning” -explains nothing and leaves us precisely where we were. -In the metaphysical as well as the scientific sense, it is an -evasion and not a solution. To the logical necessity of putting -an end to the retrogradation of the subalternate conditions, -upon which the realities of the present depend for their -actual existence, we have already adverted. Moreover, the -reasons which induce the scientist to postulate a beginning of -life in our world are not based on any distinctive peculiarity of -that world, but are universally applicable, it being established -by the testimony of the spectroscope that other worlds are not -differently constituted than our own. Hence Schäfer voices -the general attitude of scientific men when he says: “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 origin; on the contrary, it merely serves to banish the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_185">[Pg 185]</span> -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 true. Knowing what we know, and believing -what we believe, ... we are, I think (without denying -the possibility of the existence of life in other parts of the -universe), justified in regarding these cosmic theories as inherently -improbable.” (Dundee Address of 1912, cf. Smithson. -Inst. Rpt. for 1912, p. 503.)</p> - -<p>Dismissing, therefore, all evasions of this sort, we may -regard as scientifically established the conclusion that, so far -as our knowledge goes, inorganic nature lacks the means of -self-vivification, and that no inanimate matter can become -living matter without first coming under the influence of matter -previously alive. Given, therefore, that the conditions -favorable to life did not always prevail in our cosmos, it -follows that life had a beginning, for which we are obliged -to account by some postulate other than abiogenesis. This -conclusion seems inescapable for those who concede the scientific -absurdity of spontaneous generation, but, by some weird -freak of logic, not only is it escaped, but the very opposite -conclusion is reached through reasoning, which the exponents -are pleased to term philosophical, as distinguished from scientific, -argumentation. The plight of these “hard-headed worshippers -of fact,” who plume themselves on their contempt -for “metaphysics,” is sad indeed. Worsted in the experimental -field, they appeal the case from the court of facts to that -aprioristic philosophy. “Physic of metaphysic begs defence, -and metaphysic calls for aid on sense!”</p> - -<p>Life, they contend, either had no beginning or it must have -begun in our world as the product of spontaneous generation. -But all the scientific theories of cosmogony exclude the former -alternative. Consequently, not only is it not absurd to admit -spontaneous generation, but, on the contrary, it is absurd not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_186">[Pg 186]</span> -to admit it. It is in this frame of mind that August Weismann -is induced to confide to us “that spontaneous generation, -in spite of all the vain attempts to demonstrate it, remains for -me a logical necessity.” (“Essays,” p. 34, Poulton’s Transl.) -The presupposition latent in all such logic is, of course, the -assumption that nothing but matter exists; for, if the possibility -of the existence of a supermaterial agency is conceded, then -obviously we are not compelled by <i>logical necessity</i> to ascribe -the initial production of organic life to the exclusive agency -of the physicochemical energies inherent in inorganic matter. -Weismann should demonstrate his suppressed premise that -matter coincides with reality and that spiritual is a synonym -for nonexistent. Until such time as this unverified and unverifiable -affirmation is substantiated, the philosophical proof -for abiogenesis is not an argument at all, it is dogmatism pure -and simple.</p> - -<p>But, they protest, “To deny spontaneous generation is to -proclaim a miracle” (Nägeli), and natural science cannot -have recourse to “miracles” in explaining natural phenomena. -For the “scientist,” miracles are always absurd as contradicting -the uniformity of nature, and to recur to them -for the solution of a scientific problem is, to put it mildly, -distinctly out of the question. 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 -“miracle,” “creation,” and “supernatural.” For a “thinking -man,” the mere mention of these abhorrent words is, or ought -to be, argument enough. “If we do not accept the hypothesis -of spontaneous generation,” Haeckel expostulates, “we must -have recourse to the miracle of a <i>supernatural creation</i>.” -(Italics his—“History of Creation,” I, p. 348, Lankester’s -Transl.) It would be a difficult matter, indeed, to cram more -blunders into one short sentence! We will not, and need not, -undertake to defend the supernatural here. Suffice it to say, -that the initiation of life in inorganic matter by the Author<span class="pagenum" id="Page_187">[Pg 187]</span> -of Life would not be a creation, nor a miracle, nor a phenomenon -pertaining to the supernatural order.</p> - -<p>The principle of the minimum forbids us to postulate the -superfluous, and a creative act would be superfluous in the -production of the first organisms. Inorganic nature contains -all the material elements found in living organisms, and all -organisms, in fact, derive their matter from the inorganic -world. If, therefore, they are thus dependent <i>in their continuance</i> -upon a supply of matter administered by the inorganic -world, it is to be presumed that they were likewise dependent -on that source of matter <i>in their first origin</i>. In -other words, the material substrata of the first organisms were -not produced anew, but derived from the elements of the inorganic -world. Hence they were not created, but formed out -of preëxistent matter. A <i>creative</i> act would involve <i>total</i> -production, and exclude the preëxistence of the constituent material -under a different form. A <i>formative</i> act, on the contrary, -is a <i>partial</i> production, which presupposes the material -<i>out of which</i> a given thing is to be made. Hence the Divine -act, whereby organic life was first educed from the passive potentiality -of inorganic matter, was formative and not creative. -Elements preëxistent in the inorganic world were combined -and intrinsically modified by impressing upon them a new -specification, which raised them in the entitive and dynamic -scale, and integrated them into units capable of self-regulation -and reflexive action. This modification, however, was intrinsic -to the matter involved and nothing was injected into -matter from without. Obviously, therefore, the production -of the first organisms was not a creation, but a formation.</p> - -<p>Still less was it a miracle; for a miracle is a visible interposition -in the course of nature by a power superior to the -powers of nature. A given effect, therefore, is termed miraculous -with express reference to some existing natural agency, -whose efficacy it, in some way, exceeds. If there existed in -inorganic nature some natural process of self-vivification, -then any Divine interposition to produce life independently<span class="pagenum" id="Page_188">[Pg 188]</span> -of this natural agency, would be a miraculous intervention. -As a matter of fact, however, inorganic nature is destitute of -this power of self-vitalization, and consequently no natural -agency was superseded or overridden by the initial imparting -of life to lifeless matter. Life was not ordained to originate -in any other way. Given, therefore, this impotence of inorganic -nature, it follows that an initial vivification of matter by -Divine power was demanded by the very nature of things. -The Divine action did not come into competition, as it were, -with existing natural agencies, but was put forth in response -to the exigencies of nature itself. It cannot, therefore, be -regarded as miraculous.</p> - -<p>Nor, finally, is there any warrant for regarding such an -initial vivification of matter as supernatural. Only that is -supernatural which transcends the nature, powers, and exigencies -of all things created or creatable. But, as we have seen, -if life was to exist at all, a primal animation of inanimate -matter by Divine power was demanded by the very nature of -things. Here the Divine action put forth in response to an -exigency of nature and terminated in the constitution of living -nature itself. Now, the effect of a Divine action, by which -the natures of things are initially constituted, plainly pertains -to the order of nature, and has nothing to do with the supernatural. -Hence the primordial constitution by Divine power -of living nature was not a supernatural, but a purely natural, -event.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_189">[Pg 189]</span></p> - -<h3 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_II2">CHAPTER II<br /> - -THE ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN SOUL</h3></div> - - -<h4>§ 1. Matter and Spirit</h4> - -<p>We live in an age in which scientific specialization is stressed -as the most important means of advancing the interests of -human knowledge; and specialism, by reason of its many triumphs, -seems to have deserved, in large measure, the prestige -which it now enjoys. It has, however, the distinct disadvantage -of fostering provincialism and separatism. This lopsided -learning of the single track mind is a condition that verges on -paranoia, leads to naïve contempt for all knowledge not -reducible to its own set of formulæ, and portends, in the near -future, a Babel-like confusion of tongues. In fact, the need -of a corrective is beginning to be felt in many quarters. This -corrective can be none other than the general and synthetic -science of philosophy; 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 experts.</p> - -<p>Scientists readily admit the advantage of philosophy in -theory, but in practice their approval is far from being unqualified. -A subservient philosophy, which accepts without -hesitation all the current dogmas of contemporary science, is -one thing, and a critical philosophy venturing to apply the -canons of logic to so-called scientific proof is quite another. -Philosophy of the latter type is promptly informed that it -has no right to any opinion whatever, and that only the scientific -specialist is qualified to speak on such subjects. But -the disqualification, which is supposed to arise from lack of -special knowledge, is just as promptly forgotten, when there is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_190">[Pg 190]</span> -question of philosophy in the rôle of a pliant sycophant, and -the works of a Wells or a van Loon are lauded to the skies, despite -the glaring examples of scientific inaccuracy and ignorance, -in which they abound.</p> - -<p>This partiality is sometimes carried to a degree that makes -it perfectly preposterous. Thus it is by no means an infrequent -thing to find scientists dismissing, as unworthy of a hearing, -a philosopher like Hans Driesch, who spent the major portion -of his life in biological research, and combined the technical -discipline of a scientist with the mental discipline of a -logician. The chemist, H. E. Armstrong, for instance, sees in -the mere label “philosopher” a sufficient reason for barring -his testimony. “Philosophers,” jeers the chemist, with flippant -irrelevance, “must go to school and study in the purlieus of -experimental science, if they desire to speak with authority -on these matters.” (Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1912, p. 528.) -Such is his comment on Driesch, yet Driesch did nothing at -all, if he did not do far more than Armstrong prescribes as -a prerequisite for authoritative speaking. In James Harvey -Robinson, on the contrary, we have an example of the tendency -of scientists to coddle philosophers who assume a docile, -deferential, and submissive attitude towards every generalization -propounded in the name of natural science. In sheer -gratitude for his uncritical acquiescence, his incapacitation as -a nonspecialist is considerately overlooked, and he can confess, -without the slightest danger of discrediting his own utterances: -“I am not ... a biologist or palæontologist. 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 controversy. -I think I quite understand their attitude.” (<i>Harper’s -Magazine,</i> June, 1922, p. 68.) By his own testimony he is a -scientific amateur, but this does not, in the least, prevent -him from “speaking with authority” or from being lionized -in scientific circles as an evolutionary “defender of the faith.” -Clearly, it is the nature of their respective views, and not the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_191">[Pg 191]</span> -possession or absence of technical knowledge, which makes -Robinson a favorite, and Driesch a <i>persona non grata</i>, with -“the very best representatives” of contemporary science. -“Science,” says a writer in the <i>Atlantic Monthly</i> (Oct., 1915), -“has turned all philosophy out of doors except that which -clings to its skirts; it has thrown contempt on all learning that -does not depend upon it; and it has bribed the sketches by -giving us immense material comforts.”</p> - -<p>Here, however, we are concerned with the fact, rather -than the justice, of this discrimination which the scientific -world makes between philosopher and philosopher. Certain -it is that Robinson has received no end of encomiums from -scientists, who apparently lack the literary gifts to expound -their own philosophy, and that his claim to represent the -views of a large and influential section of the scientific world -is, in all probability, entirely correct. It is this manifest -approval of scientific men which lends especial interest to -the remarks of this scientific dilettante, and we shall quote -them as expressing the prevalent scientific view on the origin -of man, a view which, with but slight variations, has persisted -from the time of Darwin down to the present day.</p> - -<p>“The recognition,” says Robinson, “that mankind is a species -of animal, is, like other important discoveries, illuminating.” -(<i>Science</i>, July 28, 1922, p. 74.) To refer to the recognition -of man’s animality as a <i>discovery</i> is a conceit too -stupid for mere words to castigate. Surely, 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 beast. Mankind did not have to await the advent of -an “enlightened” nineteenth, or twentieth century to be assured -of the truth of a commonplace so trite and palpable. Even -the “benighted” scholastics of medieval infamy had wit -enough to define man as a rational animal. Indeed, it would -be a libel on human intelligence to suppose that anyone, in -the whole history of human thought, was ever sufficiently -fatuous to dispute the patent fact that man is a sentient or<span class="pagenum" id="Page_192">[Pg 192]</span>ganism -compounded of flesh, blood, bone, and sinew like the -brute. The “discovery” that man is a species of animal dates -from the year one of human existence, and it is now high -time for the novelty of this discovery to be worn off.</p> - -<p>Even as a difficulty against human superiority and immortality, -the “recognition” is by no means recent. We find it -squarely faced in a book of the Old Testament, the entire -book being devoted to the solution of the difficulty in question. -“I said in my heart concerning the estate of the sons -of men ... that they might see they are themselves beasts. -For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; -even one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth so dieth the -other; yea, they have all one breath; so that man hath no preeminence -above a beast; for all is vanity. All go unto one -place; all are of the dust, and all return to dust. Who knoweth -the spirit of man whether it goeth upward, and the spirit -of the beast whether it goeth downward to the earth?” -(<i>Ecclesiastes</i>, III: 18-21.) The sacred writer insists that, so -far as the body is concerned, man and the brute stand on the -same level; but what of the human soul? Is it, he asks, resolvable -into matter like the soul of a beast, or is it a supermaterial -principle destined, not for time, but for eternity? -At the close of the book, the conclusion is reached that the -latter alternative is the true solution of the riddle of human -nature—“the dust returneth to the earth whence it was, and -the spirit returneth to God who gave it.” (Ch. XII, v. 7.)</p> - -<p>Centuries, therefore, before the Christian era, this problem -was formulated by Ecclesiastes, the Jew, and also, as we shall -presently see, by Aristotle, the coryphæus of Greek philosophy. -Nay, from time immemorial man, contrasting his aspirations -after immortality with the spectacle of corporal death, has -appreciated to the full the significance of his own animality. -Never was there question of whether man is, or is not, just -as thoroughly an animal as any beast, but rather of whether, -his animal nature being unhesitatingly conceded, we are not, -none the less, forced to recognize in him, over and above this,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_193">[Pg 193]</span> -the existence of a spiritual mind or soul, differentiating him -from the brute and constituting him a being unique, despite -the unmistakable homologies discernible between bestial -organisms and the human body. Everywhere and always mankind -as a whole have manifested, by the universal and uniquely -human practice of burying the dead, their unswerving and -indomitable conviction that man is spirit as well as flesh, -an animal, indeed, yet animated by something not present -in the animal, namely, a spiritual soul, deathless and indestructible, -capable of surviving the decay of the organism and -of persisting throughout eternity.</p> - -<p>But, if the human mind or soul is spiritual, it is clear that -it cannot be a product of organic evolution, any more than -it can be a product of parental generation. On the contrary, -each and every human soul must be an immediate creation of -the Author of Nature, not evolved from the internal potentiality -of matter, but infused into matter from without. The -human soul is created in organized matter, but not from it. -Nor can the Divine action, in this case, be regarded as a -supernatural interposition; for it supplements, rather than -supersedes, the natural process of reproduction; and, since -it is not in matter to produce spirit, a creative act is demanded -by the very nature of things.</p> - -<p>Evolution is nothing more nor less than a transmutation -of matter, and a transmutation of matter cannot terminate -in the annihilation of matter and the constitution of non-matter -or spirit. If nothing of the <i>terminus a quo</i> persists in the -final product, we have substitution, and not transmutation. -The evolution of matter, therefore, cannot progress to a point -where all materiality is eliminated. Hence, whatever proceeds -from matter, either as an emanation or an action, will, of -necessity, be material. It should be noted, however, that by -material we do not mean corporeal; for material denotes not -merely matter itself, but everything that intrinsically depends -on matter. The term, therefore, is wider in its sense than -corporeal, because it comprises, besides matter, all the prop<span class="pagenum" id="Page_194">[Pg 194]</span>erties, -energies, and activities of matter. Hence whatever is -incapable of existence and activity apart from matter (whether -ponderable or imponderable) belongs to the material, as distinguished -from the spiritual, order of things. The soul of -a brute, for example, is not matter, but it is material, nevertheless, -because it is totally dependent on the matter of the -organism, apart from which it has neither existence nor -activity of its own.</p> - -<p>In the constitution of the sentient or animal soul, matter -reaches the <i>culmination of its passive evolution</i>. True, its -inherent physicochemical forces do not suffice to bring about -this consummation, wherewith its internal potentiality is -exhausted. Nevertheless, the emergence of an animal soul from -matter is conceivable, given an agency competent to educe -it from the intrinsic potentiality of matter; for, in the last -analysis, the animal soul is simply an internal modification -of matter itself. But, if spirit is that which exists, or is, at -least, capable of existence, apart from matter, it goes without -saying that spirit is neither <i>derivable</i> from, nor <i>resolvable</i> -into, matter of any kind. Consequently, it cannot be -evolved from matter, but must be produced in matter by creation -(<i>i.e.</i> total production). <i>To make the human mind or -soul a product of evolution is equivalent to a denial of its -spirituality</i>, because it implies that the human soul like that -of the brute, is inherent in the potentiality of matter, and -is therefore a purely material principle, totally dependent on -the matter, of which it is a perfection. Between such a soul -and the sentient principle present in the beast, there would -be no essential difference of kind, but only an accidental difference -of degree; and this is precisely what Darwin and his -successors have spared no effort to demonstrate. James Harvey -Robinson is refreshingly frank on this subject, and we -will therefore let him be spokesman for those who are more -reticent:</p> - -<p>“It is the extraordinarily illuminating discovery (<i>sic</i>) of -man’s animalhood rather than evolution in general that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_195">[Pg 195]</span> -troubles the routine mind. Many are willing to admit that -it looks as if life had developed on the earth slowly, in successive -stages; this they can regard as a merely curious fact -and of no great moment if only man can be defended as an -honorable exception. The fact that we have an animal body -may also be conceded, 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 animal. But whatever -may be the religious and poetic significance of this -compromise it is becoming less and less tenable as a scientific -and historic truth. The <i>facts</i> indicate that man’s <i>mind</i> is -quite as clearly of animal extraction as his body.” (<i>Science</i>, -July 28, 1922, p. 95—italics his.)</p> - -<p>This language has, at least, the merit of being unambiguous, -and leaves us in no uncertainty as to where the writer stands. -It discloses, likewise, the animus which motivates his peculiar -interest in transformistic theories. If evolution were incapable -of being exploited in behalf of materialistic philosophy, Mr. -Robinson, we may be sure, would soon lose interest in the -theory, and would once more align himself with the company, -which he has so inappropriately deserted, namely, “the routine -minds” that regard evolution “as a merely curious fact of no -great moment.” Be that as it may, his final appeal is to the -“facts,” and it is to the facts, accordingly, that we shall go; -but they will not be the irrelevant “facts” of anatomy, physiology, -and palæontology. Sciences such as these confine their -attention to the external manifestations of human life, and can -tell us nothing of man’s inner consciousness. It does not, -therefore, devolve upon them to pronounce final judgment -upon the origin of <i>man</i>. For that which is the distinguishing -characteristic of man is not his animal nature, that he shares -in common with the brute, but his rational nature, which alone -differentiates him from “a beast that wants discourse of -reason.” We cannot settle the question as to whether or not -man’s <i>mind</i> is “of animal extraction” by comparing his <i>body</i><span class="pagenum" id="Page_196">[Pg 196]</span> -with the bodies of irrational vertebrates. 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 psychology, which -studies the internal manifestations of life as they are presented -to the intuition of consciousness, rather than biology, which -studies life according to such of its manifestations as are perceptible -to the external senses. Hence it is within the domain -of psychology alone, that man can be studied on his distinctively -human, or rational, side, and it is to this science, accordingly, -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 mind. How little, indeed, does he know of human -nature, whose knowledge of it is confined to man’s insignificant -anatomy and biology, and who knows nothing of the triumphs -of human genius in literature, art, science, architecture, music, -and a thousand other fields! Psychology alone can evaluate -these marvels, and no other science can be of like assistance -in solving the problem of whether man is, or is not, unique -among all his fellows of the animal kingdom.</p> - - -<h3>§ 2. The Science of the Soul</h3> - -<p>As a distinct science, psychology owes its origin to Aristotle, -whose “<i>Peri Psyches</i>” is, in all probability, the first formal -treatise on the subject. Through his father, Nichomachus, who -was court physician to Philip of Macedon, he became acquainted, -at an early age, with biological lore in the form of -such medical botany, anatomy, and physiology as were commonly -known in prescientific days. Subsequently, his celebrated -pupil, Alexander the Great, placed at his disposal -a vast library, together with extensive opportunities for biological -research. This enabled the philosopher to criticize and -summarize the observations and speculations of his predecessors -in the field, and to improve upon them by means of personal -reflection and research. In writing his psychology, he -was naturally forced to proceed on the basis of the facts dis<span class="pagenum" id="Page_197">[Pg 197]</span>coverable -by internal experience (introspection) and unaided -external observation. Of such facts as are only accessible by -means of instrumentation and systematic experimentation, he -could, of course, know nothing, since their exploration awaited -the advent of modern mechanical and optical inventions. But -the factual foundation of his treatise, though not extensive, -was solid, so far as it went, and his selection, analysis, and -evaluation of the materials at hand was so accurate and -judicious, that the broad outlines of his system have been vindicated -by the test of time, and all the results of modern experimental -research fit, with surprising facility, into the framework -of his generalizations, revision being nowhere necessary -save in nonessentials and minor details. Wilhelm Wundt, the -Father of Experimental Psychology, pays him the following -tribute: “The results of my labors do not square with the materialistic -hypothesis, nor do they with the dualism of Plato -or Descartes. It is only the animism of Aristotle which, by -combining psychology with biology, results as a plausible -metaphysical conclusion from Experimental Psychology.” -(“Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie,” 4te Auflage, -II, C. 23, S. 633.)</p> - -<p>Literally translated, the title of Aristotle’s work signifies a -<i>treatise concerning the soul</i>. It set a precedent for the -scholastic doctors of the thirteenth century, and <i>de anima</i> became -with them a technical designation for all works dealing -with this theme. In the sixteenth century the selfsame usage -was embalmed in the Greek term psychology, which was coined -with a view to rendering the elliptic Latin title by means of -a single word. Melanchthon is credited with having originated -the term, which, in its original use as well as its etymology, -denoted a science of the <i>psyche</i> or soul.</p> - -<p>Towards the close of the seventeenth century, however, the -meaning of the term in question began to undergo a marvelous -evolution, of which the end is not yet. The process was initiated -by Descartes, under whose auspices psychology was -changed from a science of the <i>soul</i> into a science of the <i>mind</i>.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_198">[Pg 198]</span> -Then, under the influence of Hume and Kant, the <i>noumenal -mind</i> disappeared, leaving only <i>phenomenal consciousness</i>. -Recently, with the advent of Watson, even consciousness itself -has been discarded and psychology has become a science -of <i>behavior</i>. And here, for the time being, at any rate, the -process has come to a stop, just one step short of complete -nihilism. Woodworth quotes the following waggish comment: -“First psychology lost its soul, then it lost its mind, then it lost -consciousness; it still has behavior of a kind.” (“Psychology, -the Science of Mental Life,” p. 2, footnote.) This gradual -degeneration of psychology from animism into behaviorism -is one of the greatest ironies in the history of human thought. -All of this, however, was latent in the corrosive Cartesian -principle of “scientific doubt.” <i>Facilis descensus Averni!</i> It -is easy to question the validity of this or that kind of human -knowledge, but difficult to arrest, or even foresee, the consequences -which the remorseless logic of scepticism portends.</p> - -<p>Disintegration set in, as has been said, when Descartes -substituted his <i>psychophysical dualism</i> of <i>mind</i> and <i>matter</i> -for Aristotle’s <i>hylomorphic dualism</i> of <i>soul</i> and <i>body</i>. The -French philosopher, in an appendix to his “Meditations,” -which dates from 1670, expressly rejects the Aristotelian term -of soul or <i>psyche</i>, and announces his preference for mind or -spirit, in the following words: “The substance in which thought -immediately resides is here called mind (mens, esprit). I here -speak, however, of mens (mind) rather than anima (soul), -for the latter is equivocal, being frequently applied to denote -what is material” (“Reply to the Second Objections,” p. 86). -Henceforth psychology ceased to be a science of the soul, and -became, instead, a science of the mind.</p> - -<p>Descartes, one must bear in mind, divided the universe into -two great realms of being, namely: the conscious and the -unconscious, the <i>psychic</i> world of mind and the <i>physical</i> -world of matter, unextended substance which thinks and extended -substance which moves. In man these two substantial -principles were conceived as being united by the tenuous link<span class="pagenum" id="Page_199">[Pg 199]</span> -of mere contact, the spirit or mind remaining separate from, -and unmingled with, its material partner, the body. The main -trouble with this dualism is that it draws the line of demarcation -at the wrong place. Reason and sense-consciousness -are bracketed together above the line as being equally -spiritual; physiological processes and processes purely physicochemical -are coupled below the line as being equally mechanical. -Now, when a brain-function such as sense-perception -is introduced, like another Trojan Horse, into the citadel of -spiritualism, 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 processes, that they are, -in short, functions of the nervous system, and therefore -purely material in nature. On the other hand, once we retreat -from the trench of distinction between the processes of -unconscious or vegetative life and the physicochemical processes -of the inorganic world, that moment we have lost the -strategic position in the conflict with mechanism, and nothing -avails to stay its triumphant onrush. Hence, from first to -last, 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 materialism. There is -a Latin maxim which says: <i>Extrema sese tangunt</i>—“Extremes -come in contact with each other.” The ultraspiritualism of -Descartes by confounding spiritual, with organic consciousness, -leads by the most direct route to the opposite extreme -of crass materialism.</p> - -<p>Aristotle’s dualism of matter and form, which is but a physical -application of his transcendental dualism of potency -(<i>dynamis</i>) and act (<i>entelechy</i>), is very different from the -Cartesian dualism of the physical and the psychic. According -to the Aristotelian view, as we have seen in the last chapter, -all the physical entities or substantial units of nature (both -living and inorganic) are fundamentally <i>dual</i> in their essence, -each consisting of a definitive principle called entelechy and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_200">[Pg 200]</span> -a plastic principle called matter. Entelechy is the integrating -determinant, the source of the unit’s coherence and of its differentiation -from units of another type. Matter is the determinable -and quantifying factor, in virtue of which the unit -is potentially-multiple and endowed with mass. In the electro-chemical -reactions of non-living substances (synthesis, analysis, -and transmutation), entelechy is the variant and matter -is the constant; in the metabolic activities of living substances -(assimilation and dissimilation), matter is the variant and -entelechy is the constant. This persistent entelechy of the -living unit or organism is what Aristotle terms the <i>psyche</i> or -soul. The latter, therefore, may be defined as the vital principle -or primary source of life in the organism.</p> - -<p>But in using such terms as “soul” and “vital principle” we -are employing expressions against which not merely rabid -mechanists, but many conservative biologists as well, see fit -to protest. The opposition of the latter, however, is found -on closer scrutiny to be <i>nominal</i> rather than <i>real</i>. It is the -<i>name</i> which offends; they have no objection to the <i>thing signified</i>. -Wilson, to cite a pertinent example, rejects as meaningless -all such terms as “vital principle,” “soul,” etc. “They -are words,” he avers, “that have been written into certain -spaces that are otherwise blank in our record of knowledge, -and as far as I can see no more than this.” (“Biology,” p. 23, -1908.) Yet he himself affirms again and again the existence -of the reality which these terms (understood in their Aristotelian -sense) denote. In discussing the relation of the tissue -cell to the multicellular body, for instance, he speaks of “a -formative power pervading the growing mass as a whole.” -(“The Cell,” 2nd ed., p. 59), and, in his recent lecture on -the “Physical Basis of Life,” he makes allusion to “the integrating -and unifying principle in the vital processes.” -(<i>Science</i>, March 9, 1923, p. 284.) It would seem, therefore, -that Wilson’s aversion to such terms as soul and vital principle -is based on the <i>dynamic</i> sense assigned to them by the -neo-vitalists, who, as we have seen, regard the vital principle<span class="pagenum" id="Page_201">[Pg 201]</span> -as a force <i>sui generis</i> or a <i>unique agent</i>, which operates intrusively -among physicochemical factors in the rôle of an active -or efficient cause of vital functions. That such is really the -case, appears from his rhetorical question: “Shall we then join -hands with the neo-vitalists in referring the unifying and -regulatory principle to the <i>operation</i> of an unknown power, a -directive <i>force</i>, an archæus, an entelechy or a soul?” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, -p. 285—italics mine.) The objection, however, does not apply -to these terms used in their Aristotelian sense. In the philosophy -of the Stagirite, the soul, like all other entelechies, is a -cause in the <i>entitive</i>, but not in the <i>dynamic</i>, order of things. -Its efficacy is <i>formal</i>, not <i>efficient</i>. It is not an agent, but a -specifying type. The organism must be integrated, specified, -and existent <i>before</i> it can operate, and hence its integration -and specification by the soul is prior to all vital activity. The -soul is a constituent of being and not an immediate principle -of action. The soul is not even an entity (in the sense of a -complete and separate being), but rather an incomplete entity -or constituent of an entity. It takes a complete entity to be an -agent, and the soul or vital entelechy is not an independent -existent, which is somehow inserted into the organism, but an -incomplete being which has no existence of its own, but only coexistence, -in the composite that it forms with the organism. Nor -is there any such thing as a special vital force resident in the -organism. The executive factors in all vital operations of the -organic order are the physicochemical energies, which are -native to matter in general. These forces, as we have seen, -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 units, but they are not supplanted or -superseded by a new executive force. Wilson’s fear, therefore, -that the experimental analysis of life is discouraged by vitalism, -inasmuch as this conception <i>subtracts something from -the efficiency of the physicochemical forces</i>, is groundless in -the case of hylomorphic vitalism, but is well-founded in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_202">[Pg 202]</span> -case of such systems as the neo-vitalism of Driesch and the -spiritualism of Descartes.</p> - -<p>Summing up, therefore, we may say that the soul, like other -entelechies, is consubstantial with its material substrate, the -body. True it is more autonomous than are the inflexible -entelechies of inorganic nature, inasmuch as it is independent -of any given atom, molecule, or cell in the organic aggregate. -Such a degree of freedom, for example, is not possessed by -the most complex molecules, which show no other flexibility -than tautomerism, even this small readjustment involving a -change in their specificity. But this autonomy does not preclude -the essential dependence of the soul upon the body. -Generally speaking, the soul is incapable of existence apart -from its total substrate, the organism. We say, <i>generally -speaking</i>, because, as previously intimated, an exception must -be made in the case of the <i>human soul</i>, which, being, as we -shall see, a self-subsistent and spiritual entelechy, is by itself, -apart from its material substrate, a sufficient subject of -existence, and is therefore capable of surviving the dissolution -of its complementary principle, the organism. Nevertheless, -even in man, the soul forms one substance with the organism, -and the organism participates as a coëfficient factor in all his -vital functions, both physiological and psychic, excluding only -the <i>superorganic</i> or <i>spiritual</i> functions of rational thought and -volition, whose agent and recipient is the <i>soul alone</i>. In man, -then, soul and body unite to form a single substance, a single -nature, and a single person. Apart from the body, the human -soul is, indeed, a complete entity, in the sense that it is -capable of subsistence (independent existence), but, in another -sense, it is not a complete entity, because apart from the -body it cannot constitute a complete nature or complete personality. -It is this essential incompleteness of the discarnate -human soul that forms the natural basis of the Christian -doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead.</p> - -<p>Here, however, it is important to note the difference between -the hylomorphic spiritualism of Aristotle and the psy<span class="pagenum" id="Page_203">[Pg 203]</span>chophysical -spiritualism of Descartes. By the latter <i>all</i> conscious -or physic functions are regarded as spiritual. The former, -however, recognizes the fundamental difference which -exists between the lower or animal, and the higher or rational -functions of our conscious life. Sense-perception and sensual -emotion belong to the former class, and must be regarded as -<i>organic</i> functions, whose agent and subject is neither the soul -alone nor the organism alone, but the soul-informed organism -or substantial composite of body and soul. Rational thinking -and willing, on the contrary, are classified as <i>superorganic</i> or -<i>spiritual</i> functions, inasmuch as they exclude the coägency -of the organism and have the soul alone for their active cause -and receptive subject.</p> - -<p>The soul, in fine, is the formal principle or primary source -of the threefold life in man, namely, the metabolic life, which -man shares with plants, the sentient life, which he shares with -animals, and the rational life, which is uniquely human. The -human soul is often spoken of as the mind. In their dictionary -sense, both terms denote one and the same reality, namely, the -human entelechy or vital principle in man, but the connotation -of these terms is different. The term soul signifies the vital -principle in so far as it is the primary source of every kind -of life in man, that is, vegetative, sentient, and rational. The -term mind, however, connoting conscious rather than unconscious -life, signifies the vital principle in so far as it is the root -and ground of our conscious life (both sentient and rational). -Here, however, the distinction is of no great moment, and the -terms may be regarded as synonymous. The definitions which -we have given are, of course, blasphemous in the ears of our -modern neo-Kantian phenomenalists, whose preference is for -a <i>functional</i>, rather than a <i>substantial</i>, mind or soul; but we -will pay our respects to them later.</p> - -<p>It is clear, however, from what has been said, that, for -evidences of the superiority and spirituality of the human soul, -we must recur, not to the external manifestations of our nutritive -life, but to the internal manifestations of our conscious<span class="pagenum" id="Page_204">[Pg 204]</span> -life. The latter are wholly inaccessible to the external senses -and perceptible only to the intuition of consciousness, introspection, -or internal experience, as it is variously called. All -our self-knowledge rests on the basis of introspection, and -without it the science of psychology would be impossible. In -fact, not only psychology, but the physical sciences as well, -depend for their validity on the testimony of consciousness; -for the external world is only knowable to the extent that it -enters the domain of our consciousness. Recently, as we have -seen, a tendency to discredit internal experience has arisen -among materialistic extremists. This “tendency,” to quote the -words of Keyser, “most notably represented by the behaviorist -school of psychologists (like Professor Watson, for example), -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 experiment, as if matter -were regarded ‘as something much more solid and indubitable -than mind’ (Bertrand Russell).”—C. J. Keyser, <i>Science</i>, -Nov. 25, 1921, p. 520. Since, however, all our knowledge depends -on the validity of consciousness, such a tendency is -suicidal and destructive of all science, whether physical or -psychological. The attempts, therefore, of mechanists, like -Loeb, and behaviorists, like Watson, to dispense with consciousness -overreach themselves. For how can the mechanists -<i>know</i> that there are such things as tropisms, tactisms, or -reaction-systems, how can the behaviorist <i>study</i> such things -as “situations,” “adjustments,” and S-R-bonds, how can the -materialist <i>become aware</i> of the existence of molecules and -atoms, except through the medium of their own conscious or -psychic states? States of matter can be known only by means -of states of mind, and the former, therefore, cannot be any -more real than the latter. “What, after all,” asks Cardinal -Mercier, “is a fact of nature if the mind has not seized, -examined, and assimilated it? True, the information of consciousness -is often precarious. For this reason we do well to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_205">[Pg 205]</span> -aid and control it by scientific apparatus. These apparatus, -however, can only aid, never supplant, introspection. The -telescope does not replace the eye, but extends its vision.” -(“Relation of Exp. Psych. to Philosophy,” pp. 40, 41—Trans. -of Wirth.)</p> - - -<h3>§ 3. The Nature of the Human Soul</h3> - -<p>Now our inner consciousness bears unmistakable witness -to the existence within us of an abiding subject of our thoughts, -feelings, and desires. In biology, the soul is revealed to us -as a binding-principle, that obstructs dissolution of the organism, -and a persistent type that maintains its identity amid an -incessant flux of matter and flow of energy. Clearer still is -testimony of introspective psychology, which reveals all our -psychic activities and states as successive modifications of this -permanent “I,” “self,” “personality,” or “mind,” according -as we choose to express it. Human language proves this most -forcibly; for the intramental facts and data of our conscious -life simply cannot be so much as intelligibly expressed, much -less, defined, or differentiated from the extramental facts of -the physical world, without using terms that include a reference -to this selfsame persistent subject of thought, feeling, and volition. -Even inveterate phenomenalists, like Wundt, James, and -Titchener, are obliged to submit to this inexorable linguistic -law, in common with their unscientific brethren, the generality -of mankind, although they do so only after futile attempts at -a “scientific revision” of grammar, and with much grumbling -over the “barbarous conceptions” of the gross-headed aborigines -who invented human language. Be that as it may, no -formulation of mental facts is possible except in terms that -either denote or connote this permanent source and ground -of human thought and feeling, as is apparent, for example, -from such phrases as: “<i>I</i> think,” “<i>I</i> wish,” “<i>I</i> hear”; “<i>mental</i> -states” (<i>i. e.</i> of the mind); <i>psychic</i> functions (<i>i. e.</i> of the -psyche); <i>subjective</i> idealism (<i>i. e.</i> of the subject); a <i>conscious</i> -act (from <i>con-scire</i>: “to know along with,” because in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_206">[Pg 206]</span> -conscious acts the subject is known along with the object). -The phenomenalists occasionally succeed, in their “most precise” -passages, in omitting to mention the person, knower, or -thinker behind thought, but they do so only at the cost of substituting -<i>personal pronouns</i>, and of thus bringing back through -the window what they have just ejected by way of the door. -Our consciousness, therefore, makes us invincibly aware of the -<i>existence</i> of a superficially variable, but radically unchangeable, -subject of our mental life. It does not, however, tell us -anything concerning the <i>nature</i> of this primary ground of -thought, whether, for example, it is identical with the cerebral -cortex, or something distinct therefrom, whether it is phenomenal -or substantial, dynamic or entitive, spiritual or material. -To decide these questions the unanalyzed factual data of -internal experience do not suffice, but they do suffice to establish -the reality of the ego or subject of thought. Later we -shall see that the analysis of these data, when taken in conjunction -with other facts, forces us to predicate of the soul such -attributes as substantiality, simplicity, and spirituality, but -here they are cited solely for their factual force and not for -their logical implications.</p> - -<p>The phenomenalistic schools of Interactionism and Psychophysical -Parallelism deny the <i>substantiality</i> of the soul, and -seek to resolve it into sourceless and subjectless processes. A -phenomenal mind or soul, however, could not be the primary -ground of mental life, for the simple reason that phenomena -presuppose a supporting medium (otherwise they would be -self-maintaining, and therefore, substantial). Now that which -presupposes cannot be a primary principle, but only a secondary, -or tertiary principle. Consequently, a functional mind -could not be the primary and irreducible ground of mental -life, but only that <i>of which</i> it is a function, whether that something -is a material, or a spiritual substance. For the present, -we are not interested in the nature of this ultimate substrate, -we are content with the fact that it really exists. Phenomenalists -(like Wundt, Paulsen, and James) are very inconsistent<span class="pagenum" id="Page_207">[Pg 207]</span> -when they admit material molecules as the extended substrate -of extramental or physical phenomena, while denying the existence -of the mind or ego as the inextended substrate of -intramental or psychic phenomena. All substance, whether -material or spiritual, is inaccessible to the senses. Even material -substrates are manifested only by their phenomena, -being in themselves supersensible and “metaphysical.” If, -then, the human understanding is inerrant in ascribing a -material substrate to extramental phenomena, then it is -equally inerrant in attributing to intramental phenomena the -intimate substrate called mind, whether this substrate be a -spiritual substance, or a material substance like the substrate -of physical phenomena and that of organic life. As a -matter of fact, the Psychophysical Parallelists actually do -reduce mental phenomena to a material substrate (viz. the -cerebral cortex). Their phenomenalism, which we will refute -presently, is but a disingenuous attempt to gloss over their -fundamental materialism. At all events, they are willing to -admit an ultimate substantial ground of thought and volition, -provided it is not claimed that this substrate is of a spiritual -nature. The <i>bare existence</i> of some substrate, however, is -all that we assert, for the present.</p> - -<p>Before leaving this topic, we wish to call attention to the -fact that the subject of thought and desire is <i>active</i> as well as -<i>passive</i>. Mind, in other words, is not merely a persistent medium -wherein passive mental states are maintained, but an -active and synthetic principle as well. Mental processes, like -those of judgment, reasoning, and recognition, require a unitary -and unifying principle, which actively examines and compares -our impressions and thoughts, in order to discern their relations -to one another and to itself. Materialistic psychology, -in spite of the plain testimony of consciousness, is all for ignoring -the mind in its <i>active rôle</i> as the percipient of the identities -and discrepancies of thought, and for regarding mind -as a mere complex of mental states or transient flux of fleeting -imagery. It is well, then, to bear in mind the indubitable<span class="pagenum" id="Page_208">[Pg 208]</span> -facts of internal experience, to which Cardinal Mercier calls -attention. “English psychology,” he observes, “had attempted -a kind of anatomy of consciousness. It made all consist in -passive sensations or impressions. These impressions came together, -fused, dissociated under the guidance of certain laws, -principally those of similarity and dissimilarity. The whole -process was entirely passive without the intervention of any -active subject. It was psychology without a soul. Now that -things are being examined a little more closely, psychologists -find that there are a lot of conscious states that are without -the slightest doubt active on the part of the subject. There -are a number of mental states upon which the subject brings -his <i>attention</i> to bear, and attention (from <i>ad-tendere</i>) means -activity. Ordinarily we do not know the intensity of a sensation -without <i>comparing</i> it with another preceding one. This -work of comparison, or, as the English call it, discrimination, -is necessarily <i>activity</i>. The Associationists had confounded -the fact of coëxistence with the perception of similarity or -dissimilarity. Supposing even that the coëxistence of two -mental states were entirely passive, it still remains true that -the notion of their similarity or dissimilarity requires an <i>act -of perception</i>. It is absolutely impossible to conceive psychical -life without an <i>active subject</i> which <i>perceives</i> itself as living, -<i>notes</i> the impressions it receives, <i>compares</i> its acts, <i>associates</i> -and <i>dissociates</i> them; in a word, there can be no psychology -without a perceiving subject which psychologists call <i>esprit</i>, -or with the English, ‘mind.’” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, pp. 52-54—italics his.)</p> - -<p>The conflict between phenomenalism and the clear testimony -of consciousness is summed up in the following words of T. -Fontaine: “If all things are phenomena, then we ourselves can -be nothing more than events unknown to one another; in -order, then, that such events may appear to us united, so -that we may be able to declare their succession within us, it -is necessary that something else besides them should exist; -and this something else, this link that binds them together, -this principle that is conscious of their succession, can be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_209">[Pg 209]</span> -nothing else than a non-event or non-phenomenon, namely, a -substance, an ego substantially distinct from sensations.” -(“La sensation et la pensée,” p. 23.)</p> - -<p>For the phenomenalists, mind is but a collective term for the -phenomenal series of our transitory thoughts and feelings. -With Wundt, they discard the substantial or entitive soul for -a dynamic or functional one, “<i>die aktuelle Seele</i>.” (Cf. -Grundz. der Phys. Psych., ed. 5th, III, p. 758 <i>et seq.</i>) -Thought antecedes itself by becoming its own thinker; for -Titchener tells us: “The passing thought would seem to be the -thinker.” (“Pr. of Psych.,” I, p. 342.) We do not think, but -thought thinks; John does not walk, but walking walks; aeroplanes -do not fly, but flight flies; air does not vibrate, but -vibration vibrates. The phenomenalist <i>objectivates his subjective -abstractions</i>, divorces processes from their agents, and -substantializes phenomena. The source of his error is a confusion -of the ideal, with the real, order of things. Because -it is possible for us <i>to consider</i> a thought apart from any -determinate thinker, by means of a mental abstraction, he -very falsely concludes that it is possible for a thought <i>to -exist</i> without a concrete thinker. It would be obviously absurd -to suppose that the so-called Grignard reaction could occur -without definite reactants, merely because we can think of it -without specifying any particular kind of <i>alkyl halide</i>; it -would be preposterous to infer, from the fact that vibration -can be considered independently of any concrete medium such -as air, water, or ether, that therefore a pure vibration can exist -without any vibrating medium; and it is equally absurd to -project an abstraction like subjectless thought into the realm -of existent reality. Abstractions are ideal entities of the mind; -they can have no real existence outside the domain of thought. -Hence to assign a real or extralogical existence to actions, -modalities, and properties, in isolation from the concrete subjects, -to which they belong, is a procedure that is not legitimate -in any other world than Alice’s Wonderland, where, we -are told, the Cheshire Cat left behind his notorious grin long<span class="pagenum" id="Page_210">[Pg 210]</span> -after his benign countenance had faded from view. His faceless -grin is a fitting comment on the neo-Kantian folly of -those who, as L. Chiesa says, “speak of phenomena without -substance, of sensations without subject, of thoughts without -the Ego, to which they belong, imitating in this way the poets, -who personify honor, virtue, beauty, etc. Now all this proceeds -exclusively from a confusion of the subjective abstraction -with the reality, and from the assumption that the phenomenon, -for example, exists without substance, because we -are able (by means of abstraction) to consider the former -independently of the latter.” (“La Base del Realismo,” p. 39.) -In other words, the mind is capable of separating (representatively, -of course, and not physically) its own phenomena -from itself, but this is no warrant for transferring the abstractions -thus formed from the ideal, to the real, order of things.</p> - -<p>So much for the soul’s substantiality, but it is a <i>simple</i>, as -well as a substantial, principle, that is to say, it is inextended, -uncompounded, incorporeal, and not dispersed into quantitative -parts or particles. In other words, it is not a composite -of constituent elements or complex of integral parts, but -something really distinct from the body and pertaining to a -different order of reality than matter. This, as we have seen, -does not necessarily mean that it is immaterial, in the sense of -being intrinsically independent of matter. In a word, simplicity -does not involve spirituality (absolute immateriality). -Not only plant and animal souls, but even mineral entelechies, -are simple, in the negative sense of excluding extension, corporeality -and dispersal into quantitative parts, but they -are, none the less, intrinsically dependent on matter and -are therefore material principles.</p> - -<p>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 organism. In this process, -matter is the variant and entelechy or specific type is the -constant. Hence the two principles are not only distinct, but -separable. Moreover, the soul’s rôle as a binding-principle<span class="pagenum" id="Page_211">[Pg 211]</span> -that obstructs dissolution is incompatible with its dispersal -into quantitative parts; for such a principle, far from being -able to bind, would require binding itself, and could not, -therefore, be the primary source of unification in the organism. -Finally, the soul must be incorporeal; since, if it -were a corporeal mass, it could not be “a formative power -pervading the growing mass as a whole” (Wilson); for this -would involve the penetration of one body by another. Consequently, -the soul is a simple, inextended, incorporeal reality -undispersed into quantitative parts.</p> - -<p>Introspective psychology bears witness to the same truth; -for consciousness reinforced by memory attests <i>the substantial -permanence of our personal identity</i>. We both think and -regulate our practical conduct in accordance with this sense -of unchanging personal identity. All recognition of the past -means simply this, that we perceive the substantial identity -of our present, with our past, selves throughout all the experiences -and vicissitudes of life. There is an inmost core -of our being which is unchanging and which remains always -identical with itself, in spite of the flow of thought and the -metabolic changes of the life-cycle. It is this that gives us -the sense of being always identically the same person, from -infancy to maturity, and from maturity to old age. It is -this that constitutes the thread of continuity which links our -yesterdays with today, and makes us morally responsible -for all the deliberate deeds of a lifetime. Courts of law do -not acquit a criminal because he is in a different frame of -mind from that which induced him to commit murder, nor do -they excuse him on the score that metabolism has made him -a different mass of flesh from that which perpetrated the -crime. Such philosophies as phenomenalism and materialism -are purely academic. Even their advocates dare not reduce -them to consistent practice in everyday life.</p> - -<p>Nor can the cases of <i>alternating personalities</i> be adduced -as counterevidence. In the first place, these cases are psychopathic -and not normal. In the second, they are due, not to a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_212">[Pg 212]</span> -modification of <i>personality itself</i>, but to a modification in the -<i>perception of personality</i>. Since this perception is, as we -shall see, extrinsically dependent on cerebral imagery, any -neuropathic affection is liable to modify the perception of personality -by seriously disturbing the imagery, on which it -depends. But (<i>pace</i> Wundt and James) the perception of -personality is one thing, and personality itself quite another. -Perception does not produce its objects, but presupposes them, -and self-perception is no exception to this rule. Introspection, -therefore, does not create our personality, but reveals and -represents it. If then to the intuition of consciousness our personality -appears as an unchanging principle that remains -always substantially identical with itself, it follows that this -perception must be terminated by something more durable -than a flux of transient molecules or a stream of fleeting -thought. Unless this perceptive act has for its object some -unitary and uniformly persistent reality distinct from our composite, -corruptible bodies, and not identified with our transitory -thoughts, this sense of permanent personal identity -would be utterly impossible. Materialism, which recognizes -nothing more in man than a decaying organism, a mere vortex -of fluent molecules, is at a loss to account for our consciousness -of being always the same person. Phenomenalism, which -identifies mind or self with the “thought-stream,” is equally -impotent to account for this sense of our abiding sameness.</p> - -<p>James’ attempt at a phenomenalistic explanation of the -persistent continuity of self, on the assumption that each -passing thought knows its receding predecessor and becomes -known, in turn, by its successor, is puerile. -To pass over other flaws, this absurd theory encounters an -insuperable difficulty in <i>sleep</i>, which interrupts, for a considerable -interval, the flow of conscious thought. Thought -is a transient reality, which passes, so far as its actuality is -concerned, and can only remain in the form of a permanent -effect. Unless, therefore, there were some <i>persistent medium</i> -in which the last waking thought could leave a permanent<span class="pagenum" id="Page_213">[Pg 213]</span> -vestige of itself, the process of relaying the past could never -be resumed, and we would lose our personal identity every -twenty-four hours. The mind, or subject of thought, then, -must be an abiding and unitary principle distinct from our -composite bodies, and from our manifold and fleeting -thoughts.</p> - -<p>Finally, to the two foregoing attributes of the human soul -(substantiality and simplicity), we must add a third and -crowning attribute, namely, <i>spirituality</i>. It is this, and this -alone, that differentiates the human from the bestial soul, -which latter is but an incomplete complement of matter, incapable -of existence apart from matter, and doomed to perish -with the dissolution of the organism, as the cylindrical form -of a candle perishes with the consumption of the wax by the -flame.</p> - -<p>All the psychic activities of the brute, such as sensation, -object-perception, imagination, associative memory, sensual -emotion, etc., are organic functions of the sensitivo-nervous -type. In all of them the agent and recipient is not the soul -alone, but the psycho-organic composite of soul and organism, -that is, the soul-informed sensory and central neurons of the -cerebrospinal system. The sensory neurons are nerve cells -that transmit centerward the excitations of physical stimuli -received by the external sense organs or receptors, in which -their axon-fibers terminate. These receptors and sensory -neurons are extended material organs proportioned and specialized -for receiving physical impressions from external -bodies, either directly through surface-contact with the bodies -themselves or their derivative particles (<i>e.g.</i> in touch, taste -and smell), or indirectly through surface-contact with an -extended vibrant medium such as air, water, or ether (<i>e.g.</i> in -hearing and sight). The central neurons of the cerebral -cortex are, as it were, the tablets, upon which the excitations -transmitted thither by the sensory neurons, record the extended -neurograms that constitute the physical basis of the -concrete imagery of memory and imagination. Interior senses,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_214">[Pg 214]</span> -then, like memory and imagination, merely continue and -combine what was preëxistent in the exterior senses. Their -composite imagery is rigidly proportioned to the extended -neurograms imprinted on the cerebral neurons, and these -neurograms, in turn, are determined both qualitatively and -quantitatively by the physical impressions received by the -receptors, and these impressions, finally, are exactly proportioned -to the action of the material stimuli in contact with the -receptors. Thus the composite images of imagination as well -as those of direct perception are proportioned to the underlying -neurograms of the cortex and correspond exactly, as regards -quality, intensity, and extensity, to the original stimulus affecting -the external receptors. Hence men born blind can -never imagine color, nor can men born deaf ever imagine sound. -An inextended principle, such as the discarnate soul, cannot -receive or record impressions from extended vibrant media, or -from extended corporeal masses. For this the soul requires the -intrinsic coöperation of material receptors. Now, the highest -cognitive and appetitive functions of the brute (<i>e.g.</i> sense-perception -and emotion) are, as has been stated, of the sensitivo-nervous -or psycho-organic type, that is, they are functions in -which the material organism intimately coöperates; brute animals -give no indication of having so much as a single function, -which proceeds from the soul alone and which is not communicated -to the organism. Hence the bestial soul is “totally immersed” -in matter; as regards both operation and existence, it -is “intrinsically dependent” upon its material complement, the -organism. It never operates save in conjunction with the latter, -and its <i>sole reason for existence</i> is adequately summed up -in saying that it exists, not for its own sake, but merely <i>to -vivify and sensitize the organism</i>. Consequently, the brute -soul, though inextended and incorporeal, belongs, not to the -spiritual, but to the material, order of things.</p> - -<p>Is the human soul equally material in nature, or does it -belong to the spiritual category of being? The state of the -question has long since been formulated for us by Aristotle:<span class="pagenum" id="Page_215">[Pg 215]</span> -“A further difficulty,” he says, “arises 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 itself: a -problem which it is imperative, and yet by no means easy, -to solve. It would appear that in most cases it neither acts -nor is acted upon apart from the body: as, <i>e.g.</i>, in anger, -courage, desire, and sensation in general. Thought, if anything, -would seem to be peculiar to the soul. Yet if thought -is a sort of imagination, or something not independent of -imagination, it will follow that not even thought is independent -of the body. If, then, there be any functions or affections -of the soul that are peculiar to it, it will be possible -for the soul to be separated from the body: if, on the other -hand, there is nothing peculiar to it, the soul will not be -capable of separate existence.” (“Peri Psyches,” Bk. I, -chap. I, 9.) We shall see that the human soul has certain -operations which it discharges independently of the intrinsic -coägency of the organism, <i>e.g.</i>, abstract thought (not to be -confounded with the concrete imagery of the imagination) -and deliberate volition (to be distinguished from the urge -of the sensual appetite). Hence, over and above the organic -functions, which it discharges in conjunction with the material -organism, the human soul has superorganic functions, of which -it is itself, in its own right, the exclusive agent and recipient. -In other words, it exists <i>for its own sake</i> and not merely to -perfect the body.</p> - -<p>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 experience. The axiom in -question is the following: “The nature of an agent is revealed -by its action”; or, to phrase it somewhat differently: “Every -being operates after the same manner that it exists.” The -factual data, to which reference is made, are man’s higher -psychic functions, in which the soul alone is the active cause -and receptive subject, namely: the rational or superorganic -functions of thinking and willing. The argument may be for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_216">[Pg 216]</span>mulated -thus: Every agent exists after the same manner that -it operates. But in rational cognition and volition the soul -acts without the co-agency of the material organism. Therefore -the human soul can exist without the coexistence of the -material organism. But this is tantamount to saying that it -is a spiritual reality irreducible to matter and incapable of -derivation from matter. For we define that as spiritual, which -exists, or is, at least, capable of existing, without matter. Consequently, -the human soul is a supermaterial and immortal -principle, which does not need the body to maintain itself in -existence, and can, on that account, survive the death and dissolution -of its material complement, the organism. Such a -reality, as we have seen, cannot be a product of evolution, but -can only come into existence by way of creation.</p> - -<p>The axiom, that activity is the expression or manifestation -of the entity which underlies it, needs but little elucidation. -In the genesis of human knowledge, the dynamic is prior to -both the static and the entitive. We deduce the nature of the -cause from the changes or effects that it produces. Action, -in short, is the primary datum upon which our knowledge -of being rests. It is the spectrum of solar light emitted by -them, which enables us to determine the nature of the chemical -elements present in the distant Sun. It is the reaction of an -unknown compound with a test reagent that furnishes the -chemist with a clue to its composition and structure. 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 latter, etc., etc. So much for the -axiom. Regarding the psychological facts, a more lengthy exposition -is required. To begin with, there is <i>prima facie</i> evidence -against the contention that the higher psychic functions -in man are independent of the organism. Injury and degeneration -of the cerebral cortex result (very often, at least) in -insanity and idiocy. Reason, therefore, is in some way dependent -upon the organism. Babies, too, are incapable of -rational thought until such a time as the nervous system is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_217">[Pg 217]</span> -fully developed. Obviously, then, rational functions cannot -be spiritual, inasmuch as they are not independent of the -organism.</p> - -<p>This time-honored objection of materialists is based on a -misapprehension. It falsely assumes that spirituality excludes -<i>every</i> kind of dependence upon a material organism, -and that our assertion of the soul’s independence of matter -is an unqualified assertion. This, however, is far from being -the case. It is only <i>intrinsic</i> (subjective), and not <i>extrinsic</i> -(objective), independence of the organism which is here affirmed. -An analogy from the sense of sight will serve to make -clear the meaning of this distinction. In the act of seeing a -tree, for example, our sight is dependent upon a twofold corporeal -element, namely, the <i>eye</i> and the <i>tree</i>. It is dependent -upon the eye as upon a corporeal element intrinsic to the visual -sense, the eye being a constituent part of the agent and subject -of vision; for it is not the soul alone which sees, but -rather the soul-informed retina and neurons of the psycho-organic -composite. The eye enters as an essential ingredient -into the intimate constitution of the visual sense. It is a -<i>constituent part</i> of the <i>specific cause</i> of vision, and it can -therefore be said with perfect propriety that the <i>eye sees</i>. -Such dependence upon a material element is called intrinsic -or subjective dependence, and is utterly incompatible with -spirituality on the part of that which is thus dependent. -But the dependence of sight upon an external corporeal factor, -like a tree or any other visible object, is of quite a different -nature. 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 vision. True the -tree, which is seen, is coïnstrumental as a provoking stimulus -and an objective exemplar, but its concurrence is of an extrinsic -nature, not to be confounded with the intrinsic co-agency -of the eye in the act of vision. Hence, in no sense -whatever can the tree be said to see; for the tree is merely -an object, not the principal and specific cause, of vision.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_218">[Pg 218]</span> -When the dependence of an agent upon a corporeal element -is of this sort, it is termed extrinsic or objective dependence. -Such dependence upon a material element is <i>perfectly compatible -with spirituality</i>, which does, indeed, exclude all materiality -from the specific agent and subject of a psychic act, -but does not necessarily exclude materiality from the object -contemplated in such an act. Hence the fact that the thinking -soul must abstract its rational concepts from the concrete -imagery of a cerebral sense, like the imagination, in no wise -detracts from its spirituality, because the dependence of abstract -thought upon such imagery is objective or extrinsic, -and not subjective or intrinsic.</p> - -<p>Psychologists of the sensationalist school have striven to -obscure the fundamental distinction which exists between rational -thought and the concomitant cerebral imagery. It -is, however, far too manifest to escape attention, as the healthy -reaction of the modern school of Würzburg indicates. “It -cost me great resolution,” says Dr. F. E. Schultze, a member -of this school, “to say, that, on the basis of immediate experiment, -appearances and sensible apprehensions are not -the only things that can be experienced. But finally I had -to resign myself to my fate.” (“Beitrag zur Psychologie des -Zeitbewusstseins,” p. 277.)</p> - -<p>But thought is not only distinct from imagery, often there -is marked contrast between the two, both as regards subjective, -and objective, characters. Thus our thought may be -perfectly clear, precise, and pertinent, while the accompanying -imagery is obscure, fragmentary, and irrelevant. “What -enters into consciousness so fragmentarily, so sporadically, so -very accidentally as our mental images,” exclaims Karl -Bühler (also of Würzburg), “can not be looked upon as the -well-knitted, continuous content of our thinking.” (<i>Archiv. -für die ges. Psychol.</i>, 9, 1907, p. 317.) The same contrast -exists with respect to their objective characters. Imagination -represents by means of one and the same image what reason -represents by means of two distinct concepts, <i>e.g.</i> an oasis<span class="pagenum" id="Page_219">[Pg 219]</span> -and a mirage; and, <i>vice versa</i>, reason represents under the -single general concept of a rose objects that imagination is -forced to represent by means of two distinct images, <i>e.g.</i>, a -yellow, and a white rose. Imagery depicts only the superficial -or exterior properties of an object, whereas thought -penetrates beneath the phenomenal surface to interior properties -and supersensible relationships. The sensory percept -apprehends the existence of a fact, while the rational concept -analyzes its nature. Hence sense-perception is concerned with -the <i>reality of existence</i>, while thought is concerned with the -<i>reality of essence</i>.</p> - -<p>Certain American psychologists employ the term <i>imageless -thought</i> to designate abstract concepts. The expression is -liable to be misunderstood. It should not be construed as -excluding all concomitance and concurrence of sensible imagery, -in relation to the process of thought. What is really -meant is that sensible appearances do not make up the sum-total -of our internal experiences, but that we are also aware -of mental acts and states which are not reducible to imagery. -In other words, we experience thought; and thought and imagery, -though concomitant, are not commensurable. The clarity -and coherence of thought does not depend on the clarity -or germaneness of the accompanying imagery, nor is it ever -adequately translatable into terms of that imagery. Thus the -universal triangle of geometry, which is not right, nor oblique, -nor isosceles, neither scalene nor equilateral, neither large nor -small, neither here nor there, neither now nor then, is not visualizable -in terms of concrete imagery, although we are clearly -conscious of its significance in geometrical demonstrations. -Imagery differs according to the person, one man being a -visualist, another an audist, another a tactualist, another a -motor-verbalist, etc. But thought is the same in all, and -consequently it is thought, and not imagery, which we convey -by means of speech. Helen Keller, whose imagery is mainly -motor and tactile, can exchange views with an audist or visualist -on the subject of geometry, even though the amount<span class="pagenum" id="Page_220">[Pg 220]</span> -of imagery which she has in common with such persons is -negligible. “<i>Eine Bedeutung</i>,” says Bühler, “<i>kann man -überhaupt nicht vorstellen, sondern nur wissen</i>,” and Binet, -in the last sentence of his “L’Étude expérimentale de l’intelligence,” -formulates the following conclusion: “Finally—and -this is the main fact, fruitful in consequences for the philosophers—the -entire logic of thought escapes our imagery.”</p> - -<p>Nevertheless, thought does not originate in the total absence -of imagery, but requires a minimal substrate of sensible -images, upon which it is objectively, if not subjectively, dependent. -The nature of this objective dependence is explained -by the Scholastic theory concerning the origin of concepts. -According to this theory, the genesis of our general and abstract -knowledge is as follows: (1) We begin with sense-perception, -say of boats differing in shape, size, color, material, -location, etc. (2) 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 particularity, -individuality, and materiality, as existent here and -now, or there and then, as constructed of such and -such material (<i>e.g.</i>, of wood, or steel, or iron, or concrete), -as having determinate sizes, shapes, and tonnages, -as painted white, or gray, or green, as propelled by oar, or -sail, or turbine, etc. (3) Then the <i>active intellect</i> exerts -its abstractive influence upon this concrete imagery, accentuating -the essential features which are common to all, and -suppressing the individuating features which are peculiar to -this or that boat, so that the essence of a boat may appear -to the <i>cognitive intellect</i> without its concomitant individuation—the -essence of a boat being, in this way, isolated from -the peculiarities thereof and its various qualities from their -subject (representatively, of course, and not physically). -(4) The imagery thus predisposed, being no longer immersed -in matter, but dematerialized by the dispositive action of the -active intellect, becomes coïnstrumental with the latter in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_221">[Pg 221]</span> -producing a determination in the cognitive intellect. (5) -Upon receiving this determination, the cognitive intellect, -which has hitherto been, as it were, a blank tablet with nothing -written upon it, 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 <i>dispositive</i>, -inasmuch as it <i>presents</i> what is common to all the boats -perceived without their differentiating peculiarities; the abstractive -act of the cognitive intellect, however, is <i>cognitive</i>, -inasmuch as it <i>considers</i> the essence of a boat without -considering its individuation. Such is the abstractive process -by which our general and abstract concepts are formed. From -a comparison of two concepts of this sort the process of judgment -arises, and from the comparison of two concepts with -a third arises the process of mediate inference or reasoning. -Volition, too, is consequent upon conception, and hence an -act of the will (our rational appetite), such as the desire of -sailing in a boat, entails the preëxistence of some conceptual -knowledge of the nature of a boat. Volition, therefore, presupposes -thought, and thought presupposes imagination, which -supplies the sensible imagery that undergoes the aforesaid -process of analysis or abstraction. Such imagery, however, -is a function of the cerebral cortex, and, for this reason, the -normal exercise of the imagination presupposes the cerebral -cortex in a normal physiological condition; and anything -that disturbs this normal condition of the cortex will directly -disturb the imagery of the imagination, and therefore -indirectly impede the normal exercise of conceptual thought, -which is abstracted from such imagery. Hence it is clear -that the activity of both the intellect and the will is objectively -dependent upon the organic activity of the imagination, -and, in consequence, <i>indirectly</i> dependent upon the -physiological condition of the cerebral cortex, which is the -organ of the imagination. Since, however, this dependence -is objective rather than subjective, it does not, as we have -seen, conflict with the spirituality of rational thought.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_222">[Pg 222]</span></p> - -<p>The nature of conceptual thought is such as to exclude the -participation of matter as a constituent of its specific agent -and receptive subject. The objects of a cerebral sense like -the imagination are endowed with extension, color, shape, -volume, mass, temperature, and other physical properties, in -virtue of which they can set up vibrations in an extended -medium or modify an extended organ by immediate physical -contact. But, while imagination makes us conscious of objects -capable of stimulating extended material organs, the -objects, of which we are conscious in abstract thinking, are -divested of all the sensible properties, extension, and specific -energies, which would enable them to modify a material -neuron, or produce a physical impression upon a material -receptor of any kind whatever. Between an extended material -receptor, like a sense-organ or a cerebral neuron, and -the nondimensional, dematerialized object or content of an abstract -thought, like science, heroism, or morality, there is no -conceivable proportion. How can a material organ be affected -by what is supersensible, unextended, imponderable, -invisible, intangible, and uncircumscribed by the limitations -of space and time? Extended receptors are necessary for -picking up the vibrations of a tridimensional medium (like -air or ether), and they are, likewise, essential for the reception -of impressions produced by surface-contact with an exterior -corporeal mass. In short, sensory neurons are needed -to receive and transmit inward the quantitative and measurable -excitations of the material stimuli of the external world, -and central neurons are required as tablets upon which these -incoming excitations may imprint <i>extended neurograms</i>, that -are proportionate in intensity and extensity to the external -stimulus apprehended, and that underlie and determine the -concrete imagery (of which they are the physical basis). But -when it comes to perceiving and representing the <i>meaning</i> -of duty, truth, error, cause, effect, psychology, means, end, -entity, logarithms, etc., our mind can derive no benefit from -the coöperation of a material organ. In such thinking we<span class="pagenum" id="Page_223">[Pg 223]</span> -are conscious of that which could not make an impression -nor leave a record upon material receptors like neurons. 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 nondimensional, unextended, intangible -baseball with a catcher’s glove. Hence the services of -material centers and receptors may be dispensed with, so far -as rational thought is concerned. Rational thought cannot -utilize the intrinsic coägency of the organism, and it is -therefore a superorganic or spiritual function.</p> - -<p>That conceptual thought is in no wise communicated to -the organism, but subjected in the spiritual soul alone, is -likewise apparent from the data furnished by introspection. -The conceiving mind apprehends even material objects according -to an abstract or spiritualized mode of representation. -In other words, in conceiving material objects we expurgate -them of their materiality and material conditions, endowing -them with a dematerialized mode of mental existence which -they could never have, if subjected in their own physical -matter, or in the organized matter of the cerebral cortex. -Thus, in forming our concept of a material object like a boat, -we spiritualize the boat by separating (representatively, of -course, and not physically) its nature or essence from the -determinate matter (<i>e.g.</i>, wood, or steel) of which it is made, -and by divesting it of the material and concrete conditions -which define not only its physical existence outside of us, but -also its imaginal existence within us as a concrete image in -our imagination. In other words, we isolate the type or -form of a given object from its material substrate and liberate -it from the limiting material and concrete individuation, -which confine it to a single material subject and localize -it definitely in space and time. Now, it is axiomatic that -whatever is received is received according to the nature of -the receiver. Water, for example, assumes the form of the -receptacle into which it is poured, and a picture painted upon -canvas is necessarily extended according to the extension of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_224">[Pg 224]</span> -the canvas. If, therefore, our intellect endows even the material -objects, which it perceives, with a dematerialized or -spiritualized mode of representation, it follows that the intellect -itself is a spiritual power and not an organic sense -immersed in concretifying and individualizing matter. Certainly, -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 (which, in -point of fact, is absolutely impotent to imagine anything except -concrete, singular things in all their determinate individuation -and quantification). Thought, then, with its <i>abstract -mode of presentation</i>, cannot, like imagery, be subjected -in the animated or soul-informed cortex, but must have -the spiritual mind alone as its receptive subject. Our abstract -or dematerialized mode of conceiving material objects is a -subjective character of thought, proceeding from, and manifesting, -the spirituality of the human mind, which represents -even material objects in a manner that accords with its own -spiritual nature.</p> - -<p>But it is not only in the process of abstraction, but also -in that of <i>reflection</i>, that rational thought manifests its superorganic -or spiritual character. The human mind knows that -it knows and understands that it understands, thinks of its -own thoughts and of itself as the agent and subject of its -thinking. It is conscious of its own conscious acts, that is -to say, it reflects upon itself and its own acts, becoming an -object to itself. The thinking ego becomes an object of -observation on the part of the thinking ego, which acquires self-knowledge -by this process of reflective thought. In introspection, -that which observes is identical with that which is -observed. Now such a capacity of self-observation cannot -reside in matter, cannot be spatially commensurate with a -material organ nor inseparably attached thereto. It is possible -only to an immaterial or spiritual principle, devoid of -mass and extension, and not subject to the law of the im<span class="pagenum" id="Page_225">[Pg 225]</span>penetrability -of matter. In virtue of the law of impenetrability, -no two material particles, no two bodies, no two integral -parts of the same body, can occupy one and the same -place. One part of a body can, indeed, act on another part -extrinsic to itself; but one and the same part or particle -cannot act upon itself. To become at once observed and -observer, a material organ would have to split itself in two, -so that the part watched could be distinct from, and spatially -external to, the part watching. The power of perfect reflection, -therefore, must reside in the spiritual soul, and cannot be -bound to, and coëxtensive with, a material organ. Only in -this supposition can there be a return of the subject upon -and into itself, only in this supposition can there be that -identification of observed and observer implied by the process -of reflection. H. Gründer, in his “Psychology without a Soul,” -gives a graphic <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> of the contrary assumption: -“A fairy tale,” he says, “tells of a knight who was -beheaded by his victorious foe. But, strange to relate, the -vanquished knight rose to his feet, seized his severed head and -bore it off, as in triumph. The most remarkable part, however, -of the story is that with a last effort of gallantry he -took his own head, and—kissed its brow. The climax of this -fairy tale is no more absurd than the assumption that a material -organ can know itself and philosophize on itself. Only if -we admit with the scholastics a simple soul intrinsically independent -of any bodily organism, can we explain the possibility -of perfect psychological reflexion.” (<i>Cf.</i> pp. 193, 194.)</p> - -<p>For the rest the impossibility of introspection on the part -of a material organ is so evident that the materialists themselves -freely concede it, and being unwilling to admit the -spirituality of the human intellect, they are forced to resort to -the disingenuous expedient of denying the <i>fact</i> of reflection -on the part of the human mind. “It is obvious,” says -Auguste Comte, “that by an invincible necessity the human -mind can observe directly all phenomena except its own. We<span class="pagenum" id="Page_226">[Pg 226]</span> -understand that a man can observe himself as a moral agent, -because in that case he can watch himself under the action -of the passions which animate him, precisely because the -organs that are the seat of those passions are distinct from -those that are destined for the functions of observation.... -But it is manifestly impossible to observe intellectual phenomena -whilst they are being produced. The individual thinking -cannot divide himself in two, so that one half may think -and the other watch the process. Since the organ observing -and the one to be observed are identical, there can be no -self-observation.” (“Cours de philosophie positive,” lière -leçon.) But an argument is of no avail against a fact, and, as -a matter of fact, we do reflect. It is by introspection or -reflective thought that we discriminate between our present -and our past thoughts, and become conscious of our own consciousness. -Our intellect even reflects upon its own act of -reflection, and so on indefinitely, so that, unless we are prepared -to accept the absurd alternative of an infinite series -of thinkers, we have no choice but to identify the subject knowing -with the subject known. That our intellect is conscious -of its own operations and attentive to its own thoughts, is an -evident fact of internal experience, and it is preposterous to -tilt against facts by means of syllogisms. When Zeno concocted -his aprioristic “proof” of the impossibility of translatory -movement, his sophism was refuted by the simple -process of walking—<i>solvitur ambulando</i>. In like manner, -the Comtean sophism concerning the impossibility of reflection -is refuted by the simple act of mental reflection—<i>solvitur -reflectendo</i>. For the rest, we readily concede Comte’s contention -that an organ is incapable of reflection or self-observation, -but we deny his tacit assumption that our cognitive -powers are <i>all</i> of the organic type. Our intellect, which -attends to its own phenomena, thinks of its own thought and -reasons upon its own reasoning, cannot be bound to, or coextensive -with, a material organ, but must be free from any -corporeal organ and rooted in a spiritual principle. In a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_227">[Pg 227]</span> -word, reflective thought is a superorganic function expressing -the spiritual nature of the human mind.</p> - -<p>Another proof of the superorganic nature of the human -intellect as compared with sentiency, both exterior and interior, -is one adduced by Aristotle himself: “But that the impassivity -of the sense,” he says, “is different from that of -intellect is clear if we look at the sense organs and at sense. -The sense loses its power to perceive, if the sensible object has -been too intense; thus it cannot hear sound after very loud -noises, and after too powerful colors or odors it can neither see -nor smell. But the intellect, when it has been thinking on an -object of intense thought, is not less, but even more, able to -think of inferior objects. For sense-perception is not independent -of the body, whereas the intellect is.” (“Peri -Psyches,” Bk. III, Ch. iv, 5.)</p> - -<p>This temporary incapacitation of the senses consequent upon -powerful stimulation is a common experience embalmed in such -popular expressions as “a deafening noise,” “a blinding flash,” -“a dazzling light,” “a numbing pain,” etc. 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 -stimulus. On the contrary, the more intense the previous -stimulus has been, the greater must be the increment added to -the subsequent stimulus before it can produce a perceptible -increase in the intensity of sensation. In short, stimulation -of the senses temporarily decreases their sensitivity with reference -to supervening stimuli. The reason for this momentary -loss of the power to react normally is evidently due to the -organic nature of the senses. Their activity entails a definite -and rigidly proportionate process of destructive metabolism in -their bodily substrate, the organism. In other words, the exercise -of sense-perception involves a commensurate process of -decomposition in the neural tissue, which must afterwards be -compensated by a corresponding assimilation of nutrient material, -before the sense can again react with its pristine vigor. -This process of recuperation requires time and temporarily<span class="pagenum" id="Page_228">[Pg 228]</span> -inhibits the reactive power of the sense in question, the duration -of this repair work being determined by the amount of -neural decomposition caused by the reaction of the sense to -the previous stimulus. When, therefore, a weaker stimulus -supervenes in immediate succession to a stronger one, the sense -is incapable of perceiving it. All organic activity, in short, -such as sense-perception and imagination, is rigidly regulated -by the metabolic law of waste and repair.</p> - -<p>With the intellect, however, the case is quite different. The -intellect is neither debilitated nor stupefied by the discovery of -truths that are exceptionally profound, or unusually abstruse, -or strikingly evident; nor is it temporarily incapacitated -thereby from understanding simpler, easier, or less evident -truths. On the contrary, the more comprehensive, the more -penetrating, the more perspicuous, the more sublime our intellectual -vision is, so much the more is our intellect invigorated -and enthused in its pursuit of truth, and its knowledge of the -highest truths renders it not less, but more, apt for the understanding -of simple and ordinary truths. Obviously, then, the -intellect is not bound to a corruptible organ like the senses, -but has for its subject a spiritual principle that is intrinsically -independent of the organism.</p> - -<p>In opposition to this contention, it may be urged that a prolonged -exercise of intellectual activity results in the condition -commonly known as brain-fag. But this fatigue of the brain -is not, as a matter of fact, the <i>direct</i> effect of intellectual -activity; rather it is the direct effect of the activity of the -imagination, and only <i>indirectly</i> the effect of intellectual -thought. The intellect, as we have seen, requires a constant -flow of associated and aptly coördinated imagery as the substrate -of its contemplation. Now, the imagination, which -supplies this imagery, is a cerebral sense, whose activity is -directly proportionate to, and commensurate with, the metabolic -processes at work in the cortical cells. Its exercise is -directly dependent upon the energy released by the decomposition -of the cerebral substance. Prolonged activity of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_229">[Pg 229]</span> -imagination, therefore, involves the destruction of a considerable -amount of the cortical substance, and results in temporary -incapacitation or paralysis of the imagination, which must -then be compensated by a process of repair in the cortical -neurons, before the imagination can resume its normal mode of -functioning. Brain-fag, then, is due to the activity of the -imagination rather than that of the intellect. That such is -the case appears from the fact that after the initial exertion, -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 intellect, -the latter is henceforth enabled to proceed with ease along -the path of a given science, its further progress being smooth -and unhampered. Once the preliminary work imposed upon -the imagination is finished, the sense of effort ceases and intellectual -investigation and study may subsequently reach the -highest degrees of concentration and intensity, without involving -corresponding degrees of fatigue or depression on the part -of the cerebral imagination, just as, conversely speaking, 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 minimum, <i>e. g.</i>, in the task of memorizing a poem, or recitation. -Here, in the all but complete absence of intellectual -activity, the same fatigue results as that induced by a prolonged -period of analytic study or investigation, in which -imaginative activity and rational thinking are concomitant. -The point to be noted, in this latter case, is that the intellect -does not show the same dependence upon the physiological -vicissitudes as the imagination. The imagery of our imagination, -being rigidly correlated with the metabolic processes of -waste and repair at work in the cerebral cortex, manifests -correspondingly variable degrees of intensity and integrity, -but the intensity of thought is not dependent upon this alternation -of excitation and inhibition in the cortex. Hence, while -the concomitant imagery is fitful, sporadic, and fragmentary,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_230">[Pg 230]</span> -intellectual thought itself is steady, lucid, and continuous. -The intensity of thought does not vary with the fluctuations of -neural metabolism, and may reach a maximum without -involving corresponding fatigue in the brain. The brain-fag, -therefore, which results from study does not correspond to the -height of our intellectual vision, but is due to the intensity of -the concomitant imaginative process.</p> - -<p>The intellect, therefore, is not subject to the metabolic laws -which rigidly regulate organic functions like sense-perception -and imagination. Man’s capacity for logical thought is frequently -unaffected by the decline of the organism which sets -in after maturity. All organic functions, however, such as -sight, hearing, sense-memory, are impaired in exact proportion -to the deterioration of the organism, which is the inevitable -sequel of old age. The intellectual powers, on the contrary, -remain unimpaired, so long as the cortex is sound enough to -furnish the required minimum of imagery, upon which intellectual -activity is objectively dependent. There are, in fact, -many cases on record where men have remained perfectly sane -and rational, despite the fact that notable portions of the -cerebral cortex had been destroyed by accident or disease -(<i>e. g.</i>, tumors). Intellectual thought, therefore, is a superorganic -function, having its source in a spiritual principle and -not in a corruptible organ.</p> - -<p>Such is the spiritualism of Aristotle. That this conception -differs profoundly from the ultraspiritualism of Descartes, it -is scarcely necessary to remark. The position assumed by the -latter was always untenable, but it is now, more than ever, -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 states. Such facts are exploited by materialists -as arguments against spiritualism, though it is evident -that they have force only against Cartesian spiritualism, -and are bereft of all relevance with respect to Aristotelian -spiritualism, which they leave utterly intact and unscathed.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_231">[Pg 231]</span> -In the latter system, sense-perception, imagination, and emotion -are acknowledged to be directly dependent on the organism. -Again, spiritual functions like thinking and willing are -regarded as objectively or extrinsically dependent upon the -imagination, which, in turn, is directly dependent on a material -organ, namely: the brain. Hence even the rational operations -of the mind are indirectly dependent upon the cerebral cortex. -The spiritualism of Aristotle, therefore, by reason of its doctrine -concerning the direct dependence of the lower, and the -indirect dependence of the higher, psychic functions upon the -material organism, is able to absorb into its own system all -the supposedly hostile facts amassed by Materialism, thereby -rendering them futile and inconsequential as arguments -against the spirituality of the human soul. In confronting this -philosophy, the materialistic scientist finds himself disarmed -and impotent, and it is not to be wondered at, that, after -indulging in certain abusive epithets and a few cant phrases, -such as “metaphysics” or “medieval” (invaluable words!), -he prudently retires from the lists without venturing to so -much as break a lance in defense of his favorite dogma, that -nothing is spiritual, because all is matter. In this predicament, -the Cartesian caricature proves a boon to the materialist, -as furnishing him with the adversary he prefers, a man -of straw, and enabling him to demonstrate his paltry tin-sword -prowess. Of a truth, Descartes performed an inestimable -service for these modern “assassins of the soul,” when he -relieved them of the necessity of crossing swords with the -hylomorphic dualism of Aristotle by the substitution of a -far less formidable antagonist, namely, the psychophysical -dualism of mind and matter.</p> - -<p>The proofs advanced, in the previous pages, for the spirituality -of the human soul are based upon the superorganic -function of rational thought. A parallel series of arguments -can be drawn from the superorganic function of rational -volition. The cognitive intellect has for its necessary sequel -the appetitive will, which may be defined as spiritual tendency<span class="pagenum" id="Page_232">[Pg 232]</span> -inclining us toward that which the intellect apprehends as -good. The objects of such volition are frequently abstract and -immaterial ideals transcendent to the sphere of concrete and -material goods, <i>e. g.</i>, virtue, glory, religion, etc. The will of -man, moreover, is free, in the sense that it can choose among -various motives, and is not compelled to follow the line of -least resistance, as is the electric current when passing through -a shunt of steel and copper wire. Like the self-knowing intellect, -the self-determining will is capable of reflective action, -that is, it can will to will. Having its own actions within its -own control, it is itself the principal cause of its own decisions, -and thus becomes responsible for its conduct, wherever its -choice has been conscious and deliberate. External actions, -which escape the control of the will, and even internal actions -of the will itself, which are indeliberate, are not free and do -not entail responsibility. Our courts of law and our whole -legal system rests on the recognition of man’s full responsibility -for his deliberate voluntary acts. The distinction -between premeditated murder, which is punished, and unpremeditated -homicide, which is not, is purely moral, and not -physical, depending for its validity upon the fact of -human freedom. It is this exemption from physical determinism, -that makes man a moral agent, subject to duties, -amenable to moral suasion, and capable of merit or demerit. -Finally, the will of man is insatiable, invincible, and inexhaustible. -The aspirations of the will are boundless, whereas -our animal appetites are easily cloyed by gratification. There -is no freezing point for human courage. The animal or sensual -appetites wear out and decline with old age, but virtue and -will-power do not necessarily diminish with the gradual deterioration -of the material organism. Willing, therefore, is a -superorganic or spiritual function. Activity which is bound -to a material organ cannot tend towards supersensible ideals, -cannot escape physical determinism, cannot achieve the reflective -feat of spurring itself to action, cannot avoid exhaustion, -cannot elude rigid regulation by the laws of organic metab<span class="pagenum" id="Page_233">[Pg 233]</span>olism. -For this reason, the brute, whose psychic functions are -of the organic type exclusively, is destitute of freedom, morality, -and responsibility. Deliberate volition, therefore, like -conceptual thought, has its source and subject in man’s spiritual -soul, and is not a function of the material organism.<a id="FNanchor_12" href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_234">[Pg 234]</span></p> - -<p>Two additional facts may be cited as bringing into strong -relief the basic contrast existing between the higher or rational, -and the lower or animal psychosis in man. The first is the -occurrence of irreconcilable opposition or conflict. The imagination, -for example, antagonizes the intellect by visualizing -as an extended speck of chalk or charcoal the mathematical -point, which the intellect conceives as destitute of extension -and every other property except position. Similarly, the -effort of our rational will to be faithful to duty and to uphold<span class="pagenum" id="Page_235">[Pg 235]</span> -ideals is antagonized by the sensual impulses of the animal -appetite, which seek immediate gratification at the expense -of remote considerations that are higher. Such antagonism -is incompatible with any identification of the warring factors, -that is, of our rational, with our sentient, functions; for, wherever -opposition is in evidence, there <i>a fortiori</i> a real distinction -must be recognized. The understanding and the will, therefore, -differ radically from sense and sensual appetite. The -second significant fact is the domination exerted by reason -and will over the cognitive and appetitive functions of the -organic or sentient order. Our intellect criticizes, evaluates -and corrects the data of sense-perception, it discriminates between -objective percepts and illusions and hallucinations, it -distinguishes dreams from realities, it associates and dissociates -imagery for purposes of comparison, contrast, illustration, -or analysis. Moreover, it not only shows its superiority to -sense by supervising, revising, and appraising the data of -sentient experience, but it manifests its discontent at the inaccuracy -and limitation of sense by the invention and use of -instrumentation (<i>e. g.</i> ear trumpets, spectacles, microscopes, -telescopes, spectroscopes, polariscopes, periscopes, etc.) to remedy -the defects or increase the range of sense-perception, etc. -This phenomenon is without parallel among brute animals, and -is a patent manifestation of the superiority of human psychology. -In like manner, the will demonstrates its preeminence -over the organic or animal appetite, by exerting supreme -control over the passions and impulses of our lower nature. -In fact, 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 lusts; and it can force the struggling and reluctant flesh -to undergo a crucifixion for supersensible motives that make -no appeal to the beast. The understanding and the will, therefore, -are essentially superior to the organic psychosis that -they control, namely, the sentient consciousness and sensual -appetite, which we share in common with the brute, but which,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_236">[Pg 236]</span> -in the latter, give no evidence whatever of rational or moral -control.</p> - - -<h3>§ 4. Darwinian Anthropomorphism</h3> - -<p>The spiritual mind of man represents an eminence to which -evolving matter can never attain. This, then, is the hill that -must needs be laid low, if the path of Darwinian materialism -is to be a smooth one. There is, therefore, nothing very surprising -in the fact that Darwin and his followers, from Huxley -down to Robinson, have done all in their power to obscure and -belittle the psychological differences between man and the -brute. The objective of their strategy is twofold, namely, the -<i>brutalization of man</i> and its converse, the <i>humanization of the -brute</i>. The ascent will be easier to imagine, if man can be -depressed, and the brute raised, to levels that are not far -apart. To this end, the Darwinian zealots have, on the one -hand, spared no pains to minimize the superiority and dignity -of human reason by the dissemination of sensistic associationism, -psychophysical parallelism, and various other forms of -“psychology without a soul”; and they have striven, on the -other hand, to exalt to the utmost the psychic powers of the -brute by means of a crude and credulous anthropomorphism, -which, for all its scientific pretensions, is quite indistinguishable -from the naïveté of the author of “Black Beauty”<a id="FNanchor_13" href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> and -the sentimentality of S. P. C. A. fanatics, vegetarians, anti-vivisectionists, -etc. The first of these tendencies we have -already discussed, the second remains to be considered.</p> - -<p>When it comes to anthropomorphizing the brute, Darwin has -not been outdistanced by the most reckless of his disciples. -Three entire chapters of the “Descent of Man” are filled with -this “vulgar psychology” (as Wundt so aptly styles it). It is -the sum and substance of the entire fabric of argumentation, -which he erects in support of his thesis that “the difference in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_237">[Pg 237]</span> -mind between man and the higher animals is certainly one of -degree and not of kind.” (<i>Cf.</i> <i>op. cit.</i>, chs. III-V.) Haeckel, -Huxley, and Clifford attained to equal proficiency in the sport. -Subsequent philosophers parroted their bold metaphors and -smart aphorisms, and the game went on merrily till the close -of the century. Then a badly needed reaction set in under the -auspices of Wundt, Lloyd Morgan, and Thorndike, who insisted -on abandoning this naïve impressionism in favor of more -critical methods.</p> - -<p>In his “Vorlesungen über die Menschen und Tierseele” (cf. -2nd ed., p. 370), Wundt proclaims his rupture with the impressionistic -school in the following terms: “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 view, but imports into them the reflections of -the observer about them. The necessary consequence for animal -psychology is that the mental actions of animals, from the -lowest to the highest, are interpreted as acts of the understanding. -If any vital manifestation of the organism is capable -of possible derivation from a series of reflections and -inferences, that is taken as sufficient proof that these reflections -and inferences actually led up to it. And, indeed, in the -absence of a careful analysis of our subjective perceptions we -can hardly avoid this conclusion. Logical reflection is the -logical process most familiar to us, because we discover its -presence when we think about any object whatsoever. So -that for popular psychology mental life in general is dissolved -in the medium of logical reflection. The question whether -there are not perhaps other mental processes of a simpler -nature is not asked at all, for the one reason that whenever -self-observation is required, it discovers this reflective process -in the human consciousness. The same idea is applied to feelings, -impulses, and voluntary actions which are regarded, if -not as acts of intelligence, still as effective states which belong -to the intellectual sphere.</p> - -<p>“This mistake, then, springs from ignorance of exact psycho<span class="pagenum" id="Page_238">[Pg 238]</span>logical -methods. It is unfortunately rendered worse by the -inclination of animal psychologists to see the intellectual -achievements of animals in the most brilliant light.... -Unbridled by scientific criticism the imagination of the observer -ascribes phænomena in perfectly good faith to motives -which are entirely of its own invention. The facts reported -may be wholly true; the interpretation of the psychologist, -innocently woven in with his account of them, puts them -from first to last in a totally wrong light. You will find a -proof of this on nearly every page of the works on animal -psychology.” (English Translation by Creighton & Titchener, -p. 341.)</p> - -<p>Wundt’s warning against taking at their face value popular, -or even so-called scientific, accounts of wonderful feats performed -by animals is very salutary. The danger of subjective -humanization of bestial conduct is always imminent. -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 psychology, 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 that, in itself, admits of a far -simpler explanation. According to the principle of the minimum, -it is unscientific to assume in a given agent the presence -of anything that is not rigidly required for the explanation of -its observed phenomena. We must refrain, therefore, from -reading into the consciousness of an animal what is not really -there. We must abstain from transporting our own viewpoint -and personality into a brute, by imagining, with Darwin, that -we discern a “sense of humor,” or a “high degree of self-complacency” -in some pet animal, like a dog. In general, we can -rest assured that animals are quite innocent of the motivation -we ascribe to them. All their manifestations of the psychic -order are adequately explicable in terms of sensory experience, -associative memory, instinct, and the various automatisms of -their innate and conditioned reflexes. There is no ground<span class="pagenum" id="Page_239">[Pg 239]</span> -whatever for supposing the brute to possess the superorganic -power of understanding commonly known as <i>intelligence</i>.</p> - -<p>Etymologically speaking, the abstract term “intelligence,” -together with the corresponding concrete term “intellect,” is derived -from the Latin: <i>intus-legere</i>, signifying to “read within,” -the fitness of the term being based upon the fact that the -intellect can penetrate beneath the outer appearances of things -to <i>inner</i> aspects and relations, which are hidden from the -senses. In its proper and most general usage, intelligence -denotes a cognoscitive power of abstraction and generalization, -which, by means of conceptual comparison, discovers the -supersensible relationships existent between the realities conceived, -in such wise as to apprehend substances beneath -phenomena, causes behind effects, and remote ends beyond -proximate means.</p> - -<p>Certain animal psychologists, however, refuse to reserve -the prerogative of intelligence for man. Bouvier’s “La Vie -Psychique des Insectes” (1918), for example, contains the -following statement: “Choice of a remarkably intellectual -nature, is even more noticeable in the instinctive manifestations -of individual memory. The animal, endowed with well-developed -senses and nervous system, not only reacts to new -necessities by new acts, but associates the stored up impressions -of new sensations and thereby appropriately directs its -further activities. Thus, by an intelligent process, new habits -are established, which by heredity become part of the patrimony -of instinct, modifying the latter and constituting elements -essential to its evolution. Of these instincts acquired -through an intelligent apprenticeship Forel was led to say that -they are reasoning made automatic, and it is to them particularly -that we may apply the idea of certain biologists that -instincts are habits which have become hereditary and automatic.” -(Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1918, p. 454.)</p> - -<p>It is extremely doubtful, however, whether Bouvier is here -using the term intelligence in its proper sense. Indeed, his -words convey the impression that what he means by intelli<span class="pagenum" id="Page_240">[Pg 240]</span>gence -is an <i>ability to profit by experience</i>. Now, ability to -profit by experience may, under one set of circumstances, involve -the power of logical reflection and inference, while, under -another set of circumstances, it may imply nothing more than -the power of associative memory. In the latter case, the facts -are explicable without any recourse to psychic powers of a -superorganic nature, and, in point of fact, it often happens that -the very zoöpsychologists, who insist on attributing this sort -of “intelligence” to brutes, are most emphatic in denying that -brutes are endowed with <i>reason</i>. In any case, it is unfortunate -that the word intelligence is now used in two entirely different -senses. This new and improper sense, being unrelated to the -etymology, and out of harmony with the accepted use of the -term, serves only to engender a confusion of ideas. It should -be suppressed, in order to avoid misunderstandings.</p> - -<p>That men should be deluded, however, into crediting animals -with “intelligence” (properly so-called) is not at all surprising, -when we reflect on the source of this misapprehension; for we -find combined in the animal two important factors, whose -association closely simulates intelligence, namely, <i>sentient consciousness</i> -and <i>unconscious teleology</i>. Now teleology is not -<i>inherent</i> or <i>subjective</i> intelligence, but rather an <i>objective -expression</i> and <i>product</i> of intelligence. It exists in unconscious -mechanisms like phonographs and adding machines, -and it is, likewise, manifest in unconscious organisms like -plants. Here, however, there is no danger of confounding it -with conscious intelligence, because machines and plants do -not possess consciousness in any form whatever. But in -animals, on the contrary, teleology is intimately associated -with sentient consciousness. Here the teleological automatisms -of instinct are not wholly blind and mechanical, but are guided -by sense-perception and associative memory. It is this combination -of teleology with sentient “discernment” (as Fabre -styles it) that conveys the illusory impression of a conscious -intelligence. Careful analysis, however, of the facts, in conjunction -with judicious experiments, will, in every instance,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_241">[Pg 241]</span> -enable the observer to distinguish between this deceptive semblance -of intelligence and that inherent rational power of -abstraction, classification, and inference which is the unique -prerogative of the human being. A genuine intelligence of this -sort need not be invoked to explain any of the phenomena of -brute psychology. All of them, from the highest to the lowest, -are explicable in terms of the sensitivo-nervous functions. To -illustrate the truth of this statement let us cite a few typical -examples of animal behavior, that are sometimes regarded as -manifestations of intelligent or rational consciousness on the -part of the brute.</p> - -<p>Animals, it is pointed out, learn by experience. The tiny -chick that has been stung by a wasp, for instance, learns to -avoid such noxious creatures for the future. This is, indeed, -“learning by experience.” Obviously, however, it does not -consist in an inference of a new truth from an old truth. On -the contrary, it amounts to nothing more than a mere association -of imagery, formed in accordance with the <i>law of contiguity -in time</i>, sanctioned by the animal’s sensual appetite, -and persistently conserved in its sentient memory. A bond of -association is formed between the visual image of the wasp -and the immediately ensuing sensation of pain. Thereafter -the wasp and the pain are associated in a single complex, -which the sensile memory of the animal permanently retains. -We are dealing with a mere <i>association of contiguity</i>, and -nothing further is required to explain the future avoidance -of wasps by the chick. The abilities acquired by animals -through the trial and error method are to be explained in the -same way. A horse confined within an enclosure, for example, -seeks egress to the fresh grass of the pasture. 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 -gate. Its quest, however, is balked by the fact that the gate is -closed and latched. Thereupon, it begins to chafe under the -urge of frustrated appetite. Certain actions ensue, some spon<span class="pagenum" id="Page_242">[Pg 242]</span>taneous -and others merely reflex movements. It paws the -ground, prances about, and rubs its nose against the gate. Its -futile efforts to pass through the closed gate continue indefinitely -and aimlessly, until, by some lucky accident, its nose -happens to strike against the latch and lift it sufficiently to release -the gate. This causes the gate to swing ajar, and the horse -rushes out to food and freedom. By the law of contiguity, -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 efforts. 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 result. On the second occasion, however, -the more remote of its futile acts will have been forgotten, -and the process of opening the gate will occupy less time, -though probably a certain amount of useless pawing and rubbing -will still persist. Gradually, however, the number of inefficacious -actions will diminish, until, after many repetitions -of the experience, only those actions which directly issue in the -desirable result will remain in the chain of impressions retained -by memory, all others being eliminated. For, by a teleological -law, making for economy of effort, all impressions not immediately -and constantly connected with the gratification of animal -appetites tend to be inhibited. 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 impulse, -but are soon disconnected from such association and -inhibited, if they recur independently of the recurrence of -gratification. For this reason, the horse tends to remember -more vividly those actions which are more closely connected -with the pleasurable result, and, as its superfluous actions are -gradually suppressed by a protective process of inhibition, it -gradually comes to run through the series of actions necessary -to open the gate with considerable accuracy and dispatch.</p> - -<p>The point to be noted, however, is that the horse does not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_243">[Pg 243]</span> -<i>discursively analyze</i> this concatenated series of associated -stimulators and actions; for, let the concrete circumstances be -changed never so little, the horse will at once lose its laboriously -acquired ability to open the gate. Such, for example, -will be the result, if the position of the gate be transferred to -another part of the enclosure. The horse, therefore, is incapable -of adapting its acquired ability to new conditions. It can -only rehearse the original series in all its initial concreteness and -stereotyped specificity; and it must, whenever the circumstances -are changed, begin once more at the beginning, and rearrive -by trial and error at its former solution of the problem. -The reason is that the horse merely <i>senses</i>, but does not <i>understand</i>, -its own solution of the problem. The sense, however, -cannot abstract from the here and now. Consequently, the -human infant of two summers is enabled by its dawning intelligence -to <i>adapt old means to new ends</i>, 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 habit. The cognitive powers of an animal are confined -to the sphere of concrete singularity, it has no power to -abstract or generalize.</p> - -<p>The selfsame observation applies to the tricks which animals -“learn” through human training. Their sensitive memory is -very receptive and retentive. Hence, by means of a judicious -alternation of “rewards” and “penalties” (<i>e.g.</i> of sugar and the -whip), a man can, as it were, inscribe his own thoughts on -the tablets of the brute’s memory, in such a way as to force -the latter to form habits that appear to rest upon a basis of intelligence. -And so, indeed, they do, but the intelligence is that -of the trainer and not that of the animal, which is as destitute -of intrinsic intelligence as is a talking phonograph, 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 canine, equine, or simian memory.</p> - -<p>The trained monkey always renders back without change -the original lesson imparted by its human trainer. The lesson<span class="pagenum" id="Page_244">[Pg 244]</span> -as first received becomes an immutable reaction-basis for the -future. With a school child, however, the case is quite different. -It does, indeed, receive “an historical basis of reaction,” when -the teacher illustrates the process of multiplication by means -of an example on the blackboard. But it does not receive this -information passively and render it back in the original stereotyped -form. On the contrary, it analyzes the information received, -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 blackboard. The -human pupil does not, like the monkey or the phonograph, render -back what it has received in unaltered specificity. His -reaction differs from its original passive basis. To borrow -the words of Driesch, he “uses this basis, but he is not bound -to it as it is. He dissolves the combined specificities that have -created the basis.” (“The Problem of Individuality,” pp. 27, -28.) The brute, therefore, cannot “learn,” or “be taught” in -the sense of intellectual comprehension and enlightenment. -“We see,” says John Burroughs somewhere, “that the caged -bird or beast does not reason because no strength of bar or -wall can convince it that it cannot escape. It cannot be convinced -because it has no faculties that are convinced by -evidence. It continues to dash itself against the bars not until -it is convinced, but until it is exhausted. Then slowly a new -habit is formed, the cage habit. When we train an animal to -do stunts, we do not teach it or enlighten it in any proper -sense, but we compel it to form new habits.”</p> - -<p>Human beings, however, can be <i>taught</i> and <i>enlightened</i> -under the most adverse circumstances. Even those unfortunates -are susceptible to it, who, like Laura Bridgman, Helen -Keller, Martha Obrecht, Marie Heurtin, and others, have been -blind and deaf and dumb from infancy or birth. With nearly -all the light of sensibility extinguished, there was, nevertheless, -latent within them something of which a perfectly normal -ape, for all the integrity of its senses, is essentially destitute, -namely, the superorganic power of reason. Reason, however,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_245">[Pg 245]</span> -is extrinsically dependent on organic sensibility, and, consequently, -“the gates of their souls” were closed to human converse, -until such a time as the patient kindness and ingenuity of -their educators devised means of reciprocal communication on -a basis of tactile signals. Thereupon they revealed an intelligence -perfectly akin to that of their rescuers. Years of similar -education, however, would be futile in the case of an ape. The -“gates of the soul” would never open, because the ape has no -rational soul, to which the most ingenious trainer might gain -access, in which respect it differs fundamentally from even the -lowest savage. A being that lacks reason may be <i>trained</i> by -means of instruction, but it can never be <i>enlightened</i> by it.</p> - -<p>Another consideration, that is occasionally urged in proof of -bestial intelligence, is the fact that birds, mammals, and even -insects communicate with one another by means of sounds or -equivalent signals, which are sometimes remarkably diversified -in quality and consequent efficacy. “Since fowls,” writes -Darwin, “give distinct warnings for danger on the ground, or -in the sky, from hawks ..., may not some unusually wise -ape-like animal have imitated the growl of a beast of prey, and -thus told his fellow monkeys the nature of the expected -danger? This would have been a first step in the formation -of a language.” (“Descent of Man,” 2nd ed., ch. III, pp. 122, -123.) This is saltatory logic with a vengeance! Darwin leaps -at one bound across the entire chasm between irrationality and -rationality, without pausing to build even the semblance of a -bridge. Given an animal with the foresight and inventiveness -requisite to employ onomatopœia for the <i>purpose</i> of specifying -the <i>nature</i> of an expected <i>danger</i>, in the <i>interest</i> of its fellows, -and we need not trouble ourselves further about plausibleizing -any transition; for so “unusually wise” an ape is already well -across the gap that separates reason from unreason, and far on -its way towards the performance of all the feats of which reason -is capable. After swallowing the camel of so much progress, -it would be straining at a gnat to deny such a paragon -of simian genius the mere power of articulate speech. Of course,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_246">[Pg 246]</span> -if imagination rather than logic, is to be the dominant consideration -in science, there is no difficulty in imagining animals to be -capable of thinking or doing anything we choose to ascribe -to them, as witness <i>Æsop’s Fables</i>. But, if sober and critical -judgment be in order, then, evidently, from the simple fact that -an animal has diversified cries manifestative of different emotions -or degrees of emotion (<i>e.g.</i> of fear or rage) and capable -of arousing similar emotions in other animals of the same -species, it by no means follows that such an irrational animal -can <i>adapt a means to an end</i> by using mimicry <i>in order to -give notification</i> of approaching danger, and <i>to specify the -nature of the danger</i> in question.</p> - -<p>This stupid anthropomorphism arises from Darwin’s failure -to appreciate the fundamental distinction that exists between -the “language” of animals, which is indicative, emotional, and -inarticulate, and human language, which is descriptive, conceptual, -and articulate. Brute animals, under the stress of -a determinate passion or emotion, give vent impulsively and -unpremeditatedly to instinctive cries indicative of their peculiar -emotional state. Moreover, these emotionalized sounds -are capable of arousing kindred emotions in the breasts of -other animals of the same species, since organisms of the same -species are syntonic with (<i>i.e.</i> attuned to) one another. Hence -these reflex or instinctive cries have, no doubt, a teleological -value, 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 object. This so-called warning, -however, is given without reflection or intention on the part of -the frightened animal, and is simply sensed, but not interpreted, -by the other animals that receive it.</p> - -<p>This premised, it is easy to discriminate between bestial -and human language. The former is not articulate, that is to -say, the sounds of which it is composed have not been elaborated -by analysis and synthesis into phonetic elements and -grammatical forms. In the second place, it is emotional and -not conceptual, because it is manifestative of the emotions or<span class="pagenum" id="Page_247">[Pg 247]</span> -passions (which are functions of the organic or sensual appetite), -and not of rational concepts. In the third place, it is -indicative, that is, it merely signalizes a determinate emotional -state, as a thermometer indicates the temperature, or a -barometer the atmospheric pressure. It is not, therefore, descriptive, -in the sense of being selected and arranged in syntactic -sequence for the express purpose of making others -realize one’s own experiences. The rational language of man, -on the contrary, is not emotional. Only a negligible portion -of the human vocabulary is made up of emotional interjections. -It consists, for the most part, of sounds descriptive of thought, -to express which an elaborate system of vowels and consonants -are discriminated and articulated on the basis of social -agreement, the result being a conventional vocal code invented -and used for the express purpose of conveying, not emotions -or imagery, but general and abstract concepts.</p> - - -<h3>§ 5. The True Significance of Instinct</h3> - -<p>A third class of facts commonly cited as evidence of bestial -intelligence are the remarkable phenomena of <i>instinct</i>.<a id="FNanchor_14" href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> The -beaver acts as though it were acquainted with the principles -of hydraulics and engineering, when it maintains the water at -the height requisite to submerge the entrance to its dwelling by -building a dam of mud, logs, and sticks across the stream at -a point below the site of its habitation. The predatory wasp -<i>Pompilius</i> is endowed with surgical art, that suggests a -knowledge of anatomy, inasmuch as it first disarms and afterwards -paralyzes its formidable prey, the <i>Lycosa</i> or black -Tarantula. Another predatory wasp, the <i>Stizus ruficornis</i>, -disables Mantids in a similar fashion. One of the American<span class="pagenum" id="Page_248">[Pg 248]</span> -Pompilids, the black wasp <i>Priocnemis flavicornis</i>, is an adept -in the art of navigation, since it adopts the principle of the -French hydroglissia (an air-driven boat which skims the water -under the propulsion of an aeroplane propeller). This insect -tows a huge black spider several times its own size and too -heavy to be carried, propelling its prey with buzzing wings -along the open waterway, and leaving behind a miniature -wake like that of a steamer. It thus avoids the obstacles of -the dense vegetation, and saves time and energy in transporting -the huge carcass of its paralyzed quarry to the haven of -its distant burrow. Spiders like the <i>Epeira</i>, for example, are -endowed with the mathematical ability of constructing their -webs on the patterns of the logarithmic spiral of Jacques Bernouilli -(1654-1705), a curve which it took <i>man</i> centuries to -discover. The dog infested with parasitic tapeworms (<i>Taenia</i>) -evinces a seeming knowledge of pharmaceutics, seeing that it -will avidly devour Common Wormwood (<i>Artemisia absynthium</i>), -an herb which it never touches otherwise.</p> - -<p>In all these cases, however, as we have previously remarked, -the illusion of intelligence is due to the combination of teleology -or objective purposiveness with sentient consciousness. -But teleology is nothing more than a material expression -of intelligence, not to be confounded with subjective -intelligence, which is its causal principle. When -the cells of the iris of the eye of a larval salamander -regenerate the lens in its typical perfection, after -the latter has been experimentally destroyed, we behold a -process that is objectively, but not subjectively, intelligent. -In like manner the instinctive acts of an animal are teleological -or objectively purposive, but do not proceed from an intelligence -<i>inherent in the animal</i>, any more than the intelligent -soliloquy delivered by a phonograph proceeds from a conscious -intelligence inherent in the disc. In the animal, sentient -consciousness is associated with this teleology or objective -purposiveness, but such consciousness is only aware of what -can be sensed, and is, therefore, <i>unconscious of purpose</i>, that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_249">[Pg 249]</span> -is, of the supersensible link, which connects a means with an -end. “Instinct,” to cite the words of Wm. James, “is usually -defined as the faculty of acting in such a way as to produce -certain ends, without foresight of the ends, and without previous -education in the performance.” (“Principles of Psychology,” -vol. II, c. xxiv, p. 383.) Hence the unconscious -and objective purposiveness, which the human mind discerns -in the instinctive behavior of brutes, is manifestative, not of -an intelligence within the animal itself, but only of the infinite -intelligence of the First Cause or Creator, Who imposed these -laws replete with wisdom upon the animal kingdom, and of -the finite intelligence of man, who is capable of recognizing -the Divine purpose expressed, not only in the instincts of -animals, but in all the telic phenomena of nature. Such -marvels are not the fortuitous result of uncoördinated contingencies. -Behind these correlated teleologies of the visible -universe there is a Supreme Intelligence, which has “ordered -all things in measure, and number, and weight.” (<i>Wisdom</i>: -XI, 21.) “And this universal geometry,” says Fabre, in allusion -to the mathematics of the Epeira’s web, “tells of an -Universal Geometrician, whose divine compass has measured -all things. I prefer that, as an explanation of the logarithmic -curve of the Ammonite and the Epeira, to the Worm screwing -up the tip of its tail. It may not perhaps be in accordance -with latter-day teaching, but it takes a loftier flight.” (“Life -of the Spider,” p. 400.)</p> - -<p>But, though the teleology of instinct is wonderful in the -extreme, the element of psychic regulation is so subordinate -and restricted, that, far from postulating <i>intelligent</i> control, -certain scientists go so far as to deny even <i>sentient</i> control, -in the case of instinctive behavior. Animals, in their opinion, -are nothing more than “reflex machines,” a view which coincides -with that of Descartes, who regarded animals as unconscious -automatons. “The instincts,” says Pawlow, “are also -reflexes but more complex.” (<i>Science</i>, Nov. 9, 1923, p. 359.) -The late Jacques Loeb was a protagonist of the view that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_250">[Pg 250]</span> -instincts are simply <i>metachronic chain-reflexes</i>, in which one -elementary process releases another, each preceding phase -terminating in the production of the succeeding phase, until -the entire gamut of concatenated arcs has been traversed. -Hence, John B. Watson, the Behaviorist disciple of Loeb, defines -instinct as “a combination of congenital responses unfolding -serially under appropriate stimulation.”</p> - -<p>But, if Darwinian anthropomorphism sins by excess, Loeb’s -mechanism sins by defect, and fails to account for the indubitable -variability of instinctive behavior. For, however fixed and -stereotyped such behavior may be, it manifests unmistakable -adaptation to external circumstances and emergencies, as well -as subordination to the general physiological condition of the -organism, phenomena that exclude the idea of fatal predetermination -according to the fixed pattern of a determinate -series of reflex arcs. As Jennings has shown, synaptic coördination -in the neural mechanism cannot be more than a -partial factor in determining serial responses. The state of -the organism as a whole must also be taken into account. (Cf. -“Behavior of the Lower Organisms,” p. 251.) Thus an earthworm -may turn to the right simply because it has just turned -to the left, but this so-called “chain-reflex” does not involve an -invariable and inevitable sequence of events, since the earthworm -may turn twice or thrice to the left, before the second -reaction of turning to the right comes into play. Any animal, -when sated, will react differently to a food stimulus than it -will when it is starved, by reason of its altered organic condition. -We have something more, therefore, to reckon with -than a mere system of reflexes released by a simple physical -stimulus.</p> - -<p>The second type of variability manifested by instinct is its -capacity for complex and continuous adjustment to variable -environmental circumstances. Thus predatory animals, such as -wasps, crabs, spiders, and carnivorous mammals, accommodate -themselves appropriately and uninterruptedly to the -changing and unforeseeable movements of the prey they are<span class="pagenum" id="Page_251">[Pg 251]</span> -engaged in stalking, giving evidence in this way of the regulation -of their hunting instincts by sensory impressions. -Whether this element of psychic control is based upon object-perception, -or simple sensation, and whether it involves a -sensual impulse, or is merely sensori-motor, we have, naturally, -no direct means of ascertaining. But the presence of -some sort of sensory regulation is evident enough, <i>e.g.</i> in the -prompt and unerring flight of vultures to distant carrion. -Moreover, there is a close analogy between our sense organs -and those of an animal. Particularly, in the case of the higher -animals, the resemblance of the sense organs and nervous -system to our own is extremely close, so much so that even the -localization of sensory and motor centers in the brain is practically -identical in dogs, apes, and men. Moreover, the animals -make analogous use of their sense organs, orientating -them and accommodating them for perception, and using them -to inspect strange objects, etc., <i>e.g.</i> they turn their eyes, prick -up their ears, snuff the wind, etc. Again, analogous motor and -emotional effects result from the stimulation of their sense -organs, and brutes make emotional displays of anger, exultation, -fear, etc., similar to our own. Hence it is to be presumed -that they have similar sensuous experiences. The analogy, -however, must not be pressed further than the external manifestations -warrant. With brute animals, the manifestations in -question are confined exclusively to phenomena of the sensuous -order.</p> - -<p>Another indication of sensory control is found in the repair-work -performed by animals endowed with the constructive -instinct. C. F. Schroeder, for instance, experimenting on certain -caterpillars, found that they repaired their weaving, -whenever it was disturbed by the experimenter. Fabre, too, -discovered that a Mason-bee would plaster up holes or clefts -marring the integrity of its cell, provided that the bee was -actually engaged in the process of plastering at the time, and -provided that the experimenter inflicted the damage at the -level, and within the area, of the construction work on which<span class="pagenum" id="Page_252">[Pg 252]</span> -the bee was then engaged. In a word, if the damage inflicted -could be repaired by a simple continuation or extension of its -actual work of the moment, the bee was able to cope with the -emergency. There are other ways, too, in which the animal -adapts its constructive instincts to external circumstance. -Fabre tells us that the Bramble-bee <i>Osmia</i>, which -builds a train of partitioned cells in snail shells or in hollow -reeds, will victual first and then plaster in a -partition, if the reed be narrow, but will first plaster -a partition, and then introduce honey and pollen through a -hole left unclosed in the partition, whenever the reed is of -greater diameter. This reversal of the procedure according -to the exigencies of the external situation does not suggest -the chain-reflex of Loeb. (Cf. “The Bramble-Bee,” pp. 214-217.) -Another kind of adaptation of instinct to external circumstances -consists in the economical omission of the initial -step of a serial construction, in cases where the environmental -conditions provide a ready-made equivalent. “The -silkworm,” says Driesch, “is said not to form its web of silk -if it is cultivated in a box containing tulle, and some species -of bees which normally construct tunnels do not do so if they -find one ready made in the ground, they then only perform -their second instinctive act: separating the tunnel into single -cells.” (“Science & Phil. of the Organism,” vol. II, p. 47.)</p> - -<p>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-reflex. In -the supposition that the successive stages of instinctive construction -are due to a chain-reflex, consisting of a series of -elementary motor reactions <i>a</i>, <i>b</i>, <i>c</i>, etc., in which <i>a</i> produces -the external work A and, on terminating, releases <i>b</i>, which, in -turn, produces external work B and releases <i>c</i>, etc., clearly <i>b</i> -could never appear before <i>a</i>, and the sight of A ready-made -would not inhibit <i>a</i>, nor would the removal of A defer the -advent of <i>b</i>. In other words, regulation would be impossible. -But, if we suppose that not the elemental act <i>a</i>, but rather<span class="pagenum" id="Page_253">[Pg 253]</span> -the sensory perception of A, the first state of the external construction, -is the stimulus to <i>b</i> and, consequently, to the production -of the second state of construction B, then we understand -why <i>b</i> is released independently of <i>a</i>, when, for example, an -insect discovers a ready-made substitute for A, the initial step -in its construction, and we also understand why, in cases of accidental -damage resulting in the total or partial removal of A, -the reaction <i>b</i> is deferred and the reaction <i>a</i> prolonged, until -the repair or reconstruction of A is complete; for, in this supposition, -the addition of A will inhibit <i>a</i> and release <i>b</i>, whereas -the subtraction of A will inhibit the appearance of <i>b</i> and consequently -defer B, until the state of construction A, the sight -of which is the stimulus to <i>b</i>, is complete. The fact of regulation, -therefore, entails <i>sensory</i> control of the serial responses -involved in the constructive instinct. Hence, as H. P. Weld -of Cornell expresses it: “We may safely assume that even in -the lowest forms of animal life some sort of sensory experience -releases the (instinctive) disposition and to an extent determines -the subsequent course of action.” (Encycl. Am., v. 15, -p. 168.)</p> - -<p>But it would be going to the opposite extreme to interpret -these adjustments of instinct to external contingencies as -evidence of <i>intelligent</i> regulation. The animal’s ability, for -example, to repair accidental damage to a construction, which -instinct impels it to build, is rigidly limited to repairs that can -be accomplished by a simple continuation of the actual and -normal occupation of the moment. If, however, the damage -affects an already completed portion of the instinctive structure, -and its present occupation is capable of continuance, the -animal is impotent to relinquish this actual occupation of the -moment, in order to cope with the emergency. Suppose, for -illustration, that the instinctive operations <i>a</i> and <i>b</i> are finished -and the animal is in the <i>c</i>-stage of its instinctive performance, -then, if the damage is inflicted in the A-portion of the structure, -and <i>c</i> can be continued independently of A, the animal cannot -relinquish <i>c</i> and return to <i>a</i>, in order to restore the marred<span class="pagenum" id="Page_254">[Pg 254]</span> -integrity of A. This shows that the animal is guided, in its -repair-work, by <i>sense</i>, which is bound to the here and now, and -not by intelligence, which is an abstractive faculty that emancipates -from the actual and concrete present, and enables the -possessor to hark back to the past of its performance, should -necessity require. Thus Fabre found that the Mason-bee, -after it had turned from building to the foraging of honey and -pollen, would no longer repair holes pricked in its cell, but -suffered the latter to become a veritable vessel of the -Danaïdes, which it vainly strove to fill with its liquid provender. -Though the holes affected portions extremely close -to the topmost layer of masonry, and although it frequently -sounded and explored these unaccustomed holes with its antennæ, -it took no steps to check the escape of the honey and -pollen by recurring to its mason craft of earlier stages. And, -finally, when it did resume the plasterer’s trade in constructing -a lid for the cell, it would spare no mortar to plug the gaping -breaches in the walls of its cell, but deposited its egg in a -chamber drained of honey, and then proceeded to perform the -useless work of closing with futile diligence <i>only the topmost -aperture</i> in this much perforated dwelling. Obviously, therefore, -the bee failed to perceive the connection which existed -between these breaches and the escape of the honey, and it was -unable to apply its instinctive building skill to <i>new uses</i> by -abstraction from the definite connection, in which the latter is -normally operative.</p> - -<p>Sense, therefore, and not intelligence, is the regulatory -principle of instinct. To recognize causal and telic relationships -is the prerogative of a superorganic intelligence. The -transcendental link by which a useful means is referred to an -ulterior end is something that cannot be <i>sensed</i>, but only -<i>understood</i>. An animal, therefore, acts <i>toward</i> an end, not -<i>on account of</i> an end. Nature, however, has compensated for -this ignorance by implanting in each species of animal a special -teleological disposition, by reason of which objects and -actions, which are, under normal conditions, objectively use<span class="pagenum" id="Page_255">[Pg 255]</span>ful -to the individual, or the species, become invested for the -animal with a subjective aspect of agreeableness, while objects -and actions, which are normally harmful, are invested -with a subjective aspect of repulsiveness. The qualities of -serviceableness and pleasantness <i>happen</i>, so far as the animal -is concerned, to be united in one and the same concrete object -or action, but the animal is only aware of the pleasantness, -which appeals to its senses, and not of the serviceableness, -which does not. Thus, in the example already cited, the dog -suffering from tapeworms eats the herb known as Common -Wormwood, not because it is aware of the remedial efficacy -of the herb, but simply because the odor and flavor of the -plant appeal to the animal in its actual morbid condition, -ceasing to do so, however, when the latter regains the -state of health. How different is the action of the -man whose blood is infected with malarial parasites and -who takes quinine, not because the bitter taste of -the alkaloid appeals to his palate, but solely because he -has his future cure explicitly in view! “Finally,” says -Weld, “the more we learn about instincts the more apparent -it becomes that the situations from which they proceed are -meaningful, but we need not suppose that the organism is -aware of the meaning. The chick in the egg feels (we may -only guess as to its nature) a vague discomfort, and the -complicated reaction by which it makes its egress from the -shell is released.” (Encycl. Am., v. 15, p. 169.)</p> - -<p>Recapitulating, then, we may define instinct as a psycho-organic -propensity, not acquired by education or experience, -but congenital by inheritance and identical in all members -of the same zoölogical species, having as its physical basis -the specific nervous organization of the animal and as its -psychic basis a teleological coördination of the cognitive, -emotional, and motor functions, in virtue of which, given the -proper physiological state of the organism and the presence -of an appropriate environmental stimulus, an animal, without -consciousness of purpose, is impelled to the inception, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_256">[Pg 256]</span> -regulated in the performance, of complicated behavior which -is sensually gratifying and, under normal circumstances, simultaneously -beneficial to the individual, or the race.</p> - -<p>Instinctive acts are performed without previous experience -or training on the part of the animal, and are, nevertheless, -at least in the majority of cases, <i>perfect in their first performance</i>. -A few, like the pecking-instinct of young chickens, -are slightly improvable through sentient experience, <i>e.g.</i> the -young chick, at first undiscriminating in the choice of the -particles which it picks up, learns later by associative memory -to distinguish what is tasty and edible from what is -disagreeable and inedible, but, for the most part, the perfection -of instinctive acts is independent of prior experience. -Hence instinct is entirely different from human reason, which, -in the solution of problems, is compelled to begin with reflection -upon the data furnished by previous experience, or -education. The animal, however, in its instinctive operations, -without pausing to investigate, deliberate, or calculate, -proceeds unhesitatingly on the very first occasion -to a prompt and perfect solution of its problems. Hence, -without study, consultation, planning, or previous apprenticeship -of any sort, and in the complete absence of experimental -knowledge, that might serve as matter for reflection or as a -basis for inference, the animal is able to solve intricate problems -in engineering, geometry, anatomy, pharmaceutics, etc., -which the combined intelligence of mankind required centuries -upon centuries of schooling, research, and reflection in -order to solve. Of two things, therefore, one: either these -actions do not proceed from an intelligent principle inherent -in the animal; or they do, and in that case we are compelled -to recognize in brute animals <i>an intelligence superior to our -own</i>, because they accomplish deftly and without effort ingenious -feats that human reason cannot duplicate, save -clumsily and at the price of prolonged discipline and incessant -drudgery. “Perhaps the strongest reason,” says an -anonymous writer, “for not regarding the activities of instinct<span class="pagenum" id="Page_257">[Pg 257]</span> -as intelligent is that in such enormously complex sequences -of action as, for instance, the emperor moth carries out in the -preparing of an escape-opening for itself on its completing -the larval and passing into the imago state, the intelligence -needed would be so great that it could not be limited to this -single activity, and yet it is so limited.”<a id="FNanchor_15" href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a></p> - -<p>Intelligence is essentially a <i>generalizing</i> and <i>abstracting</i> -power; hence, from its very nature, it could not be <i>limited to a -single activity</i>. Bestial instincts, however, though frequently -so amazingly complex and ingeniously purposive as to seem the -fruit of profound meditation, are, nevertheless, confined exclusively -to this or that determinate ability. They operate -within narrow and preëstablished grooves, from which they -never swerve to any appreciable degree, being but little modifiable -or perfectible by experience. Bees always construct -hexagonal cells, spiders stick to the logarithmic spiral, and -beavers never attempt to put their engineering skill to new -uses. Instincts have but little pliancy, their regularity and -uniformity being such as to make the instinctive abilities -definitely predictable in the case of any given species of -animal. Now, the distinctive mark of intelligence is <i>versatility</i>, -that is, aptitude for many things without determinate -restriction to this or that. A man who is expert in one art -may, by reason of his intelligence, be equally proficient in a -dozen others. The biologist may be a competent chemist, -and the astronomer an excellent physicist. Michel Angelo -was a sculptor, a frescoer, a painter, an anatomist, an engineer, -and an architect, while Leonardo da Vinci had even -more arts to his credit. To predict before birth the precise -form that a man’s ability will take is an impossibility. Certain -aptitudes, such as a musical gift, are no doubt inherited, -but it is an inheritance which imposes no rigid necessity upon -inheriter; since he is free to neglect this native talent, and to -develop others for which he has no special innate aptitude. -With man, the fashion in clothing and the styles of archi<span class="pagenum" id="Page_258">[Pg 258]</span>tecture -vary from day to day. The brute, however, never -emerges from the rut of instinct, and each generation of a given -animal species monotonously reproduces the history of the previous -generation. Man, on the contrary, is capable of indefinite -<i>progress</i>, as the march of human cultures and civilizations -shows. Gregarious animals are restricted by their instincts to -determinate types of aggregation, as we see in the case of ants -and bees. Hence these insect communities are unacquainted -with our sanguinary revolutions which overturn monarchies in -favor of republics, or set up dictatorships in place of democracies; -for, fortunately or unfortunately, as one may choose -to regard it, man is not limited to one form of government -rather than another.</p> - -<p>Animals, then, notwithstanding their wonderful instincts, -are deficient in precisely that quality which is the unique -criterion of intelligence, namely, versatility. Each species -has but one stereotyped ability, outside of which it is woefully -stupid and inefficient. “So long,” says Fabre, “as its circumstances -are normal the insect’s actions are calculated most -rationally in view of the object to be attained” (“The Mason-Bees,” -p. 167), but let the circumstances cease to be normal, -let them vary never so little from those which ordinarily obtain, -and the animal is helpless, while its instinctive predisposition -becomes, not merely futile, but often positively detrimental. -Thus the instinct, which should, in the normal course of -events, guide night-flying moths to the white flowers that -contain the life-sustaining nectar of their nocturnal banquets, -proves their undoing, when they come into contact with the -white lights of artificial illumination. In fact, 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 -destruction.</p> - -<p>The animal may employ an exquisitely efficient method -in accomplishing its instinctive work, but is absolutely impotent -to apply this ingenious method to more than one determinate -purpose. Man, however, is not so restricted. He<span class="pagenum" id="Page_259">[Pg 259]</span> -varies at will both his aims and his methods. He can adapt -the <i>same means</i> (a pocketknife, for instance) to <i>different -ends</i>, and, conversely, he can obtain the <i>same end</i> by the use -of <i>different means</i> (<i>e.g.</i> communicate by mail, or telegraph, -or radio). Man, in a word, is <i>emancipated from limitation -to the singular and the concrete</i> by virtue of his unique -prerogative, reason, or intelligence, the power that enables -him <i>to generalize from the particular and to abstract from -the concrete</i>. This is the secret of his unlimited versatility. -This is the basis of his capacity for progress. This is the root -of his freedom; for his will seeks happiness in general, happiness -in the abstract, and is not, therefore, compelled to choose -any particular form or concrete embodiment of happiness, -such as this or that style of architecture, this or that form -of government, this or that kind of clothing, etc., etc. -Teleology is but a material expression of intelligence, and may, -therefore, occur in things destitute of intelligence, but versatility -is the inseparable concomitant and infallible sign of an -inherent and autonomous intelligence. Lacking this quality, -instinct, however telic, is obviously not intelligence.</p> - -<p>Another indication of the fact that no intelligence lies behind -the instinctive behavior of brutes is manifest from their evident -<i>unconsciousness of purpose</i>. 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 exactitude, even when, through accident, the purpose -is conspicuously absent. Thus the hen deprived -of her eggs will, nevertheless, continue the now futile -process of incubation for twenty-one days, or longer, -despite the fact that her obstinacy in maintaining the -straw of the empty nest at a temperature of 104° F. serves -no useful purpose whatever. She cannot but sense the -absence of the eggs; she has not, however, the intelligence to -realize that incubation without eggs is vain. The connection -between the latter and the former is something that mere sense -cannot apprehend. Hence the hen is not troubled by the pur<span class="pagenum" id="Page_260">[Pg 260]</span>poselessness -of her performance. Fabre gives many examples -of this futile persistence in instinctive operations, despite their -complete frustration. Alluding to the outcome of his experiments -on the Mason-wasp <i>Pelapaeus</i>, he says: “The Mason bees, -the Caterpillar of the Great Peacock Moth, and many -others, when subjected to similar tests, are guilty of the same -illogical behaviour: they continue, in the normal order, their -series of industrious actions, though accident has now rendered -them all useless. Just like millstones unable to cease revolving -though there be no corn left to grind, let them once be given -the compelling power and they will continue to perform their -task despite its futility.” (“Bramble Bees,” pp. 192, 193.)</p> - -<p>The instance cited by Dr. H. D. Schmidt is an excellent -illustration of this inability of an animal to appreciate either -the utility or futility of its instinctive behavior. Having -described the instinct of squirrels to bury nuts by ramming -them into the ground with their teeth, and then using their -paws to cover them with earth, he continues as follows: “Now, -as regards the young squirrel, which, of course, never had been -present at the burial of a nut, I observed that, after having -eaten a number of hickory nuts to appease its appetite, it -would take one between its teeth, then sit upright and listen -in all directions. Finding all right, it would scratch upon the -smooth blanket on which I was playing with it as if to make -a hole, then hammer with the nut between its teeth upon the -blanket, and finally perform all the motions required to fill -up a hole—<i>in the air</i>; after which it would jump away, leaving -the nut, of course, uncovered.” (<i>Transactions of the Am. Neurological -Ass’n</i>, 1875, vol. I, p. 129—italics his.) This whole -pantomime of purposeless gesticulations, from the useless -“Stop, look and listen!” down to the final desertion of the -uncovered nut, 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 conduct.</p> - -<p>The claim is sometimes made that certain forms of animal -behavior are not unconsciously, but <i>consciously</i>, telic. Bouvier,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_261">[Pg 261]</span> -for example, claims that in the rare cases of the <i>use of tools</i> -among the Arthropoda, we have evidence of the existence of -intelligent inventiveness of a rudimentary kind. Thus the crab -<i>Melia</i> carries a sea-anemone in its chela as a weapon wherewith -to sting its prey into a condition of paralysis. The leaf-cutting -ants of India and Brazil use their own thread-spinning larvæ -as tools for cementing together the materials out of which -their nests are constructed. The predatory wasp <i>Ammophila -urnaria</i> uses a pebble to tamp the filling of its burrow. -According to the Wheelers (cf. <i>Science</i>, May 30, 1924, p. 486), -the hunting wasp <i>Sphex</i> (<i>Ammophila</i>) <i>gryphus</i> (Sm.) makes -similar use of a pebble. As Bouvier notes, however, this use -of tools appears “to be rather exceptional ..., showing itself -only in the primitive state consisting of the use of foreign -bodies as implements.” (Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1918, p. 456.) -Moreover, the animals in question are limited to a concretely -determinate kind of tool, which their environment supplies -ready-made. Such a use of implements <i>does not presuppose -any power of abstraction and generalization</i>. In fact, the -presence of such a power is expressly excluded by the consideration -that the animal’s so-called “inventiveness” is confined -exclusively to <i>one particularized manifestation</i>.</p> - -<p>At times the behavior of animals so closely simulates the -consciously telic or intelligent conduct of men, that only -severely critical methods enable us to discriminate between -them. An experiment, which Erich Wasmann, S.J., performed -upon ants will serve to illustrate this point. In one of his -glass nests, Father Wasmann constructed an island of sand -surrounded by a moat filled with water. He then removed -from their “nursery” a certain number of the ant larvæ and -placed them on the island. Thereupon the ants were observed -to build a bridge of sand across the moat “for the -purpose,” apparently, of rescuing the marooned larvæ. Such -behavior seemed to imply an intelligent ordination of -a means to an end. Wasmann’s second experiment, however, -proved this inference to be wholly unwarranted;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_262">[Pg 262]</span> -for, when he excavated a hole in the sand of the nest -and filled it with water, the ants, stimulated by what -to them was the disagreeable dampness of the marginal sand, -were impelled to perform the reflex act of kicking about in -the sand. This impulse persisted until all traces of the hole, -the dampness and the water had been buried under a carpet -of drier sand. Then, and then only, was the aforesaid impulse -inhibited. Applying these results to the interpretation of -the first experiment, we see that the “building of a bridge” in -the first experiment was not intentional, but merely an accidental -result of a kicking-reflex, with damp sand acting as a -stimulator. Once the moat was bridged, however, the ants happened -to find the larvæ, and were then impelled by instinct -to carry the larvæ to their proper place in the nest. To see -in such an incident a planned and premeditated rescue of the -marooned larvæ would be grossly anthropomorphic. Nevertheless, -had only the first experiment been performed, such an -anthropomorphic interpretation would have seemed fully justified, -and it was only by an appropriate variation of the -conditions of the original experiment that this false interpretation -could be definitively excluded.</p> - -<p>Consciously telic behavior is distinguishable from unconsciously -telic conduct only to the extent that it implies an -agent endowed with the power of abstraction. Unless an agent -can vary radically the specificity of the procedure, whereby it -attains a given end, the purposiveness of its behavior is no -evidence of its intelligence. “Among animals,” says Bergson, -“invention is never more than a variation on the theme of -routine. Locked up as it is within the habits of its species, -the animal succeeds no doubt in broadening these by individual -initiative; but its escape from automatism is momentary -only, just long enough to create a new automatism; the -gates of its prison close as soon as they are opened; dragging the -chain merely lengthens it. Only with man does consciousness -break the chain.” (Cf. Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1918, p. 457.)</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_263">[Pg 263]</span></p> - -<p>In vain, then, do our Darwinian humanizers of the brute -exalt instinct at the expense of intelligence. Their attempt -to reduce to a difference of degree the difference of kind that -separates the irrational from the rational, fails all along the -line. Indeed, far from being able to account for the appearance -of intelligence in the world, transformistic theories are -impotent to account for so much as the development of instinct, -all forms of the evolutionary theory, the Lamarckian, -the Darwinian, the De-Vriesian, etc., being equally inadequate -to the task of explaining the origin of animal instincts.</p> - -<p>The complex instinctive behavior of predatory wasps, for -example, is absolutely essential for the preservation of their -respective races, and yet these indispensable instincts are completely -useless in any other than the <i>perfect state</i>. From -their very nature, therefore, they do not admit of <i>gradual -development</i>. The law of all, or none, holds here. “Instinct -developed by degrees,” says Fabre, “is flagrantly impossible. -The art of preparing the larva’s provisions allows none but -masters, and suffers no apprentices; the Wasp must excel in -it from the outset or leave the thing alone.” (“The Hunting -Wasps,” p. 403.) To be useful at all, the instinctive operation -must possess an indivisible perfection, which cannot be partitioned -into degrees. The <i>Pompilius</i> (<i>Calicurgus</i>), for instance, -must, under penalty of instant death, take the preliminary -precaution to sting into inaction the ganglion that controls -the poison forceps of her formidable prey, the Black Tarantula -(<i>Lycosa</i>), before she proceeds to paralyze it by stabbing its -thoracic ganglion. The slightest imperfection or shortcoming -in her surgery would be irretrievably disastrous. Such an -instinct never existed in an imperfect form. The first wasp to -possess it must have been an expert, or she would never have -lived to serve the limp body of the huge spider as living -provender for her tiny grub. “The first to come to grips with -the Tarantula,” says Fabre, “had an unerring knowledge of -her dangerous surgery. The least hesitation, the slightest<span class="pagenum" id="Page_264">[Pg 264]</span> -speculation, and she was lost. The first teacher would also -have been the last, with no disciples to take up her art and -perfect it.” (“Bramble Bees,” p. 354.)</p> - -<p>Another hunting wasp, the Hairy Ammophila, subdues a -large caterpillar into a state of coma by pricking with its -sting nine of the ventral ganglia, while it spares the cervical -ganglion, merely compressing the latter with its mandibles, -so as not to destroy life altogether. This nice discrimination -rules out Loeb’s hypothesis of a so-called “chemotaxis.” As a -result of this elaborate surgical operation, the power of movement -is suppressed in every segment, and the tiny larva of the -wasp emerging from the egg laid on the ventral surface of the -caterpillar can devour this huge living, but motionless, victim in -peace and safety. Dead meat would not agree with the larva, -and any movement of the caterpillar would be fatal to the delicate -grub. To eliminate these contingencies, the Wasp’s surgery -must be perfect from the very outset. “There is,” says Fabre, -“no <i>via media</i>, no half success. Either the caterpillar is -treated according to rule and the Wasp and its family is -perpetuated; or else the victim is only partially paralyzed and -the Wasp’s offspring dies in the egg. Yielding to the inexorable -logic of things, we will have to admit that the first -Hairy Ammophila, after capturing a Grey Worm to feed her -larva, operated on the patient by the exact method in use -today.” (“The Hunting Wasps,” pp. 403, 404.)</p> - -<p>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 prey, and they attempt in this -way to discredit Fabre as having failed to take the -occurrence of diffusion into account. A careful reading of -his works, however, will serve to vindicate him in this -respect. In a chapter on the poison of the bee, for instance, -we read: “The local effect is diffused. This diffusion, -which might well take place in the victims of the predatory -insects, plays no part in the latter’s method of operation. The<span class="pagenum" id="Page_265">[Pg 265]</span> -egg, which will be laid immediately afterwards, demands the -complete inertia of the prey from the outset. Hence all the -nerve-centers that govern locomotion must be numbed instantaneously -by the virus.” (“Bramble Bees,” p. 347.) Bouvier, -therefore, very justly remarks: “After all, when Fabre’s work -is examined there is no trouble in seeing that none of these -details escaped him. He never disputed the paralytic action -of the poison inoculated by the insect, and the wonderful -researches by the Peckhams on the Pompilids, which hunt -Lycosids, have clearly established the fact that the thrusts of -the sting given by the predatory insect produce two different -kinds of paralysis, one functional, and often temporary, resulting -from the action of the venom, the other structural and -persistent, produced by the dart which more or less injures -the nervous centers.” (Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1916, p. 594.)</p> - -<p>In the case of predatory insects, therefore, the instinct must -be <i>perfect at the outset</i>, or survival is impossible. For the -origin of such instincts, Darwinism, which stresses the <i>gradualness</i> -of evolutionary progress, has no explanation that will -hold water. Lamarckism, which sees in <i>acquired habits</i> transmitted -by inheritance, the origin of instinct, the “memory of -the race,” is equally at a loss to account for these instincts. -The formation of habits requires <i>practice</i> and <i>repetition</i>. The -predatory insect must be perfect at the start, and yet it only -exercises its remarkable instinct <i>once a year</i>. Where is the -practice and reiteration requisite for canalizing its nervous system -into the conduction-paths of habit? How did one particular -set of rarely performed acts happen to gain precedence over -all others, and to be alone successful in stamping themselves -indelibly upon the nerve plasm as habits, and upon the germ -plasm as instincts? De-Vriesianism, which would make the -acquisition and perfecting of instinct dependent upon the rare -and accidental contingency of a <i>fortuitous mutation</i>, is even -more objectionable. These instincts are vital to the insect. -If their acquisition and improvement depend upon the lucky -chance of a series of favorable mutations, its prospects of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_266">[Pg 266]</span> -survival are nil; for it cannot afford to wait at all. “In order -to live,” says Fabre, “we all require the conditions that enable -us to live: this is a truth worthy of the famous axioms of -La Palice. The predatory insects live by their talent. If they -do not possess it to perfection, their race is lost.” (“Bramble -Bees,” p. 364.)</p> - -<p>Recently, there has been a revival of Lamarckism hitherto -regarded as defunct. Guyer, Kammerer, and Pawlow profess -to find factual justification for it, and Bouvier adopts it in his -“La vie psychique des insectes” (1918), to account for the origin -of instinct. Of the alleged facts of Kammerer and Guyer, -we have spoken in a previous chapter. Here we shall content -ourselves with few remarks on the experiments of Ivan -Pawlow, as being especially relevant to the subject under -consideration. The Russian physiologist has experimented on -white mice, and claims that the mice of the fifth generation -learned to answer a dinner bell in the space of five lessons, -whereas their ancestors of the first generation had required a -hundred lessons to answer the same signal. Hence he concludes: -“The latest experiments ... show that conditioned -reflexes, <i>i.e.</i>, the highest nervous activity, are inherited.” -(<i>Science</i>, Nov. 9, 1923, p. 360.) His results, however, do not -tally with those recently obtained by E. C. MacDowell of the -Carnegie Institution, by H. G. Bragg, and by E. M. Vicari of -Columbia. MacDowell found that white rats trained in a -circular maze did not improve in their susceptibility to training -from generation to generation. “Children from trained parents,” -he says, “or from trained parents and grandparents, -take as long to learn the maze habit as the first generation -used.” (<i>Science</i>, March 28, 1924, p. 303.) Having cited the -similar results of Bragg, who experimented with white mice, -he concludes: “The results are in full accord with those given -above; they indicate that the training of the ancestors did -not facilitate the learning of the descendants.” (<i>Ibidem.</i>) -E. M. Vicari, using a simple maze and white rats, obtained -the same results. “It seems clear,” she says, “that the latter<span class="pagenum" id="Page_267">[Pg 267]</span> -generations have not been aided by the training of their -ancestors.” (<i>Ibidem.</i>)</p> - -<p>Bouvier’s conception, then, that the automatisms of instinct -originate as automatisms of acquired habit, the latter being -appropriated by inheritance, still stands in need of reliable -experimental confirmation. Moreover, a theory of this sort -could never account, as Weismann points out, for such phenomena -as the specific instincts of worker bees, which are <i>excluded -from propagation</i>. Nor can the theory explain, as -originating in acquired <i>habit</i>, those instinctive operations of -enormous complexity, like the complicated method of emergence -employed by the larva of the emperor moth, which only -occur <i>once in a lifetime</i>, and could not, therefore, fasten -themselves on the organism as a <i>habit</i>.</p> - -<p>An evolutionary origin of instinct, however, though extremely -improbable, is, at any rate, not absolutely inconceivable. Its -teleology, as we have seen, does not imply inherent intelligence, -but is explicable as an innate law involving appropriate coördination -of the sensory, emotional, and motor functions, all of -which are intrinsically dependent on the organism. But intelligence, -as we have seen, is a superorganic power, having its -source in a spiritual principle, that, from the very nature of -things, cannot be evolved from matter. Human reason, therefore, -owes its origin, not to any evolution of the human body, -but to the creation of the human soul, which is the source and -subject of that unique prerogative of man, namely: the power -of abstract thought.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_268">[Pg 268]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_III2">CHAPTER III<br /> - -THE ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN BODY</h2></div> - - -<p>In an article published August 31, 1895, in the <i>New York -Freeman’s Journal</i>, the late Rev. J. A. Zahm gave expression -to the following opinion: “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 St. Thomas.” The scriptural and theological -aspect of this view need not concern us here, our sole purpose -being to evaluate it from a purely scientific standpoint. Once -evolutionary thought takes cognizance of the fact that the -human soul is a spiritual principle underivable from mere -matter, once it acknowledges the immediate creation of the -human soul, and professes to do no more than account for the -origin of man’s animal <i>body</i>, that moment is it shorn of its -materialistic implications; but what, we may ask, are the -foundations of such an hypothesis in the realm of scientific -fact?</p> - -<p>The writer must confess that he cannot fathom the mentality -of those who accept the evolutionary explanation, so -far as plant and animal organisms are concerned, but proceed -to draw the line when it comes to applying it to the human -body. For if one (to borrow Du Bois-Reymond’s expression) -“gives so much as his little finger to” the evolutional argument -from organic homology, he must end, in so far as he is consistent, -in acknowledging as incontestable its obvious application -to man. The only choice which sound logic can sanction -is between fixism and a thoroughgoing system of transformism, -which does not exempt the human body from the scope of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_269">[Pg 269]</span> -evolutionary explanation. Indeed, the theory of evolution -itself stands or falls upon this issue; for, if structures so strikingly -similar as the skeletons of a man and an ape, respectively, -have originated from two distinct ancestral stocks, -then in no case at all is the inference of common descent from -structural resemblance a legitimate procedure. In other words, -if the homologies existent between the human and simian -organisms are explicable on some other basis than that -of common ancestry, then all organic homologies are so explicable, -and the whole evolutionary argument collapses.</p> - - -<h3>§ 1. Two Theories of Descent</h3> - -<p>Two theories have been formulated regarding the alleged -bestial origin of the human body: (1) the theory of lineal -descent from some known species (living or fossil) of ape or -monkey; (2) the theory of collateral descent from a hypothetical -bestial ancestor common to apes and men. The -theory of lineal descent is that to which Darwin himself -stands committed. This theory, however, soon fell into disrepute -among scientists, who came to prefer the theory of -collateral descent, although signs of a return to the older theory -are not wanting in our day. At all events, Darwin came out -flatly in favor of the monkey origin of man. This, it is true, -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 descent. But -Darwin’s own words speak for themselves: “The Simiadae,” -he says, “then branched off into two great stems, the New -World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a -remote period of time, Man, the wonder and glory of the -Universe, proceeded.” (“Descent of Man,” 2nd ed., ch. VI, -pp. 220, 221.) Note that he does not say “probably”; his -language is not the language of hypothesis, but of categorical -affirmation.</p> - -<p>The theory, however, which is most generally favored at the -present time holds that, assuming the universality of the evo<span class="pagenum" id="Page_270">[Pg 270]</span>lutionary -process, all existing types must be of equal antiquity, -and none prior or ancestral to any other. Hence it regards man, -not as the direct descendant of any known type of ape, but -as the offspring of an as yet undiscovered Tertiary ancestor, -from which men and apes have diverged in two distinct lines -of descent. “<i>Monkeys, apes, and men</i>,” says Conklin, “<i>have -descended from some common but at present extinct ancestor</i>. -Existing apes and monkeys are collateral relatives of man but -not his ancestors; his cousins but not his parents.... The -human branch diverged from the anthropoid stock not less -than two million years ago, and since that time man has -been evolving in the direction represented by existing human -races, while the apes have been evolving in the direction represented -by existing anthropoids. During all this time men -and apes have been growing more and more unlike and conversely -the farther back we go, the more we should find them -converging until they meet in a common stock which should -be intermediate between these two stocks.” (“Evolution and -the Bible,” pp. 12, 13—italics his.)</p> - -<p>Barnum Brown’s recent discovery of three jaws of the fossil -ape <i>Dryopithecus</i> in the Siwalik Hills of India has, as previously -intimated, resulted in a return on the part of certain -scientists, <i>e.g.</i> Wm. K. Gregory and Dudley J. Morton, to views -that more nearly approximate those of Charles Darwin. According -to these men, the fossil anthropoid <i>Dryopithecus</i> is to -be regarded as the common ancestor of men, chimpanzees, and -gorillas. (Cf. <i>Science</i>, April 25, 1924, Suppl. XII.)</p> - -<p>Many considerations, however, militate against the direct -derivation of man’s bodily frame from any known species of -ape, whether living or fossil. Dana has pointed out that, as -regards the mechanism of locomotion, man belongs to a more -primitive type than the ape. The earliest and lowest type of -vertebrates are the fish, and these, according to the above-mentioned -author, are <i>urosthenic</i> (tail-strong), inasmuch as -they propel themselves by means of their tails. Next in point -of organization and time came the <i>merosthenic</i> vertebrates,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_271">[Pg 271]</span> -which have their strength concentrated in the hind-limbs, -<i>e.g.</i> reptiles like the dinosaurs. In the last place come the -<i>prosthenic</i> vertebrates, whose strength is concentrated in the -fore-limbs, <i>e.g.</i> the carnivora and apes. Now man belongs to -the <i>merosthenic</i> type, and his mode of progression, therefore, -is more primitive than that of apes, which are <i>prosthenic</i>, all -anthropoid apes, such as the gorilla, the chimpanzee, the orang-utan -and the gibbon having longer fore-limbs than hind-limbs.</p> - -<p>The striking anatomical differences between apes and men, -though not of sufficient importance to exclude the possibility -of collateral relationship, are so many solid arguments against -the theory of direct descent. We will content ourselves with -a mere enumeration of these differences. In the ape, the -cranium has a protruding muzzle and powerful jaws equipped -with projecting canine teeth, but the brain-case is comparatively -small; in man, on the contrary, the facial development -is insignificant and the teeth are small and vertical, while the -brain-case is enormous in size, having at least twice the -capacity of that of an ape. “The face of man,” to quote -Ranke, “slides, as it were, down from the forehead and appears -as an appendix to the front half of the skull. But the gorilla’s -face, on the contrary, protrudes from the skull, which in turn -slides almost entirely backward from the face. By a cross-cut -one may sever the whole face from the skull, except a very -small part near the sockets, without being forced to open up -the interior of the skull. It is only on account of its protruding, -strongly developed lower parts that the skull-cap of the -animal can simulate a kind of human face.” (“Der Mensch,” -vol. II, p. 401.) These differences may be summarized by -saying that the head of the ape is specialized for mastication -and defense, whereas the head of man is specialized for -psychic functions. Again, as we have seen, the fore-limbs of -the ape are long, and its hind-limbs short, the extremities of -both the latter and the former being specialized primarily -for prehension and only secondarily for progression. This is -due to the ape’s adaptation to arboreal life. In man, however,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_272">[Pg 272]</span> -the arms are short and specialized for prehension alone, while -the legs are long and terminate in broad plantigrade feet -specialized for progression alone. Man, consequently, is not -adapted to arboreal life. In the ape, the spine has a single -curve, and the occipital foramen (the aperture through which -the spinal cord enters the brain-case) is eccentrically located -in the floor of the cranial box; in man, the spine has a double -curve, and the occipital foramen is centrally located, both -features being in adaptation to the upright posture peculiar -to man—“<i>die zentralle Lage dieser Oeffnung</i>,” says Ranke -alluding to the occipital foramen of man, “<i>in der Schädelbasis -ist für den Menschenschädel im Unterschied gegen den Tierschädel -eine in hohem Masse typische</i>.” (“Der Mensch,” vol. I, -p. 378.) In the ape, therefore, the vertebræ have an adaptation -producing convexity of the back, precluding a normal -upright posture, and enforcing progression on all fours. It has, -moreover, powerful muscles at the back of the neck to carry -the head in the horizontal position necessitated by this mode -of progression. In man “the skull has the occipital condyles -placed within the middle fifth, in adaptation to the vertical -position of the spine” (Nicholson), the spinal cord enters the -cranial box at a perpendicular, and the head balances on the -spinal column as on a pivot, all of which ensures the erect -posture and bipedal progression in man. There are, moreover, -no neck muscles to support the head in any other than the -vertical position. There are many other differences, besides: -the ape, for example, has no chin, while in man there is a -marked mental protuberance; man has a slender waist, but -the ape has a barrel-like torso without any waist; the ape -has huge bony ridges for the attachment of muscles, <i>e.g.</i> the -sagittal crest, the superciliary ridges, etc., while in man such -features are practically absent.</p> - -<p>Ranke has given a very good summary of the chief anatomical -differences between man and the anthropoid apes: “The -gorilla’s head leaning forward, hangs down from the spinal -column, and his chinless snout, equipped with powerful teeth,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_273">[Pg 273]</span> -touches the breastbone. Man’s head is round, and resting on -a free neck, balances unrestrained upon the spinal column. -The gorilla’s body, without a waist, swells out barrel-shaped, -and when straightened up finds no sufficient support on the -pelvis; the back-bone, tailless as in man, but almost straight, -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 thighs. Man’s body is slightly -molded, like an hour-glass, the chest and abdomen meeting to -form a waist where they are narrowest; the abdominal viscera -are perfectly supported in the pelvis as in a plate; and elegance -is decidedly gained by the double S-line, which, curving -alternately convex and concave, passes from the crown through -the neck and nape, down the back to the base of the spine and -the gluteal region. The normal position of the gorilla shows -us a plump, bear-like trunk, carried by short, crooked legs and -by arms which serve as crutches and touch the ground with -the knuckles of the turned-in fingers. The posture of the body -is perfectly straight in man, it rests on the legs as on columns -when he stands upright, and his hands hang down on both -sides always ready for use. The gorilla is thickly covered -with hair, while man’s body on the whole is naked.” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, -vol. II, p. 213.)</p> - -<p>In conclusion, we may say that, while there is a general -resemblance between the human body and that of an anthropoid -ape, there is, likewise, a particular divergence—“there is -no bone, be it ever so small, nay, not even the smallest particle -of a bone, in which the general agreement in structure and -function would pass over into real identity.” (Ranke, <i>op. cit.</i>, -vol. I, p. 437.) Hence Virchow declares that “the differences -between man and monkey are so wide that almost any fragment -is sufficient to diagnose them.” (Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for -1889, p. 566.) These differences are so considerable as to -preclude the possibility of a <i>direct</i> genealogical connection -between man and any known type of ape or monkey—“The -testimony of comparative anatomy,” to quote Bumüller, “is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_274">[Pg 274]</span> -decidedly against the theory of man’s descent from the ape.” -(“Mensch oder Affe?” p. 59.) Ranke has somewhere called -man a brain-animal, and this sums up the chief difference, -which marks off the human body from all bestial organisms. -In the ape the brain weighs only 100th part of the weight of -its body, whereas in man the brain has a weight equivalent to -the 37th part of the weight of the human body. The cranial -capacity of the largest apes ranges from 500 to 600 c.cm., -while the average cranial capacity in man is 1500 c.cm. -Moreover, the human brain is far more extensively convoluted -within the brain-case than that of an ape, so much so that the -surface or cortical area of the human brain is four times as -great as that of the ape’s brain. Thus Wundt, in his “Grundzüge -der physiologischen Psychologie,” cites H. Wagner as -assigning to man a brain surface of from 2,196 to 1,877 sq. -cm., but a cortical area of only 535 sq. cm. in the case of -an orang-outang. (Cf. English Translation by Titchener, vol. -I, p. 286.)</p> - -<p>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 -monkey, but are scattered throughout a large number of -species. “Returning to the old discussion,” says Thomas -Dwight, “as to which ape can boast of the closest resemblance -to man, Kohlbrugge brings before us Aeby’s forgotten book on -the skull of man and apes. His measurements show that the -form nearest to man among apes is the gibbon, or long-armed -ape, but that the South American monkey <i>Crysothrix</i> is nearer -still. Aeby recognized what modern anatomists have forgotten -or wilfully ignored: that any system of descent is inadequate -which does not recognize that the type of man is not -in any one organ, but in all the physical and psychological -features. He declared that while we are far from having -this universal knowledge, we have learned enough about the -various parts of the body to make it impossible for us to -sketch any plan of descent. ‘It almost seems as if every part<span class="pagenum" id="Page_275">[Pg 275]</span> -had its own line of descent, different from that of others.’ ... -Kohlbrugge now introduces Haacke, who denies any relationship -between man and apes, the latter being instances of one-sided -development. 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 mammals. He believes man came from some lemuroid -form, which may have descended from the insectivora.” -(“Thoughts of a Catholic Anatomist,” pp. 188-190.)</p> - -<p>All known types, then, of apes and monkeys are too specialized -to have been in the direct line of human descent. -Man, as Kohlbrugge ironically remarks, appears to have come -from an ancestor much more like himself than any species of -ape we know of. Moreover, no species of apes or monkeys -monopolizes the honors of closest resemblance to man. In many -points, the South American monkeys, though more primitive -than the anthropoid apes, are more similar to man than the -latter.</p> - - -<h3>§ 2. Embryological Resemblances</h3> - -<p>Much has been made of the so-called biogenetic law as an -argument for the bestial origin of mankind. This theory of -the embryological recapitulation of racial history was first -formulated by Fritz Müller. Haeckel, however, was the one -who exploited it most extensively, and who exalted it to the -status of “the fundamental law of biogenesis.”<a id="FNanchor_16" href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> The latter’s -statement of the principle is as follows: “<i>Die Ontogenesis ist -die Palingenesis der Phylogenesis</i>.”—Ontogeny (the development -of the individual) is a recapitulation of phylogeny (the -development of the race). For a long time this law was -received with uncritical credulity by the scientific world, but -enthusiasm diminished when more careful studies made it -clear that the line of descent suggested by embryology did<span class="pagenum" id="Page_276">[Pg 276]</span> -not agree with what was inferred from comparative anatomy -and the sequence of fossil forms. Besides, it was manifest -that certain organs in embryos were distinctively <i>embryonic</i> -and could never have functioned in adult forms, <i>e.g.</i> the yolk -sac and the amnion. “It was recognized,” says T. H. Morgan, -“that many embryonic stages could not possibly represent -ancestral animals. A young fish with a huge yolk sac attached -could scarcely ever have led a happy, free life as an adult -individual. Such stages were interpreted, however, as <i>embryonic</i> -additions to the original ancestral type. The embryo -had done something on its own account. In some animals -the young have structures that attach them to the mother, -as does the placenta of mammals. 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 world. Hundreds -of such embryonic structures are known to embryologists. -These were explained as adaptations and as falsifications of -the ancestral records.” (“Critique of the Theory of Evolution,” -pp. 16, 17.)</p> - -<p>The result has been that this so-called law has fallen into -general disrepute among scientists, especially as a means of -reconstructing the phylogeny of modern organisms. It is -recognized, of course, that comparative embryology can furnish -embryological homologies analogous to the homologies -of comparative anatomy, but it is now generally acknowledged -that the view, 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 -abandoned, and that, as a general law of organic development, -the biogenetic principle has been thoroughly discredited. “This -law,” says Karl Vogt of Geneva, “which I long held as well-founded, -is absolutely and radically false. Attentive study of -embryology shows us, in fact, that embryos have their own -conditions suitable to themselves, and very different from -those of adults.” (Quoted by Quatrefages De Breau, in his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_277">[Pg 277]</span> -“Les Emules de Darwin,” vol. II, p. 13.) “There can no -longer be question,” says Prof. M. Caullery of the Sorbonne, -“of systematically regarding individual development as a repetition -of the history of the stock. This conclusion results -from the very progress made under the inspiration received -from this imaginary law, the law of biogenesis.” (Smithson. -Inst. Rpt. for 1916, p. 325.)</p> - -<p>This collapse of the biogenetic law has tumbled into ruins -the elaborate superstructure of genealogy which Haeckel had -reared upon it. His series of thirty stages extending from the -fictitious “cytodes” up to man, inclusively, is even more worthless -today than it was when Du Bois-Reymond made his ironic -comment: “Man’s pedigree, as drawn up by Haeckel, is worth -about as much as is that of Homer’s heroes for critical historians.” -(<i>Revue Scientifique</i>, 1877, I, p. 1101.) Haeckel tried -in vain to save his discredited law by means of the expedient -of <i>cænogenesis</i>, that is, “the falsification of the ancestral -record (palingenesis).” That Nature should be guilty of “falsification” -is an hypothesis not to be lightly entertained, and it -is more credible, as Wasmann remarks, to assume that Haeckel, -and not Nature, is the real falsifier, inasmuch as he has misrepresented -Nature in his “fundamental biogenetic law.” -Cænogenesis is a very convenient device. One can alternate -at will between <i>cænogenesis</i> and <i>palingenesis</i>, just as, in comparative -anatomy, one can alternate capriciously between -<i>convergence</i> and <i>homology</i>, on the general understanding of -its being a case of: “Heads, I win; tails, you lose”—certainly, -there is no <i>objective</i> consideration to restrain us in such procedure. -“Such weapons as Cænogenesis and Convergence,” -says Kohlbrugge (in his “Die Morphologische Abstammung des -Menschen,” 1908) “are unfortunately so shaped that anyone -can use them when they suit him, or throw them aside when -they do not. They show, therefore, in the prettiest way the -uncertainty even now of the construction of the theory of -descent. As soon as we go into details it leaves us in the -lurch; it was only while our knowledge was small that every<span class="pagenum" id="Page_278">[Pg 278]</span>thing -seemed to fit together in most beautiful order.” (Quoted -by Dwight in “Thoughts of a Catholic Anatomist,” p. 187.)</p> - -<p>It is undeniable, indeed, 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 organisms. Obviously, however, there cannot be any -direct derivation of the <i>embryonic</i> features of one organism -from the <i>adult</i> characters of another organism. This preposterous -implication of the Müller-Haeckel Law must, as -Morgan points out, be entirely eliminated, before it can -merit serious consideration. Referring to the spiral cleavage -exhibited by annelid, planarian and molluscan eggs, Morgan -says: “It has been found that the cleavage pattern has the -same general arrangement in the early stages of flat worms, -annelids and molluscs. Obviously these stages have never -been adult ancestors, and obviously if their resemblance has -any meaning at all, it is that each group has retained the same -general plan of cleavage possessed by their common ancestor.... -Perhaps someone will say, ‘Well! is not this all that we -have contended for! Have you not reached the old conclusion -in a roundabout way?’ I think not. 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 embryos, 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 ancestors, and that their common -structures are embryonic survivals.” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, pp. 22, 23.)</p> - -<p>After this admission, however, nothing remains of the law -of “recapitulation” except simple embryological homology -comparable, in every sense, to adult homology, and adding -nothing essentially new to the latter argument for evolution. -It is, therefore, ridiculous for evolutionists to speak of <i>branchial</i> -(gill) arches and clefts in man. The visceral or pharyngeal -arches and grooves appearing in the human embryo are<span class="pagenum" id="Page_279">[Pg 279]</span> -unquestionably homologous with the genuine branchial arches -and clefts in a fish embryo. In the latter, however, the grooves -become real clefts through perforation, while the arches become -the lamellæ of the permanent gills, thus adapting the -animal to aquatic respiration. It is, accordingly, perfectly -legitimate to refer to these embryonic structures in the young -fish as gill arches and gill clefts. In man, however, the corresponding -embryonic structures develop into the oral cavity, -auditory meatus, ossicles of the ear, the mandible, the lower -lip, the tongue, the cheek, the hyoid bone, the styloid process, -the thymus, the thyroid and tracheal cartilages, etc. There -is no perforation of the grooves, and the arches develop into -something quite different than branchial lamellæ. Hence the -correct name for these structures in the human embryo is -<i>pharyngeal</i> (visceral) arches and grooves, their superficial resemblance -to the embryonic structures in the fish embryo -being no justification for calling them branchial. In short, -the mere fact that certain embryonic structures in the young -fish (homologous to the pharyngeal arches and grooves in the -human embryo) develop into the permanent gills of the adult -fish, is no more significant than the association of homology -with divergent preadaptations, which is of quite general occurrence -among adult vertebrate types. In all such cases, we -have instances of fundamentally identical structures, diverted, -as it were, to entirely different purposes or functions (<i>e.g.</i> the -arm of a man and the flipper of a whale). Hence the argument -drawn from embryological homology is no more cogent -than the argument drawn from the homologies of comparative -anatomy, which we have already discussed in a previous -chapter. The misuse of the term <i>branchial</i>, to prejudge matters -in their own favor, is in keeping with the customary policy -of evolutionists. It is intended, naturally, to convey the -impression that man, in the course of his evolution, has passed -through a fish-like stage. At bottom, however, it is nothing -more than a verbal subterfuge, that need not detain us further.</p> - -<p>The theory of embryological recapitulation is often applied<span class="pagenum" id="Page_280">[Pg 280]</span> -to man, with a view to establishing the doctrine of his bestial -ancestry. We have seen one instance of this application, and -we shall consider one other, for the purpose of illustrating -more fully the principles involved. The claim is made by -evolutionists, that man must have passed through a fish or -amphibian stage, because, in common with all other mammals, -he exhibits, during his embryological development, a typical -fish (or, if you prefer, amphibian) kidney, which subsequently -atrophies, only to be replaced by the characteristic mammalian -kidney. The human embryo, therefore, repeats the history -of our race, which must have passed through a fish-like -stage in the remote past. In consequence of this phenomenon, -therefore, it is inferred that man must have had fish-like ancestors. -Let us pause, however, to analyze the facts upon -which this inference is based.</p> - -<p>In annelids, like the earthworm, the nephridia or excretory -tubules are arranged segmentally, one pair to each somite. -In vertebrates, however, the nephridial tubules, instead of developing -in regular sequence from before backwards, develop -in three batches, one behind the other, the anterior batch being -called the <i>pronephros</i>, the middle one, the <i>mesonephros</i> and -the posterior one, the <i>metanephros</i>. This, according to J. -Graham Kerr, holds true not only of the amniotic vertebrates -(reptiles, birds, and mammals) but also, with a certain reservation, -of the anamniotic vertebrates (fishes and amphibians). -“In many of the lower Vertebrates,” says this author, -“there is no separation between the mesonephros and metanephros, -the two forming one continuous structure which acts -as the functional kidney. Such a type of renal organ consisting -of the series of tubules corresponding to mesonephros -together with metanephros may conveniently be termed the -opisthonephros.” (“Textbook of Embryology,” II—Vertebrata, -p. 221.) If we accept this view, it is not quite accurate to -regard the mesonephros in man as a homologue of the <i>opisthonephros</i> -of a fish, seeing that the latter is composed not only -of mesonephridia (mesonephric tubules), but also of meta<span class="pagenum" id="Page_281">[Pg 281]</span>nephridia -(metanephric tubules). A brief description of the -three nephridial systems of vertebrate embryos will serve to -further clarify their interrelationship.</p> - -<p>(1) <i>The pronephric system</i>: This consists of a collection of -tubules called the pronephros, and a pronephric duct leading -to the cloaca, or terminal portion of the alimentary canal. -The pronephros is a functional organ in the frog tadpole and -other larval amphibia. It is also found in a few teleosts, -where it is said to persist as a functional organ in the adult. -In other fishes, however, and in all higher forms the pronephros -atrophies and becomes reduced to a few rudiments.<a id="FNanchor_17" href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a></p> - -<p>(2) <i>The mesonephric system</i>: This consists of a collection -of nephridial tubules called the mesonephros (Wolffian body). -The tubules of the mesonephros do not develop any duct of -their own, but utilize the posterior portion of the pronephric -duct, the said tubules becoming secondarily connected with -this duct in a region posterior to the pronephridia (tubules -of the pronephros). The pronephric tubules together with the -anterior portion of the pronephric duct then atrophy, while -the persisting posterior portion of this duct receives the name -of mesonephric or Wolffian duct. The duct in question still -terminates in the cloaca, and serves, in the male, the combined -function of a urinary and spermatic duct; but, in the female, -a special oviduct (the Müllerian duct) is superadded because -of the large size of the eggs to be transmitted, the Wolffian or -mesonephric duct subserving only the urinary function. The -mesonephros is functional in mammalian embryos, but -atrophies and disappears coincidently with the development -of the permanent kidney. The same is true of amniotic vertebrates -generally, except that in the case of reptiles the meso<span class="pagenum" id="Page_282">[Pg 282]</span>nephros -persists for a few months after hatching in the adult, -the definitive kidney of the adult being reinforced during that -interval by the still functional mesonephros. In anamniotic -vertebrates, however, no separation exists between the mesonephros -and the metanephros, the two forming one continuous -structure, the opisthonephros, which acts as the functional -kidney of the adult.</p> - -<p>(3) <i>The metanephric system</i>: In the amniotic vertebrates -the mesonephros and metanephros are distinct, the former -being functional in embryos and in adult reptiles (for a few -months after hatching), while the metanephros becomes the -definitive kidney of the adult. The metanephros is a collection -of nephridial tubules provided with a special urinary -duct called the ureter, which empties into the bladder (not -the cloaca). The Wolffian or mesonephric duct is retained -as a sperm duct in the male (of amniotic vertebrates), but -becomes vestigial in the female. Only a certain number of -the nephridial tubules of the embryonic metanephros are taken -over to form part of the permanent or adult kidney (in mammals, -birds, and reptiles).</p> - -<p>If, then, as we have previously observed, we follow Kerr in -regarding the fish kidney, not as a simple mesonephros, but -as an opisthonephros (<i>i.e.</i> a combination of mesonephros and -metanephros), there is no warrant for interpreting the embryonic -mesonephros of man and mammals generally as the fish-kidney -stage. But waiving this consideration, and assuming, -for the sake of argument, that the fish kidney is a perfect -homologue of the human mesonephros, 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 fish, would not, of itself, imply -the common ancestry of men and fishes. Such a coincidence -would be fully explicable as a case of convergent adaptation -occurring in the interest of embryonic economy.</p> - -<p>It is, indeed, a well-known fact that larval and embryonic -organisms are often obliged to defer temporarily the construc<span class="pagenum" id="Page_283">[Pg 283]</span>tion -of the more complex structures of adult life, 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 organization. -The young starfish, for example, arising as it does from -an egg but scantily supplied with yolk, is forced, from the very -outset, to shift for itself, in coping with the food-getting -problem. Under stress of this necessity, it economizes its -slender resources by constructing the extremely simple digestive -and motor apparatus characteristic of the larva in its -bilaterally-symmetrical <i>Bipinnaria</i> stage, and postponing the -development of the radially-symmetrical structure characteristic -of the adult stage, until it has stored up the wherewithal -to complete its metamorphosis.</p> - -<p>From this viewpoint, there is no difficulty in understanding -why <i>temporary</i> solutions of the excretory problem should -precede the <i>definitive</i> solution of this problem in mammalian -embryos. The problem of excretion is urgent from the outset, -and its demands increase with the growth of the embryo. -It is only natural, then, that a series of improvised structures -should be resorted to, in a case of this kind; and, since these -temporary solutions of the excretory problem must, of necessity, -be as simple as possible, 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 mammals. 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 -significance. We know of innumerable cases in which an -identical adaptation occurs in genetically unrelated organisms. -The cephalopod mollusc <i>Nautilus</i>, for example, solves the -problem of light-perception in the identical manner in which -it is solved by the vertebrates. This mollusc has the perfect -vertebrate type of eye, including the lens and all other parts -down to the minutest detail. The fact, however, that the -mollusc solves its problem by using the stereotyped solution<span class="pagenum" id="Page_284">[Pg 284]</span> -found in vertebrates rather than by developing a compound -eye analogous to the type found among arthropods, is wholly -destitute of genetic significance. In fact, the genetic interpretation -is positively rejected by the evolutionists, who interpret -the occurrence of similar eyes in molluscs and vertebrates as -an instance of “accidental convergence.” Even assuming, -then, what Kerr denies, namely, a perfect parallelism between -the mesonephros of the human embryo and the permanent -kidney of an adult fish, 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 -ancestor.</p> - -<p>In fact, not only is embryological homology of no greater -value than adult homology as an argument for evolution, but it -is, on the contrary, considerably inferior to the latter, as regards -cogency. <i>Differentiation</i> pertains to the final or <i>adult</i> stage of -organisms. Embryonic structures, inasmuch as they are undeveloped -and undifferentiated, present for that very reason an -appearance of crude and superficial similarity. “Most of what -is generally ascribed to the action of the so-called biogenetic -law,” says T. Garbowski, “is erroneously ascribed to it, since -all things that are undeveloped and incomplete must be more -or less alike.” (“Morphogenetische Studien,” Jena, 1903.) When -we consider the fact that the metazoa have all a similar unicellular -origin, are subject to uniform morphogenetic laws, and -are frequently exposed to analogous environmental conditions -demanding similar adaptations, it is not at all surprising that -they should present many points of resemblance (both in their -embryonic and their adult morphology) which are not referable -to any particular line of descent. At all events, these resemblances -are far too general in their extension to enable -us to specify the type of ancestor responsible therefor. More -especially is this true of embryological homologies, which are -practically valueless as basis for reconstructing the phylogeny -of any type. “That certain phenomena,” says Oskar Hertwig,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_285">[Pg 285]</span> -“recur with great regularity and uniformity in the development -of different species of animals, is due chiefly to the fact -that under all circumstances they supply the necessary condition -under which alone the next higher stage in ontogeny -(embryological development) can be produced.” (“Allgemeine -Biologie,” 1906, p. 595.) The same author, therefore, proposes -to revamp Haeckel’s “biogenetisches Grundgesetz” as follows: -“We must leave out the words ‘recapitulation of forms of extinct -ancestors’ and substitute for them ‘repetition of forms -regularly occurring in organic development, and advancing -from the simple to the more complex.’” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, p. 593.)</p> - -<p>Finally, when applied to the problem of man’s alleged genetic -connection with the ape, the biogenetic principle proves -the exact reverse of what the Darwinians desire; 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 -animals. Inasmuch, therefore, as the ape, in its earlier development, -reveals a more marked resemblance to man than -is present in its later stages, it follows, according to the “biogenetic -law,” that man is the ancestor of the ape. This, however, -is inadmissible, seeing that the ape is by no means a -more recent type than man. Consequently, as applied to man, -the Haeckelian principle leads to a preposterous conclusion, -and thereby manifests its worthlessness as a clue to phylogeny. -Julius Kollmann, it is true, gives serious attention to this likeness -between young apes and men, and makes it the basis of his -scheme of human evolution. “Kollmann,” says Dwight, -“starts 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 man. He holds that the likeness of the -skull of a very young ape is so great that there must be a -family relationship. He believes that some differentiation, -some favorable variation, must occur in the body of the -mother and so a somewhat higher skull is transmitted to the -offspring and is perpetuated. Concerning which Kohlbrugge -remarks that ‘thus the first men were developed, not from<span class="pagenum" id="Page_286">[Pg 286]</span> -the adult, but from the embryonic forms of the anthropoids -whose more favorable form of skull they managed to preserve -in further growth.’ ... 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 apes, and that thus mammals -might be said to have come from a more man-like ancestor.” -(<i>Op. cit.</i>, pp. 186, 187.) All of which goes to show that the -“biogenetic law” is more misleading than helpful in settling -the question of human phylogeny.</p> - - -<h3>§ 3. Rudimentary Organs</h3> - -<p>Darwin attached great importance to the existence in man -of so-called rudimentary organs, which he regarded as convincing -evidence of man’s descent from the lower forms of -animal life. Nineteenth century science, being ignorant of -the functional purpose served by many organs, arbitrarily -pronounced them to be useless organs, and chose, in consequence, -to regard them all as the atrophied and (wholly or -partially) functionless remnants of organs that were formerly -developed and fully functional in remote ancestors of the race. -Darwin borrowed this argument from Lamarck. It may be -stated thus: Undeveloped and functionless organs are -atrophied organs. But atrophy is the result of disuse. Now -disuse presupposes former use. Consequently, rudimentary -organs were at one time developed and functioning, viz. in the -remote ancestors of the race. Since, therefore, these selfsame -organs are developed and functional in the lower forms -of life, it follows that the higher forms, in which these organs -are reduced and functionless, are descended from forms similar -to those in which said organs are developed and fully functional.</p> - -<p>This argument, however, fairly bristles with assumptions -that are not only wholly unwarranted, but utterly at variance -with actual facts. In the first place, it wrongly assumes that -all reduced organs are functionless, and, conversely, that all<span class="pagenum" id="Page_287">[Pg 287]</span> -functionless organs are atrophied or reduced. Facts, however, -prove the contrary; for we find frequent instances of reduced -organs which function, and, <i>vice versa</i>, of well-developed -organs which are functionless. The tail, for example, in cats, -dogs, and certain Catarrhine monkeys, though it discharges -neither the prehensile function that makes it useful in the -Platyrrhine monkey, nor the protective function that makes it -useful to horses and cattle in warding off flies, is, nevertheless, -despite its inutility or absence of function, a quite fully developed -organ. Conversely, the reduced or undeveloped fin-like -wings of the penguin are by no means functionless, since they -enable this bird to swim through the water with great facility.</p> - -<p>To save his argument from this antagonism of the facts, -Darwin resorts to the ingenious expedient of distinguishing -between <i>rudimentary</i> organs and <i>nascent</i> organs. Rudimentary -organs are undeveloped organs, which are wholly, or -partially, useless. They have had a past, but have no future. -Nascent organs, on the contrary, are undeveloped organs, -which “are of high service to their possessors” (“Descent of -Man,” ch. I, p. 28, 2nd ed.). They “are capable of further -development” (<i>ibidem</i>), and have, therefore, a future before -them. He gives the following examples of rudimentary -organs: “Rudimentary organs ... are either quite useless, -such as teeth which never cut through the gums, or almost -useless, such as the wings of an ostrich, which serve merely -as sails.” (“Origin of Species,” 6th ed., ch. XIV, p. 469.) As -an example of a nascent organ, he gives the mammary glands -of the oviparous Duckbill: “The mammary glands of the -Ornithorhynchus may be considered, in comparison with the -udders of a cow, as in a nascent condition.” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, ch. XIV, -p. 470.)</p> - -<p>Darwin admits that it is hard to apply this distinction in -the concrete: “It is, however, often difficult to distinguish -between rudimentary and nascent organs; for we can judge -only by analogy whether a part is capable of further development, -in which case alone it deserves to be called nascent.”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_288">[Pg 288]</span> -(<i>Op. cit.</i>, ch. XIV, p. 469.) For Darwin “judging by analogy” -meant judging on the assumption that evolution has really -taken place; for he describes rudimentary organs as being -“of such slight service that we can hardly suppose that they -were developed under the conditions which now exist.” (“Descent -of Man,” ch. I, p. 29.)</p> - -<p>He is somewhat perplexed about applying this distinction -to the penguin: “The wing of the penguin,” he admits, “is of -high service, acting as a fin; it may, therefore, represent the -nascent state: not that I believe this to be the case; it is more -probably a reduced organ, modified for a new function.” -(“Origin of Species,” 6th ed., ch. XIV, pp. 469, 470.) In other -words, there is scarcely any objective consideration by which -the validity of this distinction can be checked up in practice. -Like homology and convergence, like palingenesis and cænogensis, -the distinction between rudimentary and nascent -organs is a convenient device, which can be arbitrarily manipulated -according to the necessities of a preconceived theory. -It is “scientific” sanction for the privilege of blowing hot and -cold with the same breath.</p> - -<p>The assumption that atrophy and reduction are the inevitable -consequence of disuse, or diminution of use, in so far as -this decreases the flow of nourishing blood to unexercised -parts, is certainly erroneous. Yet Darwin made it the premise -of his argument from so-called rudimentary organs. “The -term ‘disuse’ does not relate,” he informs us, “merely to lessened -action of muscles, but includes a diminished flow of blood -to the part or organ, from being subjected to fewer alternations -of pressure, or from being in any way less habitually -active.” (“Origin of Species,” 6th ed., p. 469.) As a matter -of fact, however, we have many instances in which use has -failed to develop and disuse to reduce organs in certain types -of animals. As an example in point, we may cite the case of -right-handedness among human beings. From time immemorial, -the generality of mankind have consistently used the -right hand in preference to the left, without any atrophy or<span class="pagenum" id="Page_289">[Pg 289]</span> -reduction of the left hand, or over-development of the right -hand, resulting from this racial practice. “The superiority of -one hand,” says G. Elliot Smith, “is as old as mankind.” -(Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1912, p. 570.) It is true that only -about 6,000 years of human existence are known to history, -but, if one accepts the most conservative estimates of glaciologists, -man has had a much longer prehistory, the lowest -estimates for the age of man being approximately 30,000 years. -Thus W. J. Sollas tells us that the Glacial period, in which -man first appeared, came to an end about 7,000 years ago, -and that the men buried at Chapelle-aux-Saints in France -lived about 25,000 years ago. His figures agree with those of -C. F. Wright, who bases his calculations on the Niagara -Gorge. The Niagara River is one of the postglacial streams, -and the time required to cut its gorge has been calculated as -7,000 years. Gerard De Geer, the Swedish scientist, gives -20,000 years ago as the end of glacial and the commencement -of recent or postglacial time. He bases his estimates on the -sediments of the Yoldia Sea in Sweden. His method consists -in the actual counting of certain seasonally-laminated clay -layers, presumably left behind by the receding ice sheet of the -continental glacier. The melting is registered by annual deposition, -in which the thinner layers of finer sand from the -winter flows alternate with thicker layers of coarser material -from the summer flows. In warm years, the layers are thicker, -in colder years they are thinner, so that these laminated -Pleistocene clays constitute a thermographic as well as a -chronological record. De Geer began his study of Pleistocene -clays in 1878, and in 1920 he led an expedition to the United -States, for the purpose of extending his researches. (Cf. <i>Science</i>, -Sept. 24, 1920, pp. 284-286.) At that time, he claimed to have -worked out the chronology of the past 12,000 years. His -figure of 20,000 years for postglacial time, while very displeasing -to that reckless foe of scientific caution and conservatism, -Henry Fairfield Osborn, tallies very well with the estimates -of Sollas and Wright. H. Obermaier, basing his computation<span class="pagenum" id="Page_290">[Pg 290]</span> -on Croll’s theory that glaciation is caused by variations in the -eccentricity of the earth’s orbit about the sun, which would -bring about protracted winters in the hemisphere having -winter, when the earth was farthest from the sun (with consequent -accumulation of ice), gives 30,000 years ago as the date -of the first appearance of man on earth. Father Hugues -Obermaier, it may be noted, like Abbé Henri Breuil, is one -of the foremost authorities on the subject of prehistoric Man. -Both are Catholic priests.</p> - -<p>All such computations of the age of man are, of course, uncertain -and theoretical. Evolutionists calculate it in hundreds -of thousands, and even millions, of years. After giving such -a table of recklessly tremendous figures, Osborn has the hypocritical -meticulosity to add that, for the sake of <i>precision</i> (save -the mark!) the nineteen hundred and some odd years of the -Christian era should be added to his figures. But, -even according to the most conservative scientific estimates, -as we have seen, man is said to have been in -existence for 30,000 years, and the prevalence of right-handedness -among men is as old as the human race. One -would expect, then, to find modern man equipped with a -gigantic right arm and a dwarfed left arm. In other words, -man should exhibit a condition comparable to that of a -lobster, which has one large and one small chela. Yet, in -spite of the fact that the comparative inaction of the human -left hand is supposed to have endured throughout a period of, -at least, 30,000 years, this state of affairs has not resulted -in the faintest trace of atrophy or retrogression. Bones, muscles, -tendons, ligaments, nerves, blood vessels, and all parts -are of equal size in both arms and both hands. Excessive -exercise may overdevelop the musculature of the right arm, -but this is an individual and acquired adaptation, which is -never transmitted to the offspring, <i>e.g.</i> the child of a blacksmith -does not inherit the muscular hypertrophy of his father. -Disuse, therefore, has not the efficacy which Lamarck and -Darwin ascribed to it.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_291">[Pg 291]</span></p> - -<p>In fine, it must be recognized, once for all, that organisms -are not-molded on a Lamarckian basis of use, nor yet on a -Darwinian basis of selected utility. Expediency, in other -words, is not the sole governing principle of the organic world. -Neither instinctive habitude nor the struggle for existence -succeeds in forcing structural adaptation of a predictable -nature. Animals with different organic structure have the -same instincts, <i>e.g.</i> monkeys with, and without, prehensile tails -alike dwell in trees; while animals having the same organic -structure may have different instincts, <i>e.g.</i> the rabbit, which -burrows, and the hare, which does not, are practically identical -in anatomical structure. Again, some animals are highly specialized -for a function, which other animals perform without -specialized organs, as is instanced in the case of moles, which -possess a special burrowing apparatus, and prairie-dogs, which -burrow without a specialized apparatus. Any system of evolution, -which ignores the internal or hereditary factors of -organic life and strives to explain all in terms of the environmental -factors, encounters an insuperable obstacle in this remorseless -resistance of conflicting facts.</p> - -<p>Another flaw in the Darwinian argument from rudimentary -organs is that it confounds, in many cases, <i>apparent</i>, with <i>real</i> -inutility (or absence of function). Darwin and his followers -frequently argued out of their ignorance, and falsely concluded -that an organ was destitute of a function, merely because <i>they</i> -had failed to discover its utility. Large numbers, accordingly, -of highly serviceable organs were catalogued as vestigial or -rudimentary, simply because nineteenth century science did -not comprehend their indubitable utility. With the advance -of present-day physiology, this list of “useless organs” is being -rapidly depleted, so that the scientific days of the rudimentary -organ appear to be numbered. At any rate, in arbitrarily -pronouncing many important and functioning organs to be -useless vestiges of a former stage in the history of the race, -the Darwinians were not the friends of Science, but rather -its reactionary enemies, inasmuch as they sought to discourage<span class="pagenum" id="Page_292">[Pg 292]</span> -further investigation by their dogmatic decision that there was -no function to be found. In so doing, however, they were -merely exploiting the ignorance of their times in the interest -of a preconceived theory, which whetted their appetite for -discovering, at all costs, the presence in man of functionless -organs.</p> - -<p>Their anxiety in this direction led them to consider the -whole group of organs constituting a most important regulatory -and coördinative system in man and other vertebrates -as so many useless vestigial organs. This system is called the -<i>cryptorhetic system</i> and is made of internally-secreting, ductless -glands, now called <i>endocrine glands</i>. These glands generate -and instill into the blood stream certain chemical substances -called <i>hormones</i>, which, diffusing in the blood, produce -immediate stimulatory, and remote metabolic effects on special -organs distant from the endocrine gland, in which the particular -hormone is elaborated. As examples of such endocrine -glands, we may mention the pineal gland (epiphysis), the -pituitary body (hypophysis), the thyroid glands, the parathyroids, -the islelets of Langerhans, the adrenal bodies (suprarenal -capsules), and the interstitial cells of the gonads. The -importance of these alleged useless organs is now known to -be paramount. Death, for instance, will immediately ensue -in man and other animals, upon extirpation of the adrenal -bodies.</p> - -<p>The late Robert Wiedersheim, it will be remembered, declared -the pineal gland or epiphysis to be the surviving vestige of a -“third eye” inherited from a former ancestor, in whom it -opened between the parietal bones of the skull, like the median -or <i>pineal eye</i> of certain lizards, the socket of which is the -parietal foramen formed in the interparietal suture. If the -argument is based on homology alone, 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 homology. But when one attempts -to reduce the epiphysis to the status of a useless ves<span class="pagenum" id="Page_293">[Pg 293]</span>tigial -rudiment, he is in open conflict with facts; for the pineal -body is, in reality, an endocrine gland generating and dispersing -a hormone, which is very important for the regulation -of growth in general and of sexual development in particular. -Hence this tiny organ in the diencephalic roof, no larger than -a grain of wheat, is not a functionless rudiment, but an important -functioning organ of the cryptorhetic system. We -have no ground, therefore, 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 -fame.</p> - -<p>In like manner, the pituitary body or hypophysis, which in -man is a small organ about the size of a cherry, situated at -the base of the brain, buried in the floor of the skull, and -lying just behind the optic chiasma, was formerly rated as a -rudimentary organ. It was, in fact, regarded as the vestigial -remnant of a former connection between the neural and alimentary -canals, reminiscent of the invertebrate stage. “The -phylogenetic explanation of this organ generally accepted,” -says Albert P. Mathews, “is that formerly the neural canal -connected at this point with the alimentary canal. A probable -and almost the only explanation of this, though an explanation -almost universally rejected by zoölogists, is that of -Gaskell, who has maintained that the vertebrate alimentary -canal is a new structure, and that the old invertebrate canal -is the present neural canal. The infundibulum, on this view, -would correspond to the old invertebrate œsophagus, the ventricle -of the thalamus to the invertebrate stomach, and the -canal originally connected posteriorly with the anus. The -anterior lobe of the pituitary body could then correspond to -some glandular adjunct of the invertebrate canal, and the -nervous part to a portion of the original circumœsophageal -nervous ring of the invertebrates.” (“Physiological Chemistry,” -2nd ed., 1916, pp. 641, 642.)</p> - -<p>This elaborate piece of evolutionary contortion calls for no -comment here. We are only interested in the fact that this<span class="pagenum" id="Page_294">[Pg 294]</span> -wild and weird speculation was originally inspired by the -false assumption that the hypophysis was a functionless organ. -As a matter of fact, it is the source of two important hormones. -The one generated in its anterior lobe is <i>tethelin</i>, a -metabolic hormone, which promotes the growth of the body in -general and of the bony tissue in particular. Hypertrophy -and overfunction of this gland produces giantism, or acromegaly -(enlargement of hands, feet, and skull), while atrophy -and underfunction of the anterior lobe results in infantilism, -acromikria (diminution of extremities, <i>i. e.</i> hands, feet, head), -obesity, and genital dystrophy (<i>i. e.</i> suppression of secondary -sexual characters). The posterior lobe of the pituitary -body constitutes, with the <i>pars intermedia</i>, a second endocrine -gland, which generates a stimulatory hormone called <i>pituitrin</i>. -This hormone stimulates unstriated muscle to contract, and -thereby regulates the discharge of secretions from various -glands of the body, <i>e. g.</i> the mammary glands, bladder, etc. -Hence the hypophysis, far from being a useless organ, is an -indispensable one. Moreover, it is an integral and important -part of the cryptorhetic system.</p> - -<p>The same story may be repeated of the thyroid glands. -These consist of two lobes located on either side of the windpipe, -just below the larynx (Adam’s apple), and joined together -across the windpipe by a narrow band or isthmus of -their own substance. Gaskell homologized them with a gland -in scorpions, and Mathew says that, if his surmise is correct, -“the thyroid represents an accessory sexual organ of the invertebrate.” -(<i>Op. cit.</i>, p. 654.) They are, however, endocrine -glands, that generate a hormone known as <i>thyroxin</i>, -which regulates the body-temperature, growth of the body -in general, and of the nervous system in particular, etc., etc. -Atrophy or extirpation of these glands causes cretinism in the -young and myxoedema in adults. Without a sufficient supply -of this hormone, the normal exercise of mental powers in -human beings is impossible. The organ, therefore, is far from -being a useless vestige of what was formerly useful.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_295">[Pg 295]</span></p> - -<p>George Howard Parker, the Zoölogist of Harvard, sums up -the case against the Darwinian interpretation of the endocrine -glands as follows: “The extent to which hormones control the -body is only just beginning to be appreciated. For a long time -anatomists have recognized in the higher animals, including -man, a number of so-called ductless glands, such as the thyroid -gland, the pineal gland, the hypophysis, the adrenal bodies, -and so forth. These have often been passed over as unimportant -functionless organs whose presence was to be explained -as an inheritance from some remote ancestor. But such a -conception is far from correct. If the thyroids are removed -from a dog, death follows in from one to four weeks. If the -adrenal bodies are excised, the animal dies in from two to -three days. Such results show beyond doubt that at least some -of these organs are of vital importance, and more recent studies -have demonstrated that most of them produce substances -which have all the properties of hormones.” (“Biology and -Social Problems,” 1914, pp. 43, 44.)</p> - -<p>Even the <i>vermiform appendix</i> of the cæcum, which since -Darwin’s time has served as a classic example of a rudimentary -organ in man, is, in reality, not a functionless organ. -Darwin, however, was of opinion that it was not only useless, -but positively harmful. “With respect to the alimentary -canal,” he says, “I have met with an account of only a single -rudiment, namely, the vermiform appendage of the cæcum. -... Not only is it useless, but it is sometimes the cause of -death, of which fact I have lately heard two instances. This -is due to small hard bodies, such as seeds, entering the passage -and causing inflammation.” (“Descent of Man,” 2nd -ed., ch. I, pp. 39, 40.) The idea that seeds cause appendicitis -is, of course, an exploded superstition, the hard bodies sometimes -found in the appendix being fecal concretions and not -seeds—“The old idea,” says Dr. John B. Deaver, “that foreign -bodies, such as grape seeds, are the cause of the disease, has -been disproved.” (Encycl. Americana, vol. 2, p. 76.) What -is more germane to the point at issue, however, is that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_296">[Pg 296]</span> -Darwin erred in denying the utility of the vermiform appendix. -For, although this organ does not discharge in man the important -function which its homologue discharges in grain-eating -birds and also in herbivorous mammals, it subserves the -secondary function of lubricating the intestines by means of -a secretion from its muciparous glands.</p> - -<p>Darwin gives the <i>semilunar fold</i> as another instance of a -vestigial organ, claiming that it is a persistent rudiment of a -former third eyelid or <i>membrana nictitans</i>, such as we find -in birds. “The nictitating membrane, or third eyelid,” -he says, “with its accessory muscles and other structures, is -especially well developed in birds, and is of much functional -importance to them, as it can be rapidly drawn across the -whole eyeball. It is found in some reptiles and amphibians, -and in certain fishes as in sharks. It is fairly well developed -in the two lower divisions of the mammalian series, namely, -in the monotremata and marsupials, and in some higher mammals, -as in the walrus. But in man, the quadrumana, and most -other mammals, it exists, as is admitted by all anatomists, -as a mere rudiment, called the semilunar fold.” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, -ch. I, pp. 35, 36.) Here Darwin is certainly wrong about his -facts; for the so-called third eyelid is not well developed in -the two lower divisions of the mammalian series (<i>i.e.</i> the -monotremes and the marsupials) nor in any other mammalian -type. “With but few exceptions,” says Remy Perrier, “the -third eyelid is not so complete as among the birds; (in the -mammals) it never covers the entire eye. For the rest, it is -not really perceptible except in certain types, like the dog, -the ruminants, and, still more so, the horse. In the rest (of -the mammals) it is less developed.” (“Elements d’anatomie -comparée,” Paris, 1893, p. 1137.) Moreover, Darwin’s suggestion -leaves us at sea as to the ancestor, from whom our -“rudimentary third eyelid” has been inherited. His mention -of birds as having a well developed third eyelid is not very -helpful, because all evolutionists agree in excluding the birds -from our line of descent. The reptiles are more promising<span class="pagenum" id="Page_297">[Pg 297]</span> -candidates for the position of ancestors, but, as no trace of -a third eyelid could possibly be left behind in the imperfect -record of the fossiliferous rocks (soft parts like this having but -slight chance of preservation), we do not really <i>know</i> whether -the palæozoic reptiles possessed this particular feature, or not. -Nor can we argue from analogy and induction, because not <i>all</i> -modern reptiles are equipped with third eyelids. Hence the -particular group of palæozoic reptiles, which are supposed to -have been our progenitors, may not have possessed any third -eyelid to bequeath to us in the reduced and rudimentary form -of the plica semilunaris. If it be replied, that they <i>must</i> have -had this feature, because otherwise we would have no ancestor -from whom we could inherit our semilunar fold, it is obvious -that such argumentation assumes the very point which it -ought to prove, namely: the actuality of evolution. Rudiments -are supposed to be a proof for evolution, and not, <i>vice -versa</i>, evolution a proof for rudiments.</p> - -<p>Finally, the basic assumption of Darwin that the semilunar -fold is destitute of function is incorrect; 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 (which we call tears). True this -function is secondary compared with the more important function -discharged by the nictitating membrane in birds. In the -latter, the third eyelid is a pearly-white (sometimes transparent) -membrane placed internal to the real eyelids, on the -inner side of the eye, over whose surface it can be drawn like -a curtain to shield the organ from excessive light, or irritating -dust; nevertheless, the regulation of the flow of lacrimal -humor is a real function, and it is therefore entirely false to -speak of the semilunar fold as a functionless rudiment.</p> - -<p>The <i>coccyx</i> is likewise cited by Darwin as an example of -an inherited rudiment in man. “In man,” he says, “the os -coccyx, together with certain other vertebræ hereafter to be -described, though functionless as a tail, plainly represents this -part in other vertebrate animals.” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, ch. I, p. 42.)<span class="pagenum" id="Page_298">[Pg 298]</span> -That it serves no purpose <i>as a tail</i>, may be readily admitted, -but that it serves no purpose <i>whatever</i>, is quite another matter. -As a matter of fact, it serves for the attachment of several -small muscles, whose functioning would be impossible in -the absence of this bone. Darwin himself concedes this; for -he confesses that the four vertebræ of the coccyx “are furnished -with some small muscles.” (<i>Ibidem.</i>) We may, therefore, -admit the homology between the human coccyx and the -tails of other vertebrates, without being forced to regard the -latter as a useless vestigial organ. 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 symmetry. To this we reply that Helmholtz -criticized the human eye for similar reasons, when he said that -he would remand to his workshop for correction an optical -instrument so flawed with defects as the human eye. But, -after all, it was by the use of these selfsame imperfect eyes -that Helmholtz was enabled to detect the flaws of which he -complained. When man shall have fully fathomed the difficulties -and obstructions with which organic morphogeny has -to contend in performing its wonderful work, and shall have -arrived at an elementary knowledge of the general laws of -morphogenetic mechanics, he will be more inclined to admire -than to criticize. It is a mistake to imagine that the finite -works of the Creator must be perfect from <i>every</i> viewpoint. -It suffices that they are perfect with respect to the particular -<i>purpose</i> which they serve, and this purpose must not be narrowly -estimated from the standpoint of the created work itself, -but from that of its position in the universal scheme of creation. -All such partial views as the Helmholtzian one are -false views.</p> - -<p>Another consideration which Darwin and his partisans have -failed to take into account is the possibility of an <i>ontogenetic</i>, -as well as a phylogenetic, explanation of rudimentary organs. -That is to say, rudimentary organs might, so far as <i>a priori</i> -reasons are concerned, be the now useless vestiges of organs<span class="pagenum" id="Page_299">[Pg 299]</span> -formerly developed and functional <i>in the fœtus</i>, and need not -necessarily be interpreted as traces of organs that functioned -formerly in remote racial ancestors. That there should be such -things as special fœtal organs, which atrophy in later adult -life, is a possibility that ought not to excite surprise. During -its uterine existence, the fœtus is subject to peculiar conditions -of life, very different from those which prevail in the -case of adult organisms—<i>e.g.</i> respiration and the digestive -process are suspended, and there is a totally different kind of -circulation. What, then, more natural than that the fœtus -should require special organs to adapt it to these special conditions -of uterine life? Such organs, while useful and functional -in the earlier stages of embryonic development, will, so soon -as birth and maturity introduce new conditions of life, become -superfluous, and therefore doomed, in the interest of organic -economy, to ultimate atrophy and degeneration, until nothing -is left of them but vestigial remnants.</p> - -<p>The thymus may be cited as a probable instance of such an -organ. This organ, which is located in front of the heart and -behind the breastbone, in the region between the two lungs, -consists, at the period of its greatest development in man, of -a two-lobed structure, 5 cm. long and 4 cm. wide, with a thickness -of 6 mm. and a maximum weight of 35 grams. It is -supplied with numerous lymphoid cells, which are aggregated -to form lymphoid follicles (<i>cf.</i> Gray’s “Anatomy,” 20th ed., -1918, pp. 1273, 1274; Burton-Opitz’ “Physiology,” 1920, p. 964). -This organ is a transitory one, well developed at birth, but -degenerating, according to some authors, after the second year -of life (<i>cf.</i> Starling’s “Physiology,” 3rd ed., 1920, p. 1245); -according to others, however, not until the period of full maturity, -namely, puberty. (<i>Cf.</i> Gray’s “Anatomy,” <i>loc. cit.</i>) -W. H. Howell cites both opinions, without venturing to decide -the matter (<i>cf.</i> his “Physiology,” 8th ed., 1921, pp. 869, 870). -It was at one time classified as a rudimentary or functionless -organ. Later on, however, it was thought by certain observers -to be an endocrine gland, yielding a secretion important for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_300">[Pg 300]</span> -the growth of young mammals. This took it out of the class -of useless vestigial organs, but the recent discovery that it is -indispensable to birds as furnishing a secretion necessary for -the formation of the tertiary envelopes (egg membrane and -shell) of their eggs, has tended to revive the idea of its being -a vestigial organ inherited from the lower vertebrates.</p> - -<p>Thus Dr. Oscar Riddle, while admitting that the thymus -gland in man has some influence on the growth of the bones, -contends that the newly-discovered function of this gland in -birds is much more important, since without it none of the -vertebrates, excepting mammals, could reproduce their young. -“It thus becomes clear,” he says, “that though the thymus -is almost without use in the human being, it is in fact a sort -of ‘mother of the race.’ The higher animals could not have -come into existence without it. For even while our ancestors -lived in the water, 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 life.” (<i>Science</i>, Dec. 28, 1923, Suppl. XIII, -XIV.)</p> - -<p>This conclusion, however, is far too hasty. For, even if -we disregard as negligible the minor function, that Riddle -assigns to the thymus in man, there remains another possibility, -which H. H. Wilder takes into account, namely, that -the thymus may, in certain cases, be a temporary substitute -for the lymphatic vessels. Having called attention to certain -determinate channels found in some of the lower vertebrates, -he tells us that these “can well be utilized as adjuncts of the -lymphatic system until their function can be supplied by -definite lymphatic vessels.” He then resumes his discussion -of the lymph nodules in mammals as follows: “Aside from -the solitary and aggregated nodules, both of which appear to -be centers of origin of lymphocytes, there are numerous other -places in which the cellular constituents of the blood are developed. -Many of these, as in the case of the aggregated -nodules of the intestines, are developed within the wall of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_301">[Pg 301]</span> -alimentary canal and are therefore endodermic in origin. These -include the tonsils, the <i>thymus</i>, and thyroid glands, the associated -epithelial bodies, and, perhaps, the spleen.... 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 whole, but belong elsewhere in their anatomical -developmental affinities.” (“History of the Human -Body,” 2nd ed., 1923, p. 395—italics mine.)</p> - -<p>This being the case, it is much more reasonable to interpret -the thymus as an ontogenetic (embryonic), rather than a -phylogenetic (racial) rudiment. It has been observed that, in -the case of reptiles which lack definite lymphatic glands (which -function in man as formative centers of lymphocytes or white -blood corpuscles), the thymus is extraordinarily developed -and abounds in lymphoid cells. It has also been observed -that the formation of lymphocytes in the lymphatic glands is -regulated by the digestive process; for, after digestion, the -activity of these glands increases and the formation of leucocytes -is accelerated. Since, then, the lymphatic glands appear -to require the stimulus of the digestive process to incite them -to action, it is clear that in the fœtus, which lacks the digestive -process, the lymphatic glands will not be stimulated to -action, and that the task of furnishing lymphocytes will devolve -upon the thymus. After birth, the digestive process -commences and the lymphatic glands become active in response -to this stimulus. As the function of forming lymphocytes -is transferred from the thymus to the lymphatic glands, -the former is gradually deprived of its importance, and, in -the interest of organic economy, it begins to atrophy, until, at -the end of the child’s second year, or, at latest, when the child -has reached sexual maturity, nothing but a reduced vestige -remains of this once functional organ. “The thymus,” says -Starling, “forms two large masses in the anterior mediastinum -which in man grow up to the second year of life and then -rapidly diminish, so that only traces are to be found at -puberty. It contains a large amount of lymphatic tissue and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_302">[Pg 302]</span> -is therefore often associated with the lymphatic glands as the -seat of the formation of lymph corpuscles.... In certain -cases of arrested development or of general weakness in young -people, the thymus has been found to be persistent.” (“Physiology,” -3rd ed., 1920, p. 1245.)</p> - -<p>In the light of these facts, it is utterly unreasonable to regard -the thymus as a practically useless rudiment inherited -from the lower vertebrates. “That they have an important -function in the young animal,” says Albert Mathews, “can -hardly be doubted.” (“Physiological Chemistry,” 1916, p. -675.) In fact, the peculiar nature of their development in -the young and their atrophy in the adult forces such a conclusion -upon us. The thymus, therefore, is, in all probability, -an ontogenetic, and not a phylogenetic, rudiment. It might -conceivably be exploited as a biogenetic recapitulation of a -reptilian stage in man, just as the so-called fish-kidney of the -human embryo is exploited for evolutionary interpretation. -The principles by which such a view may be refuted have -been given previously. But, in any case, it is folly to interpret -the thymus as a rudiment in the racial, rather than embryonic -sense. Moreover, the possibility of an ontogenetic interpretation -of rudiments must not be restricted to the thymus, but -must be accepted as a general and legitimate alternative for -the phylogenetic interpretation.</p> - -<p>In the last place, it remains for us to consider the Darwinian -argument, based upon so-called rudimentary organs, -from the standpoint of the science of genetics. Darwin, as -we have remarked elsewhere, was ignorant of the non-inheritability -of those inconstant individual variations now known -as fluctuations. He was somewhat perplexed, when Professor -L. Meyer pointed out the extreme variability in position of the -“projecting point” on the margin of the human ear, but he -still clung to his original contention that this “blunt point” -was a surviving vestige of the apex of the pointed ears found -in donkeys and horses, etc. “Nevertheless,” he says, “in some -cases my original view, that the points are vestiges of the tips<span class="pagenum" id="Page_303">[Pg 303]</span> -of formerly erect and pointed ears, still seems to be probable.” -(“Descent of Man,” 2nd ed., ch. I, p. 34.) Darwin, as Ranke -points out, was mistaken in homologizing his famous “tubercule” -with the apex of bestial ears. “The acute extremity -of the pointed animal ear,” says this author, “does not correspond -to this prominence designated by Darwin, but to the -vertex of the helix.” (“Der Mensch,” II, p. 39.) The feature -in question is, moreover, a mere fluctuation due to the degree -of development attained by the cartilage: hence its variability -in different human beings. In very extreme cases, fluctuations -of this sort, may be important enough to constitute an -<i>anomaly</i>, and, as anomalies are often interpreted as atavisms -and reversions to a primitive type, it may be well to advert to -this subject here.</p> - -<p>Dwight has an excellent chapter on anatomical variations -and anomalies. (<i>Cf.</i> “Thoughts of a Catholic Anatomist,” 1911, -ch. IX.) He tells us that “a thigh bone a little more bent, an -ear a little more pointed, a nose a little more projecting ... -a little more or a little less of anything you please—this is -variation.” “An anatomical anomaly,” he says, “is some peculiarity -of any part of the body which cannot be expressed -in terms of more or less, but is distinctly new.” He divides -the latter into two classes, namely: those which consist in the -repetition of one or more elements in a series, <i>e.g.</i> the occurrence -of supernumerary legs in an insect, and those which -consist in the suppression of one or more elements in a series, -<i>e.g.</i> the occurrence of eleven pairs of ribs in a man. Variations -and anomalies are fluctuational or mutational, according -as they are based on changes in the soma alone, or on changes -in the germ plasm. Variations, however, are more likely to be -non-inheritable fluctuations, and anomalies to be inheritable -mutations. We shall speak of the latter presently. In the -meantime we may note that the main trouble with interpreting -these anatomical irregularities as “reversive” or “atavistic” -is that they would connect man with all sorts of quite impossible -lines of descent. “In my early days of anatomy,”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_304">[Pg 304]</span> -says Dwight, “I thought that I must be very ignorant, 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 reversion, as it soon became -the custom to call it.... It was only later that I grasped -the fact that the reason I could not understand these things -was that there was nothing to understand. It was sham science -from beginning to end.” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, p. 209.) By way of anomaly, -almost any human peculiarity can occur in animals, and, -conversely, any bestial peculiarity in man, but the resemblance -to man of an animal outside of the alleged line of human descent -represents a grave difficulty for the theory of evolution, -and not an argument in its favor.</p> - -<p>The human body is certainly not a <i>mosaic of heterogenetic -organs</i>, <i>i.e.</i> a complex of structures inherited from any and -every sort of animal, whether extant or extinct; for such -a vast number and variety of ancestors could not possibly -have coöperated to produce man. Prof. D. Carazzi, -in his Address of Inauguration in the Chair of -Zoölogy and Comparative Anatomy at the University of -Padua, Jan. 20, 1906, excoriated with scathing irony the sham -Darwinian science, of which Dwight complains. “But even -in the serious works of pure science,” says the Italian zoölogist, -“we read, for example, 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 ass. And so far so good, because it gives -evidence of great modesty in recognizing as our ancestors -those well-deserving and long-eared quadrupeds. But this is -not all; there appear at times in a woman one or more anomalous -mammary glands below the pectoral ones; and here, too, -they insist on explaining the anomaly as a reversion to type, -that is, as an atavistic reminiscence of the numerous mammary -glands possessed by different lower mammals; the bitch, for -example....</p> - -<p>“But the supernumerary mammary glands are not a rever<span class="pagenum" id="Page_305">[Pg 305]</span>sion -to type; anomalous mammary glands may appear upon -the median line, upon the deltoid, and even upon the knee, -regions far-distant from the ‘milk-line.’ 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 type. All these features are -not phylogenetic reminiscences, but anomalies of development, -of such a nature that, if we should wish to make use -of them for establishing the line of human descent, we would -have to say that man descends from the swine, from the solipeds -and even from the cetaceans, returning, namely, to the -old conception of lineal descent, that is, to Buffon’s idea of -the concatenation of creatures.” (“Teorie e critiche nella moderna -biologia,” 1906.)</p> - -<p>Darwin’s doctrine, however, on the origin and significance -of rudimentary organs has been damaged by genetic analysis -in a yet more serious fashion. In fact, with the discovery that -anomalous <i>suppression</i> and anomalous <i>duplication</i> of organs -may result from <i>factorial mutation</i>, this Darwinian conception -received what is tantamount to its deathblow. Darwin, -it will be remembered, was convinced that the regression of -organs was brought about by “increased disuse controlled by -natural selection.” (Cf. “Origin of Species,” 6th ed., ch. V.) -Such phenomena, he thought, as the suppression of wings in -the Apteryx and the reduction of wings in running birds, arose -from their “inhabiting ocean islands,” where they “have not -been exposed to the attacks of beasts, and consequently lost -the power of using their wings for flight.” (“Descent of Man,” -6th ed., ch. I, p. 32.) In some cases, he believed that disuse -and natural selection had coöperated <i>ex aequo</i> to produce -results of this nature, <i>e.g.</i> the reduction of the eyes in the mole -and in Ctenomys; for this reduction, he claims, has some -selection-value, inasmuch as reduction of the eyes, adhesion of -the lids, and covering with hair tends to protect the unused and -useless eye against inflammation. In other cases, however, -he is inclined to discount the idea that suppression of organs<span class="pagenum" id="Page_306">[Pg 306]</span> -is an “effect of long-continued disuse,” and to regard the phenomenon -as “wholly, or mainly, due to natural selection,” <i>e.g.</i> -in the case of the wingless beetles of the island of Madeira. -“For during successive generations,” he reasons, “each individual -beetle which flew least, either from its wings having -been ever so little less developed or from indolent habit, will -have had the best chance of surviving from not being blown -out to sea; and, on the other hand, those beetles which most -readily took to flight would oftenest have been blown to sea, -and thus destroyed.” In a third class of instances, however, -he assigns the principal rôle to disuse, <i>e.g.</i> in the case of the -blind animals “which inhabit the caves of Carniola and Kentucky, -because,” as he tells us, “it is difficult to imagine that -eyes, though useless, could be injurious to animals living in -darkness.” Hence he concludes that, as the obliteration of -eyes has no selection-value, under the circumstances prevailing -in dark caves, “their loss may be attributed to disuse.” -(Cf. “Origin of Species,” 6th ed., ch. V, pp. 128-133.)</p> - -<p>Morgan’s comment on these elaborate speculations of Darwin -is very caustic and concise. Referring to factorial mutations, -which give rise to races of flies having <i>supernumerary</i> -and <i>vestigial</i> organs, he says: “In contrast to the last case, -where a character is doubled, is the next one in which the eyes -are lost. This change took place at a single step. All the -flies of this stock, however, cannot be said to be eyeless, 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 examined. Formerly we were taught that eyeless -animals arose in caves. This case shows that they may also -arise suddenly in glass milk bottles, by a change in a single -factor.</p> - -<p>“I may recall in this connection that wingless flies also arose -in our cultures by a single mutation. 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 sea.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_307">[Pg 307]</span> -Whether this is true or not, I will not pretend to say, but at -any rate wingless insects may also arise, not through a slow -process of elimination, but at a single step.” (“A Critique of -the Theory of Evolution,” 1916, pp. 66, 67.)</p> - -<p>In directing attention to the fact that a permanent and -inheritable reduction of organs to the vestigial state can result -from mutation, we do not, of course, intend to exclude the -possible occurrence of somatic atrophy due to lack of exercise -rather than to germinal change. Thus the blind species of -animals in caves may, in some instances, be persistently blind, -because of the persistent darkness of the environment in -which they live, and not by reason of any inherited factor for -blindness. Darwin gives one such instance, namely, that of -the cave rat <i>Neotoma</i>. To test such cases, the blind animals -would have to be bred in an illuminated environment. If, -under this condition, they failed to develop normal eyes, the -blindness would be due to a germinal factor, and would be -inherited in an illumined, no less than a dark, environment.</p> - -<p>In any case, a mutation which suppresses a character is not, -as we have seen, a specific change, but merely one of the -varietal order, which does not result in the production of a -genuine new species. The factorial mutant with a vestigial -wing or eye belongs to the same species as its wild or normal -parent stock. Moreover, neither disuse nor natural selection -has the slightest power to induce mutations of this kind. If -mutation be the cause of the blindness of cave animals, 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 safety, foraging, etc. -Darkness alone, however, could never induce germinal, but, at -most, merely somatic blindness. The Lamarckian factor of -disuse and the Darwinian factor of selection have been definitely -discredited as agents which could bring about hereditarily-transmissible -modifications.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_308">[Pg 308]</span></p> - - -<h3>§ 4. Fossil Links</h3> - -<p>All efforts, then, to establish, by means of anatomical and -embryological homologies, the lineal descent of man from any -known type of monkey or ape have ended in ignominious -failure. Comparative anatomy and embryology can, at most, -only furnish grounds for extremely vague and indefinite speculations -regarding the descent of man, but they can never become -a basis for specific conclusions with respect to the -phylogeny of <i>Homo sapiens</i>. Every known form of ape, -whether extant or extinct, is, as we have seen, far too specialized -in its adaptation to arboreal life to pass muster as a -feasible ancestor. The only conceivable manner in which the -human body could be related to simian stock is by way of -collateral descent, 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 both. “The ascent (<i>sic</i>) of man as one of -the Primates,” says Henry Fairfield Osborn, “was parallel -with that of the families of apes. Man has a long line of ancestry -of his own, perhaps two million or more years in length. -He is not descended from any known form of ape either living -or fossil.” (<i>The Ill. London New</i>s, Jan. 8, 1921, p. 40.)</p> - -<p>This theory of a hypothetical primate ancestor of man, -which is supposed to have inhabited the earth during the -earlier part of the Tertiary period, and to have presented a -more man-like appearance than any known type of ape, was -first propounded by Karl Snell in 1863. It was popularized at -the beginning of the present century by Klaatsch, who saw in -it a means of escape from the absurdities and perplexities of -the theory of lineal descent—“the less,” says the latter, “an -ape has changed from its original form, just so much the -more human it appears.” This saying is revamped by Kohlbrugge -to read: “Man comes from an original form much -more like himself than any existing ape.” Kohlbrugge’s comment -is as follows: “The line of descent of man thus receives<span class="pagenum" id="Page_309">[Pg 309]</span> -on the side of the primates a quite different form from its -previous-one. Such new hypotheses as those of Hubrecht -and Klaatsch seem, therefore, fortunate for nature-philosophers, -because evolution always failed us when we compared -known forms in their details, and led us only to confusion. -But if one works with such distant hypothetical ancestors, -one escapes much disillusioning.” (Quoted by Dwight, <i>op. cit.</i>, -p. 195.)</p> - -<p>One thing, at any rate, is certain, namely: that we do not -possess any fossils of this primitive “large brained, erectly -walking primate,” who is alleged to have roamed the earth -during the eocene or oligocene epoch. The Foxhall Man, -whose culture Osborn ascribes to the Upper Pliocene, is far too -recent, and, what is worse, far too intelligent, to be this Tertiary -Ancestor. The <i>Pithecanthropus erectus</i>, likewise, is excluded -for reasons which we shall presently consider. Meanwhile, -let it be noted, that we have Osborn’s assurance for the -fact that we are descended from a brainy and upright oligocene -ancestor, as yet, however, undiscovered.</p> - -<p>But the situation is more hopeful, if we hark back to a still -more remote period, whose remains are so scarce and fragmentary, -as to eliminate the possibility of embarrassment arising -from intractable details. “Back of this,” says Osborn, -“ ... was a prehuman arboreal stage.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>) Here, -then, we are back again in the same old rut of tree-climbing -simian ancestry, whence we thought to have escaped by abandoning -the theory of lineal descent; and, before we have time -to speculate upon how we got there, Prof. Wm. Gregory of -the American Museum is summoned by Osborn to present us -with specimens of this prehuman arboreal stage. This expert, -it would seem, favored up till the year 1923 the fossil jaw of -the <i>Propliopithecus</i> as representing the common root, whence -the human race diverged, on one side, and the races of anthropoid -apes, on the other. (Cf. Osborn’s <i>Museum-leaflet</i> of -1923 on “The Hall of the Age of Man,” p. 29.) On April 14, -1923, however, Gregory announced the deposition of <i>Proplio<span class="pagenum" id="Page_310">[Pg 310]</span>pithecus</i> -and the enthronement of the jaw of <i>Dryopithecus</i>. -This sudden accession of <i>Dryopithecus</i> to the post of common -ancestor of apes and men was due to the discovery by Dr. -Barnum Brown of three fossil jaws of <i>Dryopithecus</i> in the -Miocene deposits of the Siwalik beds in northern India. By -some rapturous coincidence, the three jaws in question happen -to come from three successive “horizons,” and to be representative -of just three different stages in the evolution of <i>Dryopithecus</i>. -Doctor Gregory finds, moreover, 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 teeth. Hence, with that ephemeral infallibility, -which is characteristic of authorities like Doctor Gregory, -and which is proof against all discouragement by reason of -past blunders, the one who told us but a year ago that the -cusps of all the teeth of <i>Propliopithecus</i> “are exactly such as -would be expected in the common starting point for the divergent -lines leading to the gibbons, to the higher apes, and -to man” (<i>loc. cit.</i>), now tells us that both we and the apes -have inherited our teeth from <i>Dryopithecus</i>, who had heretofore -remained neglected on the side-lines. In 1923, apparently, -Dr. Gregory was unimpressed with the crown patterns -of <i>Dryopithecus</i>, whose jaw he then excluded from the direct -human line. (Cf. <i>Museum-leaflet</i>, p. 5.) Now, however, that -the new discoveries have brought <i>Dryopithecus</i> into the limelight, -and, particularly because these jaws were found in -<i>Miocene</i> deposits, Gregory has shifted his favor from <i>Propliopithecus</i> -to <i>Dryopithecus</i>. (Cf. <i>Science</i>, April 25, 1924, suppl. -XIII.)</p> - -<p>When palæontologists are obliged to do a <i>volte face</i> of this -sort, one ought not to scoff. One ought to be an optimist, and -eschew above all the spirit of the English statesman, who, on -hearing a learned lecture by Pearson on the question of -whether Man was descended from hylobatic, or troglodytic -stock, was guilty of the following piece of impatience: “I -am not particularly interested in the descent of man ...<span class="pagenum" id="Page_311">[Pg 311]</span> -this scientific pursuit of the dead bones of the past does not -seem to me a very useful way of spending life. I am accustomed -to this mode of study; learned volumes have been written -in Sanscrit to explain the conjunction of the two vowels -‘a’ and ‘u’. It is very learned, very ingenious, but not very -helpful.... I am not concerned with my genealogy so much -as with my future. Our intellects can be more advantageously -employed than in finding our diversity from the ape.... -There may be no spirit, no soul; there is no proof of their -existence. If that is so, let us do away with shams and live -like animals. If, on the other hand, there is a soul to be looked -after, let us all strain our nerves to the task; there is no use in -digging into the sands of time for the skeletons of the past; -build your man for the future.” (Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for -1921, pp. 432, 433.) It is to be hoped, however, that this -reactionary spirit is confined to the few, and that the accession -of this new primitive ancestor will be hailed with general -satisfaction. At any rate, we can wish him well, and trust -that the fossilized jaw of <i>Dryopithecus</i> will not lose caste so -speedily as that of <i>Propliopithecus</i>.</p> - -<p><i>Propliopithecus</i>, or <i>Dryopithecus</i>? Hylobatic, or troglodytic -affinities? Such questions are scarcely the pivots on which -the world is turned! Nevertheless, we rejoice that Doctor -Gregory has again settled the former problem (provisorily, -at least) to his own satisfaction. More important, however, -than that of the dentition of <i>Dryopithecus</i>, is the crucial question -of whether or not Palæontology is able to furnish evidence -of man’s genetic continuity with this primitive pithecoid root. -Certainly, no effort has been spared to procure the much desired -proofs of our reputed bestial ancestry. The Tertiary -deposits of Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and the oceanic -islands have been diligently ransacked for fossil facts that -would be susceptible to an evolutionary interpretation. The -aprioristic criterion that all large-brained men are recent, and -all small-brained men with recessive chins are necessarily -ancient, has always been employed in evaluating the fossil<span class="pagenum" id="Page_312">[Pg 312]</span> -evidence. Notwithstanding all endeavors, however, to bring -about the consummation so devoutly desired, the facts discovered -not only fail to support the theory of collateral descent, -but actually militate against it. For assuming that -man and the anthropoid apes constitute two distinct lines of -evolution branching out from common Tertiary or pre-Tertiary -stock, palæontology should be able to show numerous intermediate -fossil forms, not alone for the lateral branch of the -apes, but also, and especially, for the lateral line connecting -modern men with the common root of the primate tree. But -it is precisely in this latter respect that the fossil evidence for -collateral descent fails most egregiously. Palæontology knows -of many fossil genera and species of apes and lemurs, that -might conceivably represent links in a genetic chain connecting -modern monkeys with Tertiary stock, but it has yet to discover -so much as a single fossil species, much less a fossil -genus, intermediate between man, as we know him, and this -alleged Tertiary ancestor common to apes and men.</p> - -<p>Not even catastrophism can be invoked to save this irremediable -situation; for any catastrophe that would have swept -away the human links would likewise have swept away the -ape links. The presence of many genera and species of fossil -apes, in contrast to the absence of any fossil genus or species of -man distinct from <i>Homo sapiens</i>, is irreconcilable with the -theory of collateral descent. Such is the dilemma proposed to -the upholders of this theory by Wasmann, in the 10th chapter -of his “Die Moderne Biologie” (3rd edition, 1906), a dilemma, -from which, as we shall see, their every attempt to extricate -themselves has failed most signally.</p> - -<p>“But what,” asked Wasmann, “has palæontology to say -concerning this question? It tells us that, up to the present, -no connecting link between man and the ape has been found; -and, indeed, according to the theory of Klaatsch, it is absurd -to speak of a link of direct connection between these two -forms, but it tells us much more than this. It shows us, on -the basis of the results of the most recent research, that we<span class="pagenum" id="Page_313">[Pg 313]</span> -know the genealogical tree of the various apes, a tree very -rich in species, which extends from the present as far back as -the hypothetical primitive form assigned to the earliest part -of the Tertiary period; and, in fact, in Zittel’s work, “Grundzüge -der Paläontologie” (1895), not less than thirty genera of -fossil Pro-simiæ and eighteen genera of genuine fossil apes are -enumerated, the which have been entombed in those strata of -the earth that intervene between the Lower Eocene and the -Alluvial epoch, but between this hypothetical primitive form -and man of the present time we do not find a single connecting -link. <i>The entire genealogical tree of man does not show so -much as one fossil genus, or even one fossil species.</i>” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, -italics his.) A brief consideration of the principal fossil remains, -in which certain palæontologists profess to see evidence -of a transition between man and the primitive pithecoid stock, -will serve to verify Wasmann’s statement, and will reveal the -fact that all the alleged connecting links are distinctly human, -or purely simian, or merely mismated combinations of human -and simian remains.</p> - -<p>(1) <i>Pithecanthropus erectus</i>: In 1891 Eugène Dubois, a -Dutch army surgeon, discovered in Java, at Trinil, in the -Ngawa district of the Madiun Residency, a calvarium (skull-cap), -2 upper molars and a femur, in the central part of an old -river bed. The four fragments, however, were not all found -in the same year, because the advent of the rainy season compelled -him to suspend the work of excavation. “The teeth,” -to quote Dubois himself, “were distant from the skull from -one to, at most, three meters; the femur was fifteen meters -(50 feet) away.” (Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1898, p. 447.) -Dubois judged the lapilli stratum, in which the bones were -found, to be older than the Pleistocene, and older, perhaps, -than the most recent zones of the <i>Pliocene</i> series. “The Trinil -ape-man,” says Osborn, “ ... is the first of the conundrums -of human ancestry. Is the Trinil race prehuman or not?” -(<i>Loc. cit.</i>, p. 40.) Certainly, Lower Pleistocene, or Upper -Pliocene represents too late a time for the appearance of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_314">[Pg 314]</span> -upright primate, whence we are said to have sprung. Even -Miocene would be too late a date for our alleged divergence -from the primitive arboreal stock.</p> - -<p>Of the capacity of the calvarium, Dubois says: “I found -the above-mentioned cavity measured 550 c.cm. The cast of -the cavity of the Neanderthal skull taken to the same plane -measures 750 c.cm.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, p. 450, footnote.) His first estimate -of the total cranial capacity of <i>Pithecanthropus</i> was -1000 c.cm., but, later on, when he decided to reconstruct the -skull on the basis of the cranium of a gibbon (<i>Hylobates -agilis</i>) rather than that of a chimpanzee (<i>Troglodytes niger</i>), -he reduced his estimate of the cranial capacity to 900 c.cm. -Recently, it is rumored, he has increased the latter estimate, as -a sequel to his having removed by means of a dentist’s tool -all the siliceous matter adhering to the skull-cap. As regards -shape, the calvarium seems to resemble most closely the -cranial vault of gibbon. This similarity, as we have seen, led -Dubois to reconstruct the skull on hylobatic lines—“the skull -of Hylobates agilis,” says Dubois, “ ... strikingly resembles -that of Pithecanthropus.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, p. 450, footnote.) The -craniologist Macnamara, it is true, claims that the skull-cap -most closely approximates the Troglodyte type. Speaking of -the calvarium of Pithecanthropus, the latter says: “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—<i>i.e.</i> to the true apes.” (<i>Archiv. -für Anthropologie</i>, XXVIII, 1903, pp. 349-360.) The large -cranial capacity, however, would seem to favor Dubois’ interpretation, -seeing that gibbons have, in proportion to their -bodies, twice as large a brain as the huge Troglodyte apes, -namely, the chimpanzee and the gorilla. The maximum cranial -capacity for any ape is from 500 to 600 c.cm. Hence, with -900 c.cm. of cranial capacity estimated by Dubois, the Pithecanthropus -stands midway between the ape and the Neanderthal -Man, a human dwarf, whose cranial capacity Huxley -estimated at 1,236 c.cm. This consideration, however, does<span class="pagenum" id="Page_315">[Pg 315]</span> -not of itself entitle the Pithecanthropus to be regarded as a -connecting link between man and the anthropoid apes. In -all such comparisons, it is the <i>relative</i>, and not the <i>absolute</i>, -size of the brain, which is important. The elephant for example, -has as large a brain as a man, but the elephant’s brain -is small, in comparison to its huge body. The brain of a mouse -is insignificant, as regards absolute size, but, considered in -relation to the size of the mouse’s body, it is as large as, if not -larger than, that of an elephant, and hence the elephant, for -all the absolute magnitude of its brain, is no more “intelligent” -than a mouse. As we have already seen, man’s brain is -unique, not for its absolute size, but for its weight and enormous -cortical surface, considered with reference to the comparatively -small organism controlled by the brain in question. -It is this excess in size which manifests the specialization of -the human brain for psychic functions. The Weddas, a dwarf -race of Ceylon, have a far smaller cranial capacity than the -Neanderthal Man, their average cranial capacity being 960 -c.cm., but they are <i>human pigmies</i>, whereas the Pithecanthropus, -according to Richard Hertwig, was a <i>giant ape</i>. “The -fragments,” says Hertwig, “were regarded by some as belonging -to a connecting link between apes and man, <i>Pithecanthropus -erectus Dubois</i>; by others they were thought to be -the remains of genuine apes, and by others those of genuine -men. The opinion that is most probably correct is that the -fragments belonged to an anthropoid ape of extraordinary size -and enormous cranial capacity.” (“Lehrbuch der Zoologie,” -7th ed.)</p> - -<p>Prof. J. H. McGregor essays to make a gradational series -out of conjectural brain casts of a large ape, the Pithecanthropus -and the Neanderthal Man, in the ratio of 6: 9: 12, -this ratio being based upon the estimated cranial capacities of -the skulls in question. In a previous chapter, we have seen -that such symmetrically graded series have little force as an -argument for common descent. In the present instance, however, -the gradation gives a wrong impression of the real state<span class="pagenum" id="Page_316">[Pg 316]</span> -of affairs. If Doctor McGregor had taken into account the -all-important consideration of relative size, he would not have -been able to construct this misleading series. This consideration, -however, did not escape Dubois himself, and in his paper -of Dec. 14, 1896, before the Berlin Anthropological Society, he -confessed that a gigantic ape of hylobatic type would have a -cranial capacity close to that of Pithecanthropus, even if we -suppose it to have been no taller than a man. (Cf. Smithson. -Inst. Rpt. for 1898, p. 350.) 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 ape.</p> - -<p>The teeth, according to Dubois, are unlike the teeth of -either men or apes, but according to Virchow and Hrdlička, -they are more ape-like than human. The femur, though unquestionably -man-like, might conceivably belong to an ape of -the gibbon type, inasmuch as the upright posture is more -normal to the long-armed gibbon than to any other anthropoid -ape, and its thighbone, for this reason, bears the closest resemblance -to that of man. According to the “Text-Book of -Zoölogy” by Parker and Haswell, the gibbon is the only ape -that can walk erectly, which it does, not like other apes, with -the fore-limbs used as crutches, but balanced exclusively upon -its hind-limbs, with its long arms dangling to the ground—“The -Gibbons can walk in an upright position without the -assistance of the fore-limbs; in the others, though, in progression -on the surface of the ground, the body may be held in a -semi-erect position with the weight resting on the hind-limbs, -yet the assistance of the long fore-limbs acting as crutches is -necessary to enable the animal to swing itself along.” (<i>Op. -cit.</i>, 3rd ed., 1921, vol. II, p. 494.) The Javanese femur is -rounder than in man, and is, in this, as well as other respects, -more akin to the thighbone of the gibbon. “After examining -hundreds of human femora,” says Dubois, “Manouvrier could -find only two that had a somewhat similar shape. It is therefore -a very rare form in man. With the gibbon a similar form<span class="pagenum" id="Page_317">[Pg 317]</span> -normally occurs.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, pp. 456, 457.) Whether the -thighbone really belonged to an erectly walking animal has -not yet been definitely settled. To decide this matter, it -would be necessary to apply the Walkhoff x-ray method, which -determines the mode of progression from the arrangement of the -bone fibers in frontal, or other, sections from the femur. This -test, however, has not hitherto been made. Nor should the -significance of the fact that the thighbone was found at -a distance of some <i>fifty feet away</i> from the skull-cap -be overlooked, seeing that this fact destroys, once and for -all, any possibility of <i>certainty</i> that both belonged to the same -animal.</p> - -<p>In conclusion, therefore, we may say that the remains of -Pithecanthropus are so scanty, fragmentary, and doubtful, as -to preclude a reliable verdict on their true significance. As -Virchow pointed out, the determination of their correct taxonomic -position is impossible, in the absence of a complete -skeleton. Meanwhile, the most probable opinion is that they -represent the remains of a giant ape of the hylobatic type. -In other words, the Pithecanthropus belongs to the genealogical -tree of the apes, and not to that of man. In fact, he has been -excluded from the direct line of human descent by Schwalbe, -Alsberg, Kollmann, Haacke, Hubrecht, Klaatsch, and all the -foremost protagonists of the theory of collateral descent. (Cf. -Dwight, <i>op. cit.</i>, ch. VIII.) Professor McGregor’s series consisting -of an ape, the Pithecanthropus, Homo neanderthalensis, and -the Crô-Magnon Man fails as an argument, not only for the -general reason we have discussed in our third chapter, but -also for two special reasons, namely: (1) that he completely ignores -the chronological question of the comparative age of the -fossils in his series, and (2) that he has neglected to take into -account the consideration of the body-brain ratio. For as -Prof. G. Grant MacCurdy puts it, “We must distinguish between -relative (cranial) capacity and absolute capacity.” -(Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1909, p. 575.) In justice to Professor -McGregor, however, it should be noted that he proposes his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_318">[Pg 318]</span> -interpretation in a purely provisory and tentative sense, and -does not dogmatize after the fashion of Osborn and Gregory.</p> - -<p>After the year 1896, Dubois appears to have withdrawn the -relics of Pithecanthropus from further inspection on the part -of scientific men, and to have kept them securely locked up -in his safe at Haarlem, Holland. (Cf. <i>Science</i>, June 15, 1923, -suppl. VIII.) Since all existing casts of the skull-cap of Pithecanthropus -are inaccurate, according to the measurements -originally given by Dubois, anthropologists were anxious to -have access to bones, in order to verify his figures and to -obtain better casts. (Cf. Hrdlička, Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for -1913, p. 498.) His obstinate refusal, therefore, to place -the Javanese remains at the disposal of scientists was bitterly -resented by the latter. Some of them accused him of having -become “reactionary” and “orthodox” in his later years, and -others went so far as to impugn his good faith in the matter -of the discovery. (Cf. W. H. Ballou’s article, <i>North American -Review</i>, April, 1922.) A writer in <i>Science</i> says: “It has been -rumored that he was influenced by religious bigotry” and refers -to the bones as a “skeleton in the closet.” (Cf. <i>loc. cit.</i>) -Dubois’ own explanation, however, was that he wished to -publish his own finds first. Recently, he seems to have yielded -to pressure in the matter, since he permitted Hrdlička, McGregor, -and others to examine the fragments of Pithecanthropus. -(Cf. <i>Science</i>, Aug. 17, 1923, Suppl. VIII.) Meanwhile, -too, his opinion has changed with reference to these -bones, which he now regards as the remains of a large -ape of the hylobatic type, and not of a form intermediate -between men and apes. This opinion is, in all likelihood, the -correct one.</p> - -<p>(2) <i>The Heidelberg Man</i>: In a quarry near Mauer in the -Elsenz Valley, Germany, on Oct. 21, 1907, a workman engaged -in excavating drove his shovel into a fossilized human -jaw, severing it into two pieces. Herr Joseph Rösch, the -owner of the quarry, immediately telegraphed the news of the -find to Prof. Otto Schoetensack of the neighboring University<span class="pagenum" id="Page_319">[Pg 319]</span> -of Heidelberg. The Professor arrived on the scene the following -day, and “once he got hold of the specimen, he would no -more let it out of his possession.” (Cf. Smithson. Inst. Rpt. -for 1913, p. 510.) He took it back with him to Heidelberg, -where he cleaned and repaired it. The crowns of four of the -teeth broken by the workman’s shovel were never recovered. -The Heidelberg jaw was found at a depth of about 79 feet below -the surface (24.1 meters). Fossil bones of Elephas antiquus, -Rhinoceros etruscus, Felis leo fossilis, etc., are said to -have been discovered at the same level. The layer in which it -was found has been classed by some as Middle Pleistocene, by -others as Early Quaternary; for “there seems to be some uncertainty -as to the exact subdivision of the period to which -it should be attributed.” (Hrdlička, <i>loc. cit.</i>, p. 516.) No -other part of the skeleton except the jaw was discovered.</p> - -<p>The teeth are of the normal human pattern, being small and -vertical. Prof. Arthur Keith says they have the same shape as -those of the specimen found at Spy. The jaw has an ape-like -appearance, due to the extreme recessiveness of the chin. It is -also remarkable for its massiveness and the broadness of the -ascending rami. Its anomalous character is indicated by the -manifest disproportion between the powerful jaw and the insignificant -teeth. “One is impressed,” says Prof. George -Grant MacCurdy of Yale, “by the relative smallness of the -teeth as compared with the massive jaw in the case of <i>Homo -heidelbergensis</i>.” (Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1909, p. 570.) “Why -so massive a jaw,” says the late Professor Dwight, former -anatomist at Harvard, “should have such inefficient teeth is -hard to explain, for the very strength of the jaw implies the -fitness of corresponding teeth. Either it is an anomaly or -the jaw of some aberrant species of ape.” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, p. 164.) -This fact alone destroys its evidential force; for, by way of -anomaly, almost any sort of feature can appear in apes and -men, that is, human characters in apes and simian characters -in man. “Thus it is certain,” says Dwight, “that animal features -of the most diverse kinds appear in man apparently<span class="pagenum" id="Page_320">[Pg 320]</span> -without rhyme or reason, and also that they appear in precisely -the same way in animals far removed from those in -which they are normal. It is hopeless to try to account for -them by inheritance; and to call them instances of convergence -does not help matters.” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, pp. 230, 231.)</p> - -<p>Kramberger, however, claims that, with the exception of the -extremely recessive chin, the features of the Heidelberg jaw -are approximated by those which are normal in the modern -Eskimo skull. (Cf. <i>Sitzungbericht der Preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaften</i>, -1909.) Prof. J. H. McGregor holds similar views. -He claims that the greater use of the jaw in uncivilized -peoples, who must masticate tough foods, tends to accentuate -and increase the recessiveness of the chin. 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 mutation. We would not, however, -be justified in segregating a distinct human species on -the basis of minor differences, such as the protuberance or -recessiveness of chins. On the whole, we are hopelessly at sea -with reference to the significance of the Heidelberg mandible. -Taxonomic allocation must be grounded on something more -than a jaw, otherwise it amounts to nothing more than a -piece of capricious speculation.</p> - -<p>(3) <i>Eoanthropus Dawsoni</i>: Dec. 18, 1912, is memorable with -evolutionary anthropologists as the day on which Charles Dawson -announced his discovery of the famous Dawn Man. The -period of discovery extended from the years prior to 1911 up to -Aug. 30, 1913, when the canine tooth was found by Father -Teilhard de Chardin. The locality was Piltdown Common, -Sussex, in England. The fragments recovered were an imperfect -cranium, part of the mandible, and the above-mentioned -canine tooth. The stratified Piltdown gravel, which Dawson -assigns to the Lower Pleistocene or Glacial epoch, had been -much disturbed by workmen, “who were digging the gravel for -small repairs.” (Dawson.) The discoverer first found a fragment -of a parietal bone. Then several years later, after the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_321">[Pg 321]</span> -gravels had been considerably rainwashed, he recovered other -fragments of the skull. All parts of the skeletal remains are -said to have been found within a radius of several yards from -the site of the initial discovery. The skull was reconstructed -by Dr. A. Smith Woodward and deposited in the British -Museum of Natural History at South Kensington. Eoliths were -found in the same gravel as the skull.</p> - -<p>Of the skull, according to Woodward, four parts remain, -which, however, were integrated from nine fragments of bone. -“The human remains,” he says, “comprise the greater part of -a brain-case and one ramus of the mandible, with two lower -molars.” Of Woodward’s reconstruction, Keith tells us that -“an approach to symmetry and a correct adjustment of parts -came only after many experimental reconstructions” (cf. -“Antiquity of Man,” p. 364), and he also remarks -that, when Woodward undertook to “replace the missing -points of the jaws, the incisor and canine teeth, he -followed simian rather than human lines.” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, -p. 324.) Here we may be permitted to observe that, -even apart from the distorting influence of preconceived theories, -this business of reconstruction is a rather dubious procedure. -The absence of parts and the inevitable modification -introduced by the use of cement employed to make the fragments -cohere make accurate reconstruction an impossibility. -The fact that Woodward assigned to the <i>lower</i> jaw a tooth -which Gerrit Miller of the United States Museum assigns to -the <i>upper</i> jaw, may well give pause to those credulous persons, -who believe that palæontologists can reliably reconstruct a -whole cranium or skeleton from the minutest fragments. -Sometimes, apparently, the “experts” are at sea even over so -simple a question as the proper allocation of a tooth.</p> - -<p>Woodward, however, was fully satisfied with his own artistic -work on Eoanthropus; for he says: “While the skull, indeed, -is evidently human, only approaching a lower grade in certain -characters of the brain, in the attachment for the neck, the -extent of the temporal muscles and in the probable size of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_322">[Pg 322]</span> -face, the mandible appears to be almost precisely that of an -ape, with nothing human except the molar teeth.” (Cf. Smithson. -Inst. Rpt. for 1913, pp. 505, 506.) Of the cranial capacity -Woodward gives the following estimate: “The capacity of the -brain-case cannot, of course, be exactly determined; but -measurements both by millet seed and water show that it must -have been at least 1,070 cc., while a consideration of the missing -parts suggests that it may have been a little more (note -the parsimoniousness of this concession!). It therefore agrees -closely with the capacity of the Gibraltar skull, as determined -by Professor Keith, and equals that of the lowest skulls of the -existing Australians. It is much below the Mousterian skulls -from Spy and La Chapelle-aux-Saints.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, p. 505.)</p> - -<p>Where Doctor Woodward came to grief, however, was in his -failure to discern the obvious disproportion between the mismated -cranium and mandible. As a matter of fact, the mandible -is older than the skull and belongs to a fossil ape, whereas -the cranium is more recent and is conspicuously human. -Woodward, however, was blissfully unconscious of this -mésalliance. What there is of the lower jaw, he assures us, -“shows the same mineralized condition as the skull” and “corresponds -sufficiently well in size to be referred to the same -individual without any hesitation.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, p. 506.)</p> - -<p>For this he was roundly taken to task by Prof. David Waterston -in an address delivered by the latter before the London -Geological Society, Dec., 1912. <i>Nature</i>, the English scientific -weekly, reports this criticism as follows: “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 leg.” Prof. J. H. McGregor of Columbia, -though he followed Woodward in modeling the head of Eoanthropus -now exhibited in “The Hall of the Age of Man,” told -the writer that he believed the jaw and the skull to be misfits. -Recently, Hrdlička has come out strongly for the separation -of the mandible from the cranium, insisting that -the former is <i>older</i> and on the order of the jaw of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_323">[Pg 323]</span> -fossil ape <i>Dryopithecus</i>, while the skull is less antique and indubitably -human. The following abstract of Hrdlička’s view -is given in <i>Science</i>, May 4, 1923: “Dr. Hrdlička,” we read, -“holds that the Piltdown jaw is much older than the skull -found near it and to which it had been supposed to belong.” -(Cf. suppl. X.) Hrdlička asserts that, from the standpoint -of dentition, there is a striking resemblance between the Piltdown -jaw and that of the extinct ape <i>Dryopithecus rhenanus</i>. -He comments, in fact, on “the close relation of the Piltdown -molars to some of the Miocene or early Pliocene human-like -teeth of this fossil ape.” (<i>Ibidem.</i>) Still other authorities, -however, have claimed that the jaw was that of a chimpanzee.</p> - -<p>To conclude, therefore, the Eoanthropus Dawsoni is an invention, -and not a discovery, an artistic creation, not a specimen. -Anyone can combine a simian mandible with a human -cranium, and, if the discovery of a connecting link entails no -more than this, then there is no reason why evidence of human -evolution should not be turned out wholesale.</p> - -<p>(4) <i>The Neanderthal Man</i> (No. 1): The remains of the -famous Neanderthal Man were found in August, 1856, by two -laborers at work in the Feldhofer Grotte, a small cave about -100 feet from the Düssel river, near Hochdal in Germany. -This cave is located at the entrance of the Neanderthal gorge -in Westphalia, at a height of 60 feet above the bottom of the -valley. No competent scientist, however, saw the bones <i>in -situ</i>. Both the bones and the loam, in which they were entombed, -had been thrown out of the cave and partly precipitated -into the ravine, long before the scientists arrived. Indeed, -the scientific discoverer, Dr. C. Fuhlrott, did not come -upon the scene until several weeks later. It was then too late to -determine the age of the bones geologically and stratigraphically, -and no petrigraphic examination of the loam was made. -The cave, which is about 25 meters above the level of the -river, communicates by crevices with the surface, so that it is -possible that the bones and the loam, which covered the floor -of the cave, may have been washed in from without. Fuhlrott<span class="pagenum" id="Page_324">[Pg 324]</span> -recovered a skull-cap, two femurs, both humeri, both ulnæ (almost -complete), the right radius, the left pelvic bone, a fragment -of the right scapula, five pieces of rib, and the right -clavicle. (Cf. Hugues Obermaier’s article, Smithson. Inst. Rpt. -for 1906, pp. 394, 395.) “Whether they (the bones) were -really in the Alluvial loam,” says Virchow, “no one saw.... -The whole importance of the Neanderthal skull consists in -the honor ascribed to it from the very beginning, of having -rested in the Alluvial loam, which was formed at the time of -the early mammals.” (Quoted by Ranke, “Der Mensch,” II, -p. 485.) We know nothing, therefore, regarding the age of the -fragmentary skeleton; for, as Obermaier says: “It is certain -that its exact age is in no way defined, either geologically or -stratigraphically.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, p. 395.)</p> - -<p>The remains are no less enigmatic from the anthropological -standpoint. For while no doubt has been raised as to their -human character, they have given rise to at least a dozen conflicting -opinions. Thus Professor Clemont of Bonn pronounced -the remains in question to be those of a Mongolian Cossack -shot by snipers in 1814, and cast by his slayers into the Feldhofer -Grotte. The same verdict had been given by L. Meyer in -1864. C. Carter Blake (1864) and Karl Vogt (1863) declared -the skull to be that of an idiot. J. Barnard Davis (1864) -claimed that it had been artificially deformed by early -obliteration of the cranial sutures. Pruner-Bey (1863) said -that it was the skull of an ancient Celt or German; R. Wagner -(1864), that it belonged to an ancient Hollander; -Rudolf Virchow, that the remains were those of a primitive -Frieslander. Prof. G. Schwalbe of Strassburg erected -it into a new <i>genus</i> of the <i>Anthropidæ</i> in 1901. In 1904, -however, he repented of his rashness and contented himself -with calling it a distinct human <i>species</i>, namely, <i>Homo -primigenius</i>, in contradistinction to <i>Homo sapiens</i> (modern -man). As we shall see presently, however, it is not a distinct -species, but, at most, an ancient <i>variety</i> or <i>subspecies</i> (race) -of the species <i>Homo sapiens</i>, differing from modern Europeans<span class="pagenum" id="Page_325">[Pg 325]</span> -only in the degree that Polynesians, Mongolians, and Hottentots -differ from them, that is, within the limits of the one -and only human species. Other opinions might be cited (cf. -Hrdlička, Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1913, p. 518, and H. -Muckermann’s “Darwinism and Evolution,” 1906, pp. 63, 64), -but the number and variety of the foregoing bear ample -testimony to the uncertain and ambiguous character of the -remains.</p> - -<p>The skull is that of a low, perhaps, degenerate, type of humanity. -The facial and basal parts of the skull are missing. -Hence we are not sure of the prognathism shown in McGregor’s -reconstruction. The skull has, however, a retreating forehead, -prominent brow ridges and a sloping occiput. Yet, in spite of -the fact that it is of a very low type, it is indubitably human. -“In no sense,” says Huxley, “can the Neanderthal bones be -regarded as the remains of a human being intermediate between -men and apes.” (“Evidence of Man’s Place in Nature,” -Humb. ed., p. 253.) D. Schaaffhausen makes the same confession—“In -making this discovery,” he owns, “we have not -found the missing link.” (“Der Neanderthaler Fund,” p. 49.) -The cranial capacity of the Neanderthal skull, as we have -seen, is 1,236 c.cm., which is practically the same as that of -the average European woman of today. In size it exceeds, -but in shape it resembles, the dolichocephalic skull of the -modern Australian, being itself a dolichocephalic cranium. -Huxley called attention to this resemblance, and Macnamara, -after comparing it with a large number of such skulls, reaches -this conclusion: “The average cranial capacity of these selected -36 skulls (namely, of Australian and Tasmanian blacks) -is even less than that of the Neanderthal group, but in shape -some of these two groups are closely related.” (<i>Archiv. -für Anthropologie</i>, XXVIII, 1903, p. 358.) Schwalbe’s opinion -that the Neanderthal Man constitutes a distinct species, -though its author has since abandoned it (cf. Wasmann’s -“Modern Biology,” Eng. ed., 1910, p. 506), will be considered -later, viz. after we have discussed the Men of Spy, Krapina<span class="pagenum" id="Page_326">[Pg 326]</span> -and Le Moustier, all of whom have been assigned to the -Neanderthal group.</p> - -<p>(5) <i>Neanderthal Man</i> (No. 2): This specimen is said to be -more recent than No. 1. Its discoverers were Rautert, -Klaatsch, and Koenen. It consists of a human skeleton without -a skull. It was found buried in the loess at a depth of 50 -centimeters. This loess had been washed into the ruined -cave, where the relics were found, subsequently to its deposition -on the plateau above. The bones were most probably -washed into the cave along with the loess, which fills the -remnant of the destroyed cave. The upper plateau of the -region is covered with the same loess. The site of the second -discovery was 200 meters to the west of the Neanderthal Cave -(<i>i.e.</i> the Feldhofer Grotte). The bones were either washed -into the broken cave, or buried there later. We have no indication -whatever of their age.</p> - -<p>(6) <i>The Man of La Naulette</i>: In 1866, André Dupont found -in the cavern of La Naulette, valley of the Lesse, Belgium, a -fossil lower jaw, or rather, the fragment of a lower jaw, associated -with remains of the mammoth and rhinoceros. The fragment -was sufficient to show the dentition, and to indicate the -absence of a chin. “Its kinship with the man of Neanderthal,” -remarks Professor MacCurdy very naïvely, “whose lower jaw -could not be found, was evident. It tended to legitimatize the -latter, which hitherto had failed of general recognition.” -(Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1909, p. 572.)</p> - -<p>(7) <i>The Men of Spy</i>: In June of 1886 two nearly complete -skeletons, probably of a woman and a man, were discovered -by Messrs. Marcel de Puydt and Maximin Lohest in a terrace -fronting a cave at Spy in the Province of Namur, Belgium, -47½ feet above the shallow bed of the stream Orneau. The -bones were found at a depth of 13 feet below the surface of the -terrace. The remains were associated with bones of the -rhinoceros (<i>Rhinoceros tichorhinus</i>), the mammoth (<i>Elephas -primigenius</i>), and the great bear (<i>Ursus spelaeus</i>). There were -also stone implements indicating Mousterian industry, and the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_327">[Pg 327]</span> -position of one of the skeletons shows that the bodies were -buried by friends. The present valley of the Orneau was -almost completely formed at the time of the burial. The exact -age of the bones cannot be determined nor can these cave deposits -be correlated with the river drift and the loess. The -cultural evidences are said to be Mousterian, and Mousterian -culture is assigned by Obermaier to the Fourth, or last, Glacial -period.</p> - -<p>Prof. Julien Fraipont of the University of Liége announced -the discovery of these palæolithic skeletons Aug. 16, 1886. -Skeleton No. 1 has weaker bones and is thought to be that of a -woman; No. 2 shows signs of strong musculature and is evidently -that of a man. Of No. 1 we have the cranial vault, two -portions of the upper jaw (with five molars and four other -teeth), a nearly complete mandible with all the teeth, a left -clavicle, a right humerus, the shaft of the left humerus, a -left radius, the heads of two ulnæ, a nearly complete right -femur, a complete left tibia, and the right os calcis. Of No. 2 -we have the vault of the skull, two portions of the maxilla -with teeth, loose teeth belonging to lower jaw, fragments of -the scapulæ, the left clavicle, imperfect humeri, the shaft of -the right radius, a left femur, the left os calcis, and the left -astragalus. The separation of the bones, however, is not yet -satisfactory. The jaw of No. 1 is well-preserved, except in -the region of the coronoids and condyles, which makes any -position we may give it more or less arbitrary. The skull of -this specimen is almost the replica of the Neanderthal skull, -except that the forehead is lower and more sloping. But No. -1 has a trace of chin prominence and in this it resembles -modern skulls. No. 2 has a higher forehead and the cranial -vault is higher and more spacious.</p> - -<p>In both skeletons the radius and femur show a peculiar -curvature, and in both, too, the arms and legs must have been -very short. Hence the men of Spy are described as having been -only partially erect, and as having had bowed thighs and bent -knees. The source of this modification, however, is not a sur<span class="pagenum" id="Page_328">[Pg 328]</span>viving -pithecoid atavism, but a non-inheritable adaptation -acquired through the habitual attitude or posture maintained -in stalking game—“Now we know,” says Dwight, “that this -feature, which is certainly an ape-like one, implies simply that -the race was one of those with the habit of ‘squatting,’ which -implies that the body hangs from the knees, not touching the -ground for hours together. As a matter of course we look for -this in savage tribes.” (“Thoughts of a Catholic Anatomist,” -p. 168.) The same may be said of the receding chin, which, -as we have seen, is also an acquired adaptation. The same, -finally, is true of the prominent brow ridges, which are not -pithecoid, but are, as Klaatsch has pointed out, related to the -size of the eye sockets, and consequently the result of an -adaptation of early palæolithic man to the life of a hunter, a -natural sequel of the very marked development of his sense of -sight. Similar brow ridges, though not quite so prominent, -occur among modern Australian blacks.</p> - -<p>Nor are the remains as typically Neanderthaloid as Keith -and others (who wish to see in palæolithic men a distinct human -species) could desire. No. 1, as we have seen, though almost -a replica of the Neanderthal skull-cap, has a trace of -chin prominence in the mandible. No. 2, though the chin is -recessive, has a higher forehead and higher and more spacious -cranial vault than the Neanderthal Man. “On the whole,” -says Hrdlička, “it may be said that No. 2, while in some -respects still very primitive, represents morphologically a decided -step from the Neanderthaloid to the present-day type -of the human cranium.” (Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1913, p. -525.)</p> - -<p>(8) <i>The Men of Krapina</i>: In the cave, or rather rock shelter, -of Krapina, in northern Croatia, beside the small stream -Kaprinica which now flows 82 feet below the cave, K. Gorjanovič-Kramberger, -Professor of geology and palæontology -at the University of Zagreb, found, in the year 1899, ten or -twelve skulls in fragments, a large number of teeth, and many -other defective parts of skeletons. All told, they represent at<span class="pagenum" id="Page_329">[Pg 329]</span> -least fourteen different individuals. The bones are in a bad -state of preservation, and show traces of burning, some of -them being calcined. The bones were associated with objects -of Mousterian industry, and bones of extinct animals such as -<i>Rhinoceros merckii</i>, <i>Ursus spelaeus</i>, <i>Bos primigenius</i>, etc. The -aforesaid Rhinoceros is an older type than the <i>Rhinoceros -tichorhinus</i> associated with the men of Spy, and implies a hot -climate, wherein the <i>Rhinoceros merckii</i> managed to persist -for a longer time than in the north. Hence the remains are -thought to belong to the last Interglacial period.</p> - -<p>In general, the bones show the same racial characteristics -as those of Neanderthal and Spy, though they are said to be -of a perceptibly more modern type than the latter. They -were men of short stature and strong muscular development. -“The crania,” says Hrdlička, “were of good size externally, -but the brain cavities were probably below the present average. -The vault of the skull was of good length and at the same -time fairly broad, so that the cephalic index, at least in some -of the individuals, was more elevated than usual in the crania -of early man.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, pp. 530, 531.) The reader must -take Hrdlička’s use of the word “usual” with “the grain of -salt” necessitated in view of the scanty number of specimens -whence such inductive generalizations are derived. The -pronounced and complete supraorbital arcs characteristic of -the Neanderthaloid type occur in this group also, though in a -less marked manner. The stone implements are evidence of -the intelligence of these men.</p> - -<p>(9) <i>The Le Moustier Man</i>: This specimen, <i>Homo mousteriensis -Hauseri</i>, was found by Prof. O. Hauser in the “lower -Moustier Cave” at Le Moustier in the valley of the Vézère, -Department of Dordogne in France, during the March of 1908. -It consists of the complete skull and other skeletal parts of -a youth of about 15 years. At this age, the sex cannot be -determined from the bones alone. Obermaier assigns these -bones to the Fourth Glacial period. Prof. George Grant MacCurdy’s -anthropological evaluation is the following: “The race<span class="pagenum" id="Page_330">[Pg 330]</span> -characters ... are not so distinct (<i>i.e.</i> at the age of 15 years) -as they would be at full maturity; but they point unmistakably -to the type of Neanderthal, Spy, and Krapina—the so-called -<i>Homo primigenius</i> which now also becomes <i>Homo mousteriensis</i>. -It was a rather stocky type, robust and of a low stature. -The arms and legs were relatively short, especially the forearm -and from the knee down, as is the case among the Eskimo. -Ape-like characters are noticeable in the curvature of the -radius and of the femur, the latter being also rounder in section -than is the case with <i>Homo sapiens</i>. In the retreating -forehead, prominent brow ridges, and prognathism (<i>i.e.</i> projection -of the jaws) it is approached to some extent by the -modern Australian. The industry associated with this skeleton -is that typical of the Mousterian epoch.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, p. 573.) -As we have already seen, the so-called ape-like features are -simply acquired adaptations to the hunter’s life, and, if inheritable -characters, they do not exceed the limits of a varietal -mutation. That the Mousterian men were endowed with the -same intelligence as ourselves, appears from the evidences of -solemn burial which surround the remains of this youth of -15 years, and prove, as Klaatsch points out, that these men -of the Glacial period were persuaded of their own immortality. -The head reclined on a pillow of earth, which still retains the -impression of the youth’s cheek, the body having been laid -on its side. Around the corpse are the best examples of the -stone implements of the period, the parents having buried their -choicest possession with the corpse of their son.</p> - -<p>(10) <i>The La Chapelle Man</i>: On August 3, 1908, the Abbés -J. and A. Bouyssonie and L. Bardon, assisted by Paul Bouyssonie -(a younger brother of the first two), discovered palæolithic -human remains, which are also assigned to the Neanderthal -group. The locality of the discovery was the village of -La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 22 kilometers south of the town of -Brive, in the department of Corrèze, in southern France. In -the side of a moderate elevation, 200 yards south of the aforesaid -village, and beyond the left bank of a small stream, the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_331">[Pg 331]</span> -Sourdoire, there is a cave now known as the Cave of La -Chapelle-aux-Saints. It was here, on the above-mentioned -date, that the priests discovered the bones of a human skeleton -surrounded by unmistakable evidences of solemn burial. “The -body lay on its back, with the head to the westward, the latter -being surrounded by stones.... About the body were many -flakes of quartz and flint, some fragments of ochre, broken -animal bones, etc.” (Hrdlička.) Another token of burial is the -rectangular pit, in which the remains were found. It is sunk -to a depth of 30 to 40 centimeters in the floor of the cavern.</p> - -<p>“They (the remains) were covered,” says Prof. G. G. MacCurdy, -“by a deposit intact 30 to 40 centimeters thick, consisting -of a magma of bone, of stone implements, and of clay. -The stone implements belong to a pure Mousterian industry. -While some pieces suggest a vague survival of Acheulian -implements (<i>i.e.</i> from the cool latter half of the Third Interglacial -period), others presage the coming of the Aurignacian -(close of last Glacial period). Directly over the human skull -were the foot bones, still in connection, of a bison—proof that -the piece had been placed there with the flesh still on, and -proof, too, that the deposit had not been disturbed. Two -hearths were noted also, and the fact that there were no implements -of bone, the industry differing in this respect from that -of La Quina and Petit-Puymoyen (Charente), as well as at -Wildkirchli, Switzerland.</p> - -<p>“The human bones include the cranium and lower jaw -(broken, but the pieces nearly all present and easily replaced -in exact position), a few vertebræ and long bones, several -ribs, phalanges, and metacarpals, clavicle, astragalus, calcaneum, -parts of scaphoid, ilium, and sacrum. The ensemble -denotes an individual of the male sex whose height was about -1.60 meters. The condition of the sutures and of the jaws -proves the skull to be that of an old man. The cranium is -dolichocephalic, with an index of 75. It is said to be flatter -in the frontal region than those of Neanderthal and Spy.” -(<i>Loc. cit.</i>, p. 574.)</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_332">[Pg 332]</span></p> - -<p>The associated remains of fossil animals comprise the horse, -reindeer, bison, <i>Rhinoceros tichorinus</i>, etc., and, according to -Hrdlička, “indicate that the deposits date from somewhere -near the middle of the glacial epoch.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, p. 539.) The -discoverers turned over the skeleton to Marcellin Boule of the -Paris Museum of Natural History for cleaning and reconstruction. -It is the <i>first instance</i> of a palæolithic man, in -which <i>the basal parts</i> of the skull, including the foramen magnum, -were recovered. Professor Boule estimates the cranial -capacity as being something between 1,600 and 1,620 c.cm. -He found the lower part of the face to be prognathic, but not -excessively so, the vault like the Neanderthal cranium, but -larger, the occiput broad and protruding, the supraorbital -arch prominent and complete, the nasal process broad, the -forehead low, and the mandible stout and chinless, though not -sloping backward at the symphysis.</p> - -<p>Alluding to the rectangular burial pit in the cave, Hrdlička -remarks: “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 burial, the most ancient -intentional burial thus far discovered.” (Smithson. Inst. Rpt. -for 1913, p. 539.)</p> - -<p>The specimens of Neanderthal, Spy, La Naulette, Krapina, -Le Moustier and La Chapelle, as we have seen, are the principal -remains said to represent the Neanderthal type, which, -according to Keith and others, is a distinct human species. -As Aurignacian Man (assigned to the close of the “Old Stone -Age,” or Glacial epoch), including the Grimaldi or Negroid -as well as the Crô-Magnon type, are universally acknowledged -to belong to the species <i>Homo sapiens</i>, we need not discuss -them here. The same holds true, <i>a fortiori</i>, of Neolithic races -such as the Solutreans and the Magdalenians. The main issue -for the present is whether or not the Neanderthal type represents -a <i>distinct species</i> of human being.</p> - -<p>Anent this question, Professor MacCurdy has the following: -“Boule estimated the capacity of the Chapelle-aux-Saints<span class="pagenum" id="Page_333">[Pg 333]</span> -skull according to the formulæ of Manouvrier, of Lee, and of -Beddoe, obtaining results that varied between 1,570 and 1,750 -cubic centimeters. By the use of millet and of shot an average -capacity of 1,626 was obtained. Judging from these figures -the capacity of the crania of Neanderthal and Spy has been -underestimated by Schaaffhausen, Huxley, and Schwalbe. By -its cranial capacity, therefore, the Neanderthal race belongs -easily in the class of <i>Homo sapiens</i>. But we must distinguish -between relative capacity and absolute capacity. In modern -man, where the transverse and antero-posterior diameters are -the same as in the skull of La Chapelle-aux-Saints, the vertical -diameter would be much greater, which would increase the -capacity to 1,800 cubic centimeters and even to 1,900 cubic -centimeters. Such voluminous modern crania are very rare. -Thus Bismarck, with horizontal cranial diameters scarcely -greater than in the man of La Chapelle-aux-Saints, is said to -have had a cranial capacity of 1,965 cubic centimeters.” -(Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1909, p. 575.)</p> - -<p>As for the structural features which are alleged to constitute -a <i>specific difference</i> between the Neanderthal type and -modern man, <i>v.g.</i> the prominent brow ridges, prognathism, -retreating forehead, receding chin, etc., all of these occur, -albeit in a lesser degree, in modern Australian blacks, who are -universally acknowledged to belong to the species <i>Homo -sapiens</i>. Moreover, there is much <i>fluctuation</i>, as Kramberger -has shown from the examination of an enormous number of -modern and fossil skulls, in both the Neanderthal and the -modern type; that is to say, Neanderthaloid features occur in -modern skulls and, conversely, modern features occur in the -skulls of <i>Homo neanderthalensis</i> (cf. “Biolog. Zentralblatt,” -1905, p. 810; and Wasmann’s “Modern Biology,” Eng. ed., -pp. 472, 473).</p> - -<p>All the differences between modern and palæolithic man are -explicable, partly upon the basis of <i>acquired adaptation</i>, inasmuch -as the primitive mode of life pursued by the latter -entailed the formation of body-modifying habits very different<span class="pagenum" id="Page_334">[Pg 334]</span> -from our present customs and habits (viz. those of our modern -civilized life). But these modifications, not being inheritable, -passed away with the passing of the habits that gave rise to -them. In part, however, the differences may be due to heritable -<i>mutations</i>, which gave rise to new <i>races</i> or <i>varieties</i> -or <i>subspecies</i>, such as Indo-Europeans, Mongolians, and -Negroes. And, if the evolutionary palæontologist insists -on magnifying characters that are well within the -scope of mere factorial mutation into a specific difference, -we shall reply, with Bateson and Morgan, by denying -his competence to pronounce on taxonomic questions, -without consulting the verdict of the geneticist. Without -breeding tests, the criterions of intersterility and longevity cannot -be applied, and breeding tests are impossible in the case -of fossils. As for an <i>a priori</i> verdict, no modern geneticist, if -called upon to give his opinion, would concede that the differences -which divide the modern and the Neanderthal types -of men exceed the limits of factorial mutations, or of natural -varieties within the same species. Here, then, it is a case -of the wish being father to the thought. So anxious are the -materialistic evolutionists to secure evidence of a connection -between man and the brute, that no pretext is too insignificant -to serve as warrant for recognizing an “intermediate species.”</p> - -<p>Even waiving this point, however, there is no evidence at -all that the Neanderthal type is ancestral to the Crô-Magnon -type. Both of these races must have migrated into Europe -from the east or the south, and we have no proof whatever -of genetic relationship between them. True, 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 epoch, but we have -seen that the evidences of antiquity are very precarious in the -case of these Neanderthaloid skeletons. Time-scales based on -extinct species and characteristic stone implements, etc., are -always satisfactory to evolutionists, because they can <i>date</i> -their fossils and archæological cultures <i>according to the theory<span class="pagenum" id="Page_335">[Pg 335]</span> -of evolution</i>, but, for one whose confidence in the “reality” of -evolution is not so great, these palæontological chronometers -are open to grave suspicion.</p> - -<p>If the horizon levels are not too finely graded, the difficulty -of accepting such a time-scale is not excessive. Hence we -might be prepared to accept the chronometric value of the -division of fossiliferous rocks into Groups, such as the Palæozoic, -the Mesozoic, and the Cænozoic, even though we are -assured by Grabau that this time-scale is “based on the -changes of life, with the result that fossils alone determine -whether a formation belongs to one or the other of these great -divisions” (“Principles of Stratigraphy,” p. 1103), but when -it comes to projecting an elaborate scheme of levels or horizons -into Pleistocene deposits on the dubious basis of index fossils -and “industries,” our credulity is not equal to the demands that -are made upon it. And this is particularly true with reference -to fossil men. Man has the geologically unfortunate habit of -<i>burying his dead</i>. Other fossils have been entombed on the -spot where they died, and therefore belong where we find them. -But it is otherwise with man. In Hilo, Hawaii, the writer -heard of a Kanaka, who was buried to a depth of 80 feet, -having stipulated this sort of burial through a special disposition -in his will. His purpose, in so doing, was to preclude -the possibility of his bones ever being disturbed by a plough -or other instrument. Nor have we any right to assume that -indications of burial will always be present in a case of this -nature. We may, on the contrary, assume it as a general -rule that human remains are always more recent than the -formations in which they are found.</p> - -<p>Be that as it may, the evidences for the antiquity of the -Neanderthaloid man prove, at most, that he was prior to the -Crô-Magnon man in Europe, but they do not prove that the -former was prior to the latter absolutely. Things may, for all -we know, have been just the reverse in Asia. Hence we have -no ground for regarding the Man of Neanderthal as ancestral -to the race of artists, who frescoed the caves of France and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_336">[Pg 336]</span> -Spain. In fact, 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 things. “There is another view,” says Dwight, -“ ... though it is so at variance with the Zeitgeist that little -is heard of it. May it not be that many low forms of man, -archaic as well as contemporary, are degenerate races? We -are told everything about progress; but decline is put aside. -It is impossible to construct a tolerable scheme of ascent -among the races of man; but cannot dark points be made -light by this theory of degeneration? One of the most obscure, -and to me most attractive of questions, is the wiping out of -old civilizations. That it has occurred repeatedly, and on -very extensive scales, is as certain as any fact in history. -Why is it not reasonable to believe that bodily degeneration -took place in those fallen from a higher estate, who, half-starved -and degraded, returned to savagery? Moreover, the -workings of the soul would be hampered by a degenerating -brain. For my part I believe the Neanderthal man to be a -specimen of a race, not arrested in its upward climb, but -thrown down from a higher position.” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, pp. 169, 170.)</p> - -<p>The view, however, 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 other. And Dwight himself admitted -the force of the “objection ... that the Neanderthal -race was an excessively old one and that skeletons of the -higher race which, according to the view which I have offered, -must have existed at the same time as the degenerate ones, -are still to be discovered.” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, p. 170.) In fact, the -Neanderthal ancestry of the present human race was so generally -accepted that, in the very year in which Dwight’s -book appeared, Sir Arthur Keith declared: “The Neanderthal -type represents the stock from which all modern races have -arisen.” Time, however, as Dr. James Walsh remarked -(<i>America</i>, Dec. 15, 1917, pp. 230, 231), has triumphantly vin<span class="pagenum" id="Page_337">[Pg 337]</span>dicated -the expectations of Professor Dwight. For in his latest -book, “The Antiquity of Man” (1916), Sir Arthur Keith has a -chapter of Conclusions, in which the following recantation -appears: “We were compelled to admit,” he owns, “that men -of the modern type had been in existence long before the -Neanderthal type.”</p> - -<p>But, even if it were true that savagery preceded civilization -in Europe, such could not have been the case everywhere; -for it is certain that civilization and culture of a comparatively -high order were imported into Europe before -the close of the Old Stone Age. The Hungarian Lake-dwellings -show that culture of a high type existed in the -New Stone Age. These two ages are regarded as prehistoric -in Europe, though in America the Stone Age belongs to history. -It is also possible that in Europe much of the Stone Age was -coëval with the history of civilized nations, and that it may -be coincident with, instead of prior to, the Bronze Age, which -seems to have begun in Egypt, and which belongs unquestionably -to history. 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 barbarism. -History begins almost contemporaneously in many different -centers, such as Egypt, Babylonia, Chaldea, China, and -Crete, about 5,000 or 6,000 years ago, and, as far back as history -goes, we find the record of high civilizations existing side -by side with a coëval barbarism. Barbarism is historically a -state of degeneration and stagnation, and history knows of no -instance of a people sunk in barbarism elevating itself by its -own efforts to higher stages of civilization. Always civilization -has been imposed upon barbarians from without. Savages, -so far as history knows them, have never become civilized, -save through the intervention of some contemporary -civilized nation. History is one long refutation of the Darwinian -theory of constant and inevitable progress. The -progress of civilization is not subsequent, but prior, or parallel, -to the retrogression of barbarism.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_338">[Pg 338]</span></p> - -<p>That savagery and barbarism represent a <i>degenerate</i>, rather -than a <i>primitive</i>, state, is proved by the fact that savage tribes, -in general, despite their brutish degradation, possess languages -too perfectly elaborated and systematized to be accounted for -by the mental attainments of the men who now use them, -languages which testify unmistakably to the superior intellectual -and cultural level of their civilized ancestors, to whom -the initial construction of such marvelous means of communication -was due. “It is indeed one of the paradoxes -of linguistic science,” says Dr. Edwin Sapir, in -a lecture delivered April 1, 1911, at the University -of Pennsylvania, “that some of the most complexly organized -languages are spoken by so-called primitive peoples, -while, on the other hand, not a few languages of relatively -simple structure are found among peoples of considerable -advance in culture. Relatively to the modern inhabitants of -England, to cite but one instance out of an indefinitely large -number, the Eskimos must be considered as rather limited in -cultural development. Yet there is just as little doubt that -in complexity of form the Eskimo language goes far beyond -English. I wish merely to indicate that, however we may -indulge in speaking of primitive man, of a primitive language -in the true sense of the word we find nowhere a trace.” (Smithson. -Inst. Rpt. for 1912, p. 573.) Pierre Duponceau makes a -similar observation with reference to the logical and orderly -organization of the Indian languages: “The dialects of the -Indian tribes,” he says, “appear to be the work of philosophers -rather than of savages.” (Cited by F. A. Tholuck, “Verm. -Schr.,” ii, p. 260.)</p> - -<p>It was considerations of this sort which led the great -philologist Max Müller to ridicule Darwin’s conception of -primitive man as a savage. “As far as we can trace the footsteps -of man,” he writes, “even on the lowest strata of history, -we see that the Divine gift of a sound and sober intellect -belonged to him from the very first; and the idea of humanity -emerging slowly from the depths of an animal brutality can<span class="pagenum" id="Page_339">[Pg 339]</span> -never be maintained again in our century. The earliest work -of art wrought by the human mind—more ancient than any -literary document, and prior even to the first whisperings of -tradition—the human language, forms one uninterrupted -chain, from the first dawn of history down to our own times. -We still speak the language of the first ancestors of our race; -and this language with its wonderful structures, bears witness -against such gratuitous theories. The formation of language, -the composition of roots, the gradual discrimination of meanings, -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 mind, of -an artist as great at least as his work.” (“Essays,” vol. I, -p. 306.) History and philology are far more solid and certain -as a basis for inference than are “index fossils” and prehistoric -archæology; and the lesson taught by history and philology -is that primitive man was not a savage, but a cultured -being endowed with an intellect equal, if not superior, to -our own.</p> - -<p>But, even if we grant the priority, which evolutionists claim -for the Old Stone Age, there are not absent even from that -cultural level evident tokens of artistic genius and high intellectual -gifts. Speaking of the pictures in the caves of Altamira, -of Marsoulas in the Haute Garonne, and of Fonte de Gaume -in the Dordogne, the archæologist Sir Arthur Evans says: -“These primeval frescoes display not only consummate mastery -of natural design, but an extraordinary technical resource. -Apart from the charcoal used in certain outlines, the chief -coloring matter was red and yellow ochre, mortars and palettes -for the preparation of which have come to light. In single -animals the tints varied from black to dark and ruddy brown -or brilliant orange, and so, by fine gradations, to paler nuances, -obtained by scraping and washing. Outlines and details -are brought out by white incised lines, and the artists availed -themselves with great skill of the reliefs afforded by convexities -of the rock surface. But the greatest marvel of all<span class="pagenum" id="Page_340">[Pg 340]</span> -is that such polychrome masterpieces as the bisons, standing -and couchant, or with limbs huddled together, of the Altamira -Cave, were executed on the ceilings of inner vaults and galleries -where the light of day has never penetrated. Nowhere -is there any trace of smoke, and it is clear that great progress -in the art of artificial illumination had already been made. -We know that stone lamps, decorated in one case with the -engraved head of an ibex, were already in existence. Such was -the level of artistic attainment in southwestern Europe, at a -modest estimate, some 10,000 years earlier than the most -ancient monuments of Egypt or Chaldæa!” (Smithson. Inst. -Rpt. for 1916, pp. 429, 430.) While reaffirming our distrust -of the undocumented chronology of “prehistory,” we cite these -examples of palæolithic art as a proof of the fact that everywhere -the manifestation of man’s physical presence coincides -with the manifestation of his intelligence, and that neither in -history nor in prehistory have we any evidence of the existence -of a bestial or irrational man preceding <i>Homo sapiens</i>, as we -know him today. It is interesting to note in this connection -that a certain J. 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 (cf. <i>Science</i>, Oct. 14, -1921, p. 357). 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 Europe.</p> - -<p>(11) <i>The Rhodesian Man</i>: In 1921 a human skull was found -by miners in the “Bone Cave” of the Broken Hill Mine in -southern Rhodesia. It was associated with human and animal -bones, as well as very crude instruments (knives and scrapers) -in flint and quartz. It was found at a depth of 60 feet below -the surface. The lower jaw was missing, and has not been -recovered. It was sent to the British Museum, South Kensington, -where it is now preserved. Doctor Smith-Woodward has -examined and described it. “The skull is in some features -the most primitive one that has ever been found; at the same -time it has many points of resemblance to (or even identity<span class="pagenum" id="Page_341">[Pg 341]</span> -with) that of modern man.” (<i>Science</i>, Feb. 3, 1922, p. 129.) -The face is intact. The forehead is low, and the brow ridges -are more pronounced than in any known fossil human skull. -The prognathism of the upper jaw is very accentuated. The -cranium is very flat on top and broad in the back. “Its total -capacity is surprisingly large. At least one prominent authority -thinks that this man had quite as much gray matter as the -average modern man.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, pp. 129, 130.) Woodward, -however, estimates the cranial capacity of this skull as 1280 -c.cm. The neck must have had powerful muscles. The nasal -bone is prominent and Neanderthaloid in character. “The -wisdom tooth is reduced in size—another point in common -with modern man and never found before in a fossil skull.” -(<i>Ibidem.</i>) The palate and the teeth in general are like those -of existing men. The femur is not curved like that of the -Neanderthal man—“In contrast to the Neanderthal man who -is supposed to have walked in a crouching position (because -of the rather curved femur and other bits of evidence), this -man is believed to have maintained the upright position, because -the femur is relatively straight and when fitted to the -tibia (which was also found) presents a perfectly good, -straight leg.” (<i>Ibidem.</i>) According to the writer we have -quoted, Dr. Elliot Smith entertained hopes that the Rhodesian -man might represent the “missing link” in man’s ancestry, -leaving the Neanderthal man as an offshoot from the main -ancestral trunk. No comment is necessary. The skull may be -a pathological specimen, but, in any case, it is evidently human -as regards its cranial capacity. The remains, moreover, -serve to emphasize the <i>fluctuational</i> character of the so-called -<i>Homo primigenius</i> type, being a mixture of modern and -Neanderthaloid features. They are not fossilized and present -a recent appearance. Hence, as B. Windle suggests, they may -have fallen into the cave through a crack, and may be modern -rather than prehistoric.</p> - -<p>(12) <i>The Foxhall Man</i>: This is the earliest known prehistoric -man. He is known to us, however, only through “his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_342">[Pg 342]</span> -flint instruments partly burned with fire, found near the little -hamlet of Foxhall, near Norwich, on the east coast of England. -These flints, discovered in 1921, 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 Mammals; this is the first true Tertiary man ever found.” -(Osborn: <i>Guide-leaflet</i> to “The Hall of the Age of Man,” -2nd ed., 1923, p. 9.) Osborn assigns the twelve kinds of flint -instruments typical of the Foxhallian culture to the Upper -Pliocene epoch. R. A. Macalister, however, denies that the deposits -are Tertiary. Abbé Henri Breuil’s verdict was undecided. -In any case, the Foxhallian culture proves that the earliest -of prehistoric men were intelligent like ourselves.</p> - -<p><i>Summa summarum</i>: So far as science knows, only one -human species has ever existed on the earth, and that is -<i>Homo sapiens</i>. All the alleged connecting links between men -and apes are found, on careful examination, to be illusory. -When not wholly ambiguous in view of their inadequate preservation -and fragmentary character, they are (as regards -both mind and body) distinctly human, like the Neanderthal -man, or they are purely simian, like the Pithecanthropus, or -they are heterogeneous combinations of human and simian -bones, like the Eoanthropus Dawsoni.<a id="FNanchor_18" href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> “With absolute certainty,” -says Hugues Obermaier, “we can only say that man -of the Quaternary period differed in no essential respect from -man of the present day. In no way did he go beyond the -limits of variation of the normal human body.” (“The Oldest -Remains of the Human Body, etc.,” Vienna, 1905.) The so-called -<i>Homo primigenius</i>, therefore, is not a distinct species -of human being, but merely an ancient race that is, at most, -a distinct variety or subspecies of man. In spite of tireless -searching, no traces of a bestial, irrational man have been -discovered. Indeed, man whom nature has left naked, defenseless, -unarmed with natural weapons, and deficient in -instinct, has no other resource than his reason and could never -have survived without it. To imagine primitive man in a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_343">[Pg 343]</span> -condition analogous to that of the idiot is preposterous. “For -other animals,” says St. Thomas of Aquin, “nature has prepared -food, garments of fur, means of defense, such as teeth, -horns, and hoofs, or at least swiftness in flight. But man is so -constituted that, none of these things having been prepared -for him by nature, reason is given him in their stead, reason -by which through his handiwork he is enabled to prepare all -these things.... Moreover, in other animals there is inborn -a certain natural economy respecting those things which are -useful or hurtful, as the lamb by nature knows the wolf to be -its enemy. Some animals also by natural instinct are aware -of the medicinal properties of herbs and of other things which -are necessary for life. Man, however, has a natural knowledge -of these things which are necessary for life only in general, -as being able to arrive at the knowledge of the particular -necessities of human life by way of inference from general -principles.” (“De regim. princ.,” l. I, c. I.) As a matter of -fact, man is never found apart from evidences of his intelligence. -The Neanderthaloid race, with their solemn burials -and implements of bone and stone, exemplify this truth no -less than the palæolithic artists of the Cave of Altamira.</p> - -<h3>§ 5. The Edict of the American Association</h3> - -<p>In the Cincinnati meeting (1923-1924) of the American -Association for the Advancement of Science, a number of resolutions -were passed regarding the subject of evolution. True, -the session in which these resolutions were passed was but -sparsely attended, and packed, for the most part, with the -ultra-partisans of transformism. Nevertheless, 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 W. J. Bryan and his Round Head -adherents. Among the resolutions, of which we have spoken, -the following dictatorial proclamation occurs: “<i>The evidences -in favor of the evolution of man are sufficient to convince -every scientist in the world.</i>”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_344">[Pg 344]</span></p> - -<p>This authoritative decree is both rash and intolerant. The -resolution-committee of the American Association is by no -means infallible, and, in the absence of infallibility, no group -of men should be so unmindful of their own limitations as to -strive to make their subjective views binding upon others. -Scientific questions are not settled by authority, but exclusively -by means of irresistible evidence, which is certainly -absent in the present case. Moreover, the declaration in -question is untrue; for many of the foremost palæontologists -and anthropologists of the day confess their complete ignorance, -as scientists, with respect to the origin of man.</p> - -<p>Dr. Clark Wissler, for example, who is the Curator-in-Chief -of the Anthropological section of the American Museum of -Natural History in New York City, made, in the course of -an interview published in the <i>New York American</i> of April 2, -1918, the following statement: “Man, like the horse or elephant, -just happened anyhow, so far as has been discovered -yet. As far as science has discovered, there always was a -man—some not so developed, but still human beings in all -their functions, much as we are today.” Asked by the reporter, -whether this did not favor the idea of an abrupt, unheralded -appearance of man on earth, Doctor Wissler replied: -“Man came out of a blue sky as far as we have been able to -delve back.” Fearing lest the reporter might have sensationalized -his words, the writer took occasion to question the -learned anthropologist on the subject during the Pan Pacific -Conference held at Honolulu, Hawaii (Aug. 2-20, 1920). His -answer was that the foregoing citations were substantially -correct.</p> - -<p>The same verdict is given by the great palæontologist, -Prof. W. Branco, Director of the Institute of Geology and -Palæontology at the University of Berlin. In his discourse -on “Fossil Man” delivered August 16, 1901, before the Fifth -International Zoölogical Congress at Berlin, Branco said, with -reference to the origin of man: “Palæontology tells us nothing -on the subject—it knows no ancestors of man.” The well<span class="pagenum" id="Page_345">[Pg 345]</span>-known -palæontologist Karl A. von Zittel reached the same conclusion. -He says somewhere (probably in his “Grundzüge der -Paläontologie”): “Such material as this (the discovered remains -of fossil men) throws no light upon the question of race -and descent. All the human bones of determinable age that -have come down to us from the European Diluvium, as well as -all the skulls discovered in caves, are identified by their size, -shape, and capacity as belonging to <i>Homo sapiens</i>, and are -fine specimens of their kind. They do not by any means fill up -the gap between man and the ape.” Joseph Le Conte repeats -the identical refrain. In the revised Fairchild edition (1903) of -his “Elements of Geology” we read: “The earliest men yet -found are in no sense connecting links between man and ape. -They are distinctly human.” (Ch. VI, p. 638.) Replying to -Haeckel, who in his “Welträtsel” proclaims man’s descent -from pithecoid primates to be <i>an historical fact</i>, J. Reinke, -the biologist of Kiel, declares: “We are merely having dust -thrown in our eyes when we read in a widely circulated book -by Ernst Haeckel the following words: ‘That man is immediately -descended from apes, and more remotely from a long line -of lower vertebrates, remains established as an indubitable -historic fact, fraught with important consequences.’ It is -absurd to speak of anything as a fact when experience lends -it no support.” (“Haeckel’s Monism and Its Supporters,” -Leipzig, 1907, p. 6.) The sum-total, in fact, of scientific -knowledge concerning the origin of the human body is contained -in the saying of the geologist, Sir Wm. Dawson, President -of McGill University: “I know nothing about the origin -of man, except what I am told in the Scripture—that God -created him. I do not know anything more than that, and I -do not know of anyone who does.”</p> - -<p>In view of this uncertainty and ignorance regarding the -origin of the human body, it is extremely unethical to strive -to impose the theory of man’s bestial origin by the sheer -weight of scientific authority and prestige. Conscientious -scientists would never venture to abuse in such a fashion the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_346">[Pg 346]</span> -confidence which the people at large place in their assurances. -Hence those who respect their honor and dignity as scientists -should refrain from dogmatizing on the undemonstrated animal -origin of man, however much they may personally fancy -this theory. “We cannot teach,” says Virchow, “nor can we -regard as one of the results of scientific research, the doctrine -that man is descended from the ape or from any other animal.” -(“The Liberty of Science,” p. 30, et seq.) And Professor Reinke -of Kiel concludes: “The only statement consistent with her -dignity, that Science can make, is to say that she knows nothing -about the origin of man.” (<i>Der Türmer</i>, V, Oct., 1902, -Part I, p. 13.)</p> - -<p>A slave, we are told (Tertul., <i>Apolog.</i> 33), rode in the triumphal -chariot of the Roman conqueror, to whisper ever and -anon in his ear: <i>Hominem memento te!</i>—“Remember that -thou art a man!” It is unfortunate that no similar warning -is sounded when the tone of scientific individuals or organizations -threatens to become unduly imperious and intolerant. -This tendency, however, to forget limitations and to usurp the -prerogative of infallibility is sometimes rebuked by other -reminders. The writer recalls an instance, which happened -in connection with the Pan Pacific Conference at Honolulu -during the August of 1920.</p> - -<p>The Conference was attended by illustrious scientists from -every land bordering upon the Pacific. After the preliminary -sessions, the delegates paid a visit to the famous volcano of -Kilauea. Doctor T. A. Jaggar, Jr., vulcanologist and Director -of the United States Observatory at Kilauea, acted as guide, -the writer himself being one of the party. In the course of -our tour of inspection, we came to the extinct volcano of -Kenakakoe. There a number of volcanic bombs, some shattered -and some intact, were pointed out to us. For the -benefit of readers, who may not know, I may state that a -volcanic bomb originates as a fragment of foreign material, -<i>e.g.</i> a stone, which, falling into a volcano, becomes coated -with an external shell of lava. In addition to the bombs,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_347">[Pg 347]</span> -certain holes in the soil were shown to us, which Doctor -Jaggar, evidently under the influence of military imagery suggested -by the then recent European War, described as “shell-craters” -dug by the aforesaid volcanic bombs.</p> - -<p>Doctor Jaggar accounted for the bombs and craters by a very -ingenious theory. In 1790, he said, the year in which Kamehameha -I was contending with Keoua for the mastery of the -large island of Hawaii, the only explosive eruption of Kilauea -known to history occurred, and it was during this -eruption (which destroyed part of Keoua’s army) that the -bombs found at Kenakakoe were ejected from the above-mentioned -volcano. It was then, we were informed, that -these bombs hurtling through the air in giant trajectories -from Kilauea struck the ground and scooped out -the “shell-craters” at Kenakakoe. Some of them, it appeared, -did not remain in the craters, but rebounded to strike -again on the rocks beyond. Of the latter, part were shattered, -while others withstood the force of the second impact. The -whole party was much impressed by the grandeur of this vivid -description, 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 -artillery.</p> - -<p>When I returned to Hilo, I happened to mention to Brother -Matthias Newell some misgivings which I had felt concerning -the size and appearance of the so-called “shell-craters.” Brother -Newell, a member of the Marist Congregation and quite a scientist -in his way, is famous in the Islands as the discoverer -of a fungus, by which the Japanese Beetle, a local -pest, has been largely exterminated. For several years, prior -to the advent of Doctor Jaggar and the United States Observatory, -he had studied extensively the famous volcano on the -slopes of Mauna Loa. On hearing my narrative of the foregoing -incident, Brother Newell was curious to know the exact -locality, and burst into a hearty laugh as soon as I mentioned -Kenakakoe. He himself, he told me, in company with Brother<span class="pagenum" id="Page_348">[Pg 348]</span> -Henry, had frequently dug for bombs at Kenakakoe. When -successful in their quest, the two were wont to carry the -volcanic bomb to the rocks, and to break it open for the -purpose of examining the inner core. Some of the bombs, -however, escaped this fate through being too resistent to the -hammer. The holes, needless to say, were not “shell-craters” -scooped by volcanic bombs, but ordinary excavations dug by -prosaic spades. Such was the simple basis of fact upon which -the elaborate superstructure of Jaggar’s theory had been -reared! Though Jaggar was, in a sense, entirely blameless, his -theory was pure fiction from start to finish. No scientist present, -however, took exception to it. On the contrary, all of -them appeared perfectly satisfied with his pseudoscientific -explanation.</p> - -<p>If the foregoing incident conveys any lesson, it is this, that -neither singly nor collectively are scientists exempt from error, -especially when they deal with a remote past, which no one -has observed. The attempt to reconstruct the past by means -of inference alone produces, not history, but romance. Doctor -Gregory’s genealogy of Man displayed in the American -Museum is quite as much the fruit of imagination as Jaggar’s -Kilauean fantasy. The sham pedigree bears like witness to -the ingenuity of the human mind, but, if anyone is tempted -by its false show of science to take it seriously, let him think -of the bombs of Kenakakoe.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_349">[Pg 349]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="AFTERWORD">AFTERWORD</h2> -</div> - - -<p>With the close of the nineteenth century the hour hand of -biological science had completed another revolution. One -after another, the classic systems of evolution had passed into -the discard, as its remorseless progress registered their doom. -The last of these systems, De-Vriesianism, enjoyed a meteoric -vogue in the first years of the present century, but it, too, has -gone into eclipse with the rise of rediscovered Mendelism. -Notwithstanding all these reverses, however, the evolutionary -theory still continues to number a host of steadfast adherents.</p> - -<p>Some of its partisans uphold it upon antiquated grounds. -Culturally speaking, such men still live in the days of Darwin, -and fail to realize that much water has passed under the -bridge since then. It has other protagonists, however, who are -thoroughly conversant with modern data, and fully aware, -in consequence, of the inadequacy of all existent formulations -of the evolutional hypothesis. Minds of the latter type are -proof, apparently, against any sort of disillusionment, and it -is manifest that their attitude is determined by some consideration -other than the actual results of research.</p> - -<p>This other consideration is monistic metaphysics. In defect -of factual confirmation, evolution is demonstrated aprioristically -from the principle of the minimum. The scope of this -methodological principle is to simplify or unify causation by -dispensing with all that is superfluous in the way of explanation. -In olden days, it went by the name of Occam’s Razor -and was worded thus: <i>Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter -necessitatem</i>—“Things are not to be multiplied without necessity.” -Evolution meets the requirements of this principle. It -simplifies the problem of organic origins by reducing the number -of ancestors to a minimum. Therefore, argues the evolutionist, -evolution must be true.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_350">[Pg 350]</span></p> - -<p>As an empirical rule, the principle of the minimum is, no -doubt, essential to the scientific method. To erect it into a -metaphysical axiom, however, is preposterous; for <i>simple</i> explanations -are not necessarily <i>true</i> explanations. In the rôle -of aprioristic metaphysics, the principle of continuity is destructive, -and tends to plane down everything to the dead level -of materialistic monism. For those who transcendentalize it, -it becomes the principle “that everything is ‘nothing but’ something -else, probably inferior to it.” (Santayana.) To assert -continuity, they are driven to deny, or, at least, to leave unexplained -and inexplicable, the obvious novelty that emerges -at each higher level of the cosmic scale. And thus it comes -to pass that intelligence is pronounced to be nothing but sense, -and sense to be nothing but physiology, and physiology to be -nothing but chemistry, and chemistry to be nothing but mechanics, -until this philosophical nihilism weeps at last for -want of further opportunities of devastation. Its exponents -have an intense horror for abrupt transitions, and resent the -discovery of anything that defies resolution into terms of -mass and motion.</p> - -<p>Evolution smooths the path for monism of this type by transforming -nature’s staircase into an inclined plane of imperceptible -ascent. Hence Dewey refers to evolution as a “clinching -proof” of the continuity hypothecated by the monist. For the -latter, there is no hierarchy of values, and all essential distinctions -are abolished; for him nothing is unique and everything -is equally important. He affirms the democracy of facts -and is blind to all perspective in nature. He is, in short, the -enemy of all beauty, all spirituality, all culture, all morality, -and all religion. He substitutes neurons for the soul, and -enthrones Natural Selection in the place of the Creator. He -sets up, in a word, the ideal of “an animalistic man and a -mechanistic universe,” and offers us evolution as a demonstration -of this “ideal.”</p> - -<p>Vernon Kellogg objects to our indictment. “The evolutionist,” -he says, “does not like being called a bad man. He<span class="pagenum" id="Page_351">[Pg 351]</span> -does not like being posted as an enemy of poetry and faith -and religion. He does not like being defined as crassly materialist, -a man exclusively of the earth earthy.” (<i>Atlantic -Monthly</i>, April 24, 1924, p. 490.) Apart from their object, -the likes or dislikes of an evolutionist are a matter of indifference. -What we want to know is whether his dislike is -merely for the names, or whether it extends to the reality -denoted by these names. Human nature has a weakness for -euphemisms. Men may “want the game without the name,” -particularly when, deservedly or undeservedly, the name happens -to have an offensive connotation.</p> - -<p>There are, no doubt, evolutionists who mingle enough dualism -with their philosophy to mitigate the most objectionable -aspects of its basic monism. In so doing, however, they are -governed by considerations that are wholly extraneous to evolutionary -thought. Indeed, if we take Kellogg’s words at -their face value (that is, in a sense which he would probably -disclaim), it is in spite of his philosophy that the evolutionist -is a spiritualist. “And just as religion and cheating,” reasons -Kellogg, “can apparently be compassed in one man, so can -one man be both evolutionist and idealist.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, p. 490.) -If this comparison holds true, the evolutionist can be an -idealist only to the extent that he is inconsistent or hypocritical, -since under no other supposition could piety and crime -coëxist in one and the same person.</p> - -<p>Be that as it may, the majority of evolutionists are avowed -mechanists and materialists, in all that concerns the explanation -of natural phenomena. “That there may be God who -has put his Spirit into men” (Kellogg, <i>ibid.</i>, p. 491), they are -condescendingly willing to concede. And small credit to them -for this; for who can <i>disprove</i> the existence of God, or the spirituality -of the human soul? Nevertheless, it is impossible, they -maintain, to be <i>certain</i> on these subjects. Natural science is -in their eyes the only form of human knowledge that has any -objective validity. Proofs of human spirituality they denounce -as <i>metaphysical</i>, and metaphysics is for them synony<span class="pagenum" id="Page_352">[Pg 352]</span>mous -with “such stuff as dreams are made of,” unworthy to -be mentioned in the same breath with physical science—“Es -gibt für uns kein anderes Erkennen als das mechanische, ... -Nur mechanisch begreifen ist Wissenschaft.” (Du Bois-Reymond.)</p> - -<p>In practice, therefore, if not in theory, the tendency of evolution -has been to unspiritualize and dereligionize the philosophy -of its adherents, a tendency which is strikingly exemplified -in one of its greatest exponents, Charles Darwin himself. -The English naturalist began his scientific career as a theist -and a spiritualist. He ended it as an agnostic and a materialist. -His evolutionary philosophy was, by his own confession, -responsible for the transformation. “When thus reflecting,” -he says, “I feel compelled to look to a first cause -having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that -of man, and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion -was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I remember, -when I wrote the ‘Origin of Species’; and it is since that time -that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become -weaker. But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, -which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind -as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted -when it draws such grand conclusions? I can not pretend to -throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery -of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I, for -one, must be content to remain an Agnostic.” (“The Life and -Letters of Charles Darwin,” edited by Francis Darwin, 1887, -vol. I, p. 282.)</p> - -<p>Darwin likewise exemplifies in his own person the destructive -influence exercised upon the æsthetic sense by exclusive -adherence to the monistic viewpoint. Having alluded in his -autobiography to his former predilection for poetry, music, and -the beauties of nature, he continues as follows: “But now for -many years I cannot endure to read a line of poetry: I have -tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found that it nauseated -me. I have also lost my taste for pictures and music.... I<span class="pagenum" id="Page_353">[Pg 353]</span> -retain some taste for fine scenery, but it does not cause me -the exquisite delight which it formerly did.... My mind -seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general -laws out of large collections of facts; ... if I had to live -my life again, I would have made it a rule to read some -poetry and listen to some music at least every week; for perhaps -the parts of my brain now atrophied would have been -kept alive through use. The loss of these tastes is a loss of -happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect, and -more probably to the moral character by enfeebling the emotional -part of our nature.” (<i>Op. cit.</i>, vol. I, pp. 81, 82.)</p> - -<p>Evolution, we repeat, has brought us materialistic monism, -in whose barren soil nor faith, nor idealism, nor morality, nor -poesy, nor art, nor any of the finer things of life can thrive. -To its dystelic and atomistic view, Nature has ceased to be -the vicar of God, and material things are no longer sacramental -symbols of eternal verities. It denies all design in -Nature, and dismembers all beauty into meaningless fragments. -It is so deeply engrossed in the contemplation of parts, that it -has forgotten that there is any such thing as a whole. The -rose and the bird-of-paradise are not ineffable messages from -God to man; they are but accidental aggregates of colloidal -molecules fortuitously assembled in the perpetual, yet aimless, -flux of evolving matter.</p> - -<p>From the standpoint of the moral and sociological consequences, -however, the gravest count against evolution is the -seeming support which this theory has given to the monistic -conception of an animalistic man. 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 speculations. -It did, however, work irreparable harm to millions of unlearned -and credulous persons, whose childlike confidence the -unscrupulous expounders of this doctrine have not hesitated -to abuse. The exaggerations and misrepresentations of the -latter met with an all too ready credence on the part of those<span class="pagenum" id="Page_354">[Pg 354]</span> -who were not competent to discriminate between theory and -fact. The sequel has been a wholesale abandonment of religious -and moral convictions, which has ruined the lives and -blighted the happiness of countless victims.</p> - -<p>Has it been worth while, we may well ask of the propounders -of this theory, to sacrifice so much in exchange for so -little? The solid gain to natural science has been negligible, -but the consequences of the blow unfairly dealt to morals -and religion are incalculable and beyond the possibility of -repair. “Morals and Religion,” says Newman, “are not represented -to the intelligence of the world by intimations and -notices strong and obvious such as those which are the foundation -of physical science.... Instead of being obtruded on our -notice, so that we cannot possibly overlook them, they are -the dictates either of Conscience or of Faith. They are faint -shadows and tracings, certain indeed, but delicate, fragile, -and almost evanescent, which the mind recognizes at one -time, not at another, discerns when it is calm, loses when it -is in agitation. The reflection of sky and mountains in the -lake is proof that sky and mountains are around it, but the -twilight or the mist or the sudden thunderstorm hurries away -the beautiful image, which leaves behind it no memorial of -what it was.... How easily can we be talked out of our -clearest views of duty; how does this or that moral precept -crumble into nothing when we rudely handle it! How does -the fear of sin pass off from us, as quickly as the glow of -modesty dies away from the countenance! and then we say -‘It is all superstition.’ However, after a time, we look around, -and then to our surprise we see, as before, the same law of duty, -the same moral precepts, the same protest against sin, appearing -over against us, in their old places, as if they had never -been brushed away, like the Divine handwriting upon the wall -at the banquet.” (“Idea of a University,” pp. 513-515.)</p> - -<p>Had evolutionary enthusiasts adhered more strictly to the -facts, had they proceeded in the spirit of scientific caution, -had they shown, in fact, even so much as a common regard<span class="pagenum" id="Page_355">[Pg 355]</span> -for the simple truth, the “progress of science” would not have -been achieved at the expense of morals and religion. As it is, -this so-called progress has left behind a wake of destruction -in the shape of undermined convictions, blasted lives, crimes, -misery, despair, and suicide. It has, in short, contributed -largely to the present sinister and undeserved triumph of -Materialism, Agnosticism, and Pessimism, which John Talbot -Smith has so fittingly characterized as the three D’s of dirt, -doubt, and despair. A little less sensationalism, a little more -conscientiousness, a little more of that admirable quality, scientific -caution, and the concord of faith and reason would have -become a truism instead of a problem. But such regrets are -vain. The evil effects are here to stay, and nothing can undo -the past.</p> - -<p>If man is but a higher kind of brute, if he has no unique, -immortal principle within him, if his free will is an illusion, -if his conduct is the necessary resultant of chemical reactions -occurring in his protoplasm, if he is nothing more than an -automaton of flesh, a mere decaying organism which is the -sport of all the blind physical forces and stimuli playing upon -it, if he has no prospect of a future life of retribution, if -he is unaccountable to any higher authority, Divine or human, -then morality ceases to have a meaning, right and wrong lose -their significance, virtue and vice are all the same. The constancy -of the martyr and the patriotism of the fallen soldier -become unintelligible folly, 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 efficiency. The grandest ideals that have inspired -enthusiasm and devotion in human breasts are but idle -dreams and worthless delusions. From a world which accepts -this degraded view of human nature all heroism and chivalry -must vanish utterly; for it will recognize no loftier incentives -to action than pleasure and love of self.</p> - -<p>Such doctrines, too, are essentially antisocial. They destroy -the very foundation of altruism. To seek immortality in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_356">[Pg 356]</span> -effects of one’s unselfish deeds becomes ridiculous. For what -assurance can we have that the fruits of our sacrifice will be acceptable -to a progressive posterity, or what difference will our -self-denial make, when the whole human species shall have -become extinct on the desolate surface of a dying world? -Without an adequate motivation for altruism, however, the -existence of society becomes impossible, since self-interest is -not a feasible substitute. To urge the observance of social -laws on the ground that they protect person, life, and property, -will hardly appeal to men who have no possessions to be protected -nor a comfortable life to be prolonged. Yet the major -portion of mankind are in this category. For such the laws -can mean nothing more than artificial corruptions, of the natural -and primitive order of things introduced for the special -benefit of the rich and powerful.</p> - -<p>Under circumstances of this sort, no plea avails to silence -the heralds of revolt. If there is no future life for the righting -of present injustices, then naught remains but to terminate -the prosperity of the wicked here and now. If there is no -heaven for man beyond the grave, then it behooves everyone -to get all the enjoyment he can out of the present life. It is -high time, therefore, that this earthly heaven of mankind -should cease to be monopolized by a few coupon-holding -capitalists and become, instead, the property of the expropriated -proletariat. Anarchy and Socialism are the consequences -which the logic of the situation inexorably portends. The -starving swine must hurl their bloated brethren from the trough -that the latter have heretofore reserved for themselves. The -sequel, of course, can be none other than the complete disintegration -of civilization and its ultimate disappearance in a -hideous vortex of carnage, rapine, and barbarity.</p> - -<p>Nor is this prognosis based on pure conjecture. In proportion -as these pernicious doctrines have gained ground, -modern society has become infected with the virus of animalism, -egoism, and perfidy; expediency has been substituted -for honor; and purity has been replaced by prophylaxis.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_357">[Pg 357]</span> -One could not, of course, expect to see a universal and thoroughgoing -application of these principles in the concrete. The -materialistic view of human nature is horribly unnatural, and, -in practice, would be quite unbearable. Natural human goodness -and even the mere instinct of self-preservation militate -against a reduction to the concrete of this inhuman conception, -and these tend, in real life, to mitigate the evil effects -of its acceptance. Nevertheless, 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 philosophy.</p> - -<p>Marxian Socialism has been called “scientific” for no other -reason than that it is based upon materialistic evolution, and -this scientific socialism has brought upon modern Russia a -reign of terror, which eclipses that of France in the bloodiest -days of the Revolution. Eleanor Marx, it will be remembered, -after falling a victim to her father’s teachings regarding “free -love,” committed suicide. The same confession of failure has -been made by two recent editors of the socialist <i>Appeal to -Reason</i> (J. W. Wayland and J. O. Welday), both of whom -committed suicide. 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 influence.</p> - -<p>But may not the extreme materialism and pessimism of this -view be peculiar to the sordid and joyless outlook of the social -malcontent? Does not evolutionary thought conduce to something -finer and more hopeful in the case of the progressive -and optimistic liberal? Vain hope! We cannot console ourselves -with any delusions on this score. Liberalism proclaims -the emancipation of humanity from all authority, and the -rejection of a future life of retribution is the indispensable -premise of the doctrine that makes man a law unto himself. -Hence, wherever Liberalism controls the tongues of educators, -the human soul becomes a myth, religion a superstition, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_358">[Pg 358]</span> -immortality an anodyne for mental weaklings. Strong-minded -truth-seekers are advised to abandon these irrational -beliefs, and to adopt the “New Religion,” which dispenses -once for all with God and the hereafter. “The new religion,” -says Charles Eliot, ex-President of Harvard, “will not attempt -to reconcile people to present ills by the promise of future compensation. -I believe that the advent of just freedom has been -delayed for centuries by such promises. Prevention will be -the watchword of the new religion, and a skillful surgeon will -be one of its ministers. It cannot supply consolation as offered -by old religions, but it will reduce the need of consolation.” -(“The New Religion.”)</p> - -<p>Again, it may be objected that evolutionists, for all their -agnosticism and materialism, frequently put Christians to -shame by their irreproachably upright and moral lives. That -they sometimes succeed in doing this cannot be gainsaid. -But they do so because they borrow their moral standards -from Christianity, and do not follow the logical consequences -of their own principles. Their morality, therefore, is parasitic, -as Balfour has wisely observed, and it will soon die out when -the social environment shall have been sufficiently de-Christianized. -“Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die,” -is their proper philosophy of life, only they have not the -courage of their convictions. For the rest, their philosophical -convictions have nothing in common with the moral standards -which they actually observe. In fact, not only does the -monism of evolutionary science fail to motivate the Christian -code of morals, but it is radically and irreconcilably opposed -to all that Christianity stands for. Hartmann, a modern -philosopher, notes with grim satisfaction the clash of the two -viewpoints, and predicts (with what, perhaps, is premature -assurance) the ultimate triumph of “modern progress.” -“Many there are,” he tells us, “who speak and write of the -struggle of civilization, but few there are who realize that -this struggle is the last desperate stand of the Christian ideal -before its final disappearance from the world, and that modern<span class="pagenum" id="Page_359">[Pg 359]</span> -civilization is prepared to resort to any means rather than -relinquish those things, which it has won at the cost of such -great toil. For modern civilization and Christianity are -antagonistic to each other, and it is therefore inevitable that -one give place to the other. Modern progress can acknowledge -no God save one immanent to the world and opposed to -the transcendent God of Christian revelation, nor other morality -save only that true kind whose source is the human will -determining itself by itself and becoming a law unto itself.” -(“Religion de l’avernir.”)</p> - -<p>The World War has done much to dampen the ardor of -those who looked forward with enthusiasm to the millennium -of a purely scientific religion. In this spectacular lesson they -have learned that science can destroy as well as build. They -have come to see that biology, physics, and chemistry are -morally colorless, 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 conduct. -When science supersedes religion, the result is always disillusionment -following in the wreck-strewn wake of moral and -physical disaster.</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="verse indent0">Grave little manikins digging in the slime</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Intent upon the old game of ‘Once-upon-a-time.’</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Other little manikins engaged with things-to-come,</div> - <div class="verse indent0">Building up the sand-heap called Millennium.</div> - <div class="verse indent24">(<i>Theodore MacManus</i>)</div> - </div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>Recently, the chancellor of a great university has seen fit -publicly to disclaim, in the name of his institution, all responsibility -for a crime committed by two members of the -student body. The young men involved in this affair had -performed an experimental murder. The experimenters, it -would seem, were unable to discriminate between man and -beast. They had been taught by their professors that scientific -psychology dispenses with the soul, and that the difference<span class="pagenum" id="Page_360">[Pg 360]</span> -between men and brutes is one of degree only, and not of -kind. Even that negligible distinction, they were told, had -been bridged by evolution. In the sequel, the young men -failed, apparently, to see why vivisection, which was right in -the case of animals, should be wrong in the case of human -beings. Their astounding obtuseness on this particular point -was, of course, exceedingly regrettable and hard to understand. -Yet, somehow, one cannot help thinking but that their -education was largely responsible for it.</p> - -<p>In the startling crime of these students, modern educators -will find much food for serious thought. It should give pause -to those, especially, who have been overzealous in popularizing -the Darwinian conception of human nature. Let men of this -type reflect upon what slender grounds their dogmatism rests, -and let them then weigh well the gravity of the responsibility, -which they incur. Tuccimei summarizes for them, in the following -terms, the nature and extent of their accountability:</p> - -<p>“This perverse determination to place man and brutes in -the same category, interests me not so much from the scriptural -standpoint as for reasons moral and social. Science, as -the more moderate of our adversaries have told us often -enough, does not assail religion, but proceeds on its way regardless -of the consequences. And the consequences we see -only too plainly, now that the evolutionary philosophy has -invaded every branch of knowledge and walk of life, and has -seeped down among the ignorant and turbulent masses. These -consequences are known as socialism and anarchy. The protagonists -of the new philosophy strove to repudiate them at -first: but now many of their number have laid aside even this -pretense. Socialistic doctrines are based exclusively upon our -assumed kinship with the brutes, and the leaders of militant -socialism have inscribed on the frontispieces of their books the -chain fatally logical and terribly true of three names, Darwin, -Spencer, Marx.</p> - -<p>“In truth, our common origin with the brutes being taken -for granted, why should we not enjoy in common with them<span class="pagenum" id="Page_361">[Pg 361]</span> -the right to gratify every instinct? Social inequalities are -the product of laws and conventionalities willed by the rich -and powerful. In the natural and primitive state of things -they did not exist; why not proceed then to a general leveling -of the existing social order?</p> - -<p>“Such an origin of the human race being assumed, the -existence of the soul and a future life becomes a myth invented -by the priests of the various religions. With this inconvenient -restraint removed, there remains no alternative save to aspire -to the acquisition of all the pleasures of life; 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 strategy. Hence anarchy. In this supposition, -morality no longer possesses that sole, true, and efficacious -sanction which religion alone can furnish; it amounts to -nothing more than the resultant of the evolution of the individual’s -perfections and their coördination to the well-being -of his race and of society. But if, by reason of retarded evolution, -the social instincts have not progressed to the point of -repressing the individual or egoistic instincts, what guilt will -there be in the delinquent who lapses into the most atrocious -crimes? Hence free will is another myth that positive psychology -and the science of moral statistics have already been -at pains to explode.</p> - -<p>“And behold the suffering, the unfortunate, and the dying -deprived of their sole consolation, the last hope which faith -held out to them, and society reduced to an inferno of desperadoes -and suicides! I could go on showing in this way, to -what a pass the evolutionistic theories bring society and the -individual.” (“La teoria dell’ evoluzione e le sue applicazioni,” -p. 46.)</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_362">[Pg 362]</span></p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_363">[Pg 363]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="GLOSSARY">GLOSSARY</h2> -</div> - - -<div class="hangsection p"> - -<p><i>Abiogenesis</i>: The discredited hypothesis that life may originate -spontaneously in lifeless matter, <i>i.e.</i>, apart from the -influence of living matter.</p> - -<p><i>Adaptation</i>: (1) The reciprocal aptitude of organism and -environment for each other; (2) a structure, modification -of structure, or behavioristic response enabling the organism -to solve a special problem imposed by the environment; -(3) the process by which the organism’s adjustment -to the environment is brought about.</p> - -<p><i>Allelomorphs</i>: Genes located opposite each other on homologous -chromosomes and representing contrasting characters; -they are separated during meiosis according to the Mendelian -law of segregation, <i>e.g.</i> the genes for red and white -in Four o’clocks which when united give rise to pink, and -when segregated, to red and white flowers respectively, -are allelomorphs of each other.</p> - -<p><i>Alluvial</i>: Pertaining to the Alluvium, which consists of -fresh-water deposits of the Pleistocene and Recent series, -to be distinguished from the Diluvium which consists of -older Pleistocene formations.</p> - -<p><i>Amino-acids</i>: The chemical building-stones of the proteins—organic -acids containing one or more amino-groups -(—NH<sub>2</sub>) in place of hydrogen, <i>e.g.</i>, amino-acetic acid, -CH<sub>2</sub>·NH<sub>2</sub>·COOH.</p> - -<p><i>Amnion</i>: A membranous bag which encloses the embryo in -higher vertebrates. The lower vertebrates, namely, fishes -and amphibia, have no amnion and are termed “anamniotic.” -The reptiles, birds, and mammals which possess -it are termed amniotic vertebrates.</p> - -<p><i>Amphioxus</i>: The most simply organized animal having a -dorsal notochord. It is classified among the Acrania in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_364">[Pg 364]</span> -contradistinction to the craniate Chordates which make -up the bulk of the vertebrates.</p> - -<p><i>Angiosperms</i>: The higher plants, which have their seeds -enclosed in seed-vessels.</p> - -<p><i>Anthropoid Apes</i>: Apes of the family <span class="smcap">Simiidæ</span>, which -approach man most closely in their organization, namely, -the chimpanzee, the gorilla, the gibbon, and orang-utan.</p> - -<p><i>Antibody</i>: Chemical substances produced in the blood in -reaction to the injection of antigens or toxic substances -and capable of counteracting or neutralizing said substance. -Such antibodies are specific for determinate -antigens.</p> - -<p><i>Antigen</i>: Any substance that causes the production of -special antibodies in the blood of susceptible animals, -after one or several injections.</p> - -<p><i>Arthropods</i>: The phylum of exoskeletal invertebrates comprising -crustaceans, arachnida, insects, etc.</p> - -<p><i>Atavism</i>: The resemblance to an ancestor more distant than -the parents.</p> - -<p><i>Automatism</i>: A spontaneous action, not in response to -recognizable stimuli.</p> - - -<p><i>Basichromatin</i>: That portion of a cell’s nuclear network -which contains nuclein and is deeply stained by basic dyes.</p> - -<p><i>Biparental</i>: Derived from two progenitors, <i>i.e.</i>, a father and -mother.</p> - -<p><i>Brachiopods</i>: Invertebrate animals bearing a superficial -resemblance to bivalve molluscs, but belonging to a totally -different group—lamp shells.</p> - - -<p><i>Cambrian</i>: The “oldest” system of the Palæozoic group of -fossiliferous rocks.</p> - -<p><i>Carbohydrates</i>: The sugars, starches, etc.,—polyhydric -alcohols with aldehydic or ketonic groups, and acetals of -same, etc.</p> - -<p><i>Catalyst</i>: A substance which accelerates a chemical reaction -without permanently participating in it, being -left over unchanged at the end of the process.</p> - -<p><i>Centriole</i>: The centrioles or central bodies are the foci of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_365">[Pg 365]</span> -mitotic division in animal cells, as well as the source of -the kinetic elements developed by such cells. They are -minute bodies usually located within a larger sphere -known as the centrosome or centrosphere. They do not -occur in the cells of the higher plants.</p> - -<p><i>Cephalopods</i>: A class of molluscs in which the foot is developed -into a headlike structure with eyes and a circle -of arms, <i>e.g.</i>, the octopus, the cuttlefish, the squid, and -the nautilus.</p> - -<p><i>Ceratites</i>: A genus of extinct cephalopods having a coiled -shell and crooked sutures.</p> - -<p><i>Character</i>: An external feature or sensible property of an -organism. It is the joint product of germinal factors -(genes) and environmental influences.</p> - -<p><i>Chlorophyll</i>: The green pigment formed in the chloroplasts -(green plastids) of plant cells. It is a diester of phytyl -and methyl alcohols with the tribasic acid, chlorophyllin, -one of whose carboxyls is esterified with methyl alcohol, -a second with phytol, while the third is otherwise engaged. -Chlorophyllin is a tribasic acid consisting of the chlorophyllic -chromogen group (containing magnesium) joined -to three carboxyl groups.</p> - -<p><i>Chondriosomes</i>: Cytoplasmic granules rodlike, threadlike, -or spherical in form, which often appear to divide on the -mitotic spindle, and are therefore credited with the power -of independent growth and division. The chondriosomes -of embryonic tissues are thought to be the original sources -of the plastids, the fibrillæ, and certain metaplastic -granules.</p> - -<p><i>Chordates</i>: The phylum of animals whose primary axial -skeleton consists temporarily or permanently of a notochord.</p> - -<p><i>Chromatin</i>: Same as basichromatin.</p> - -<p><i>Chromosomes</i>: 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 (hereditary -factors) representing characters linked together in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_366">[Pg 366]</span> -heredity, each single chromosome being termed, on this -account, a “linkage-group” by geneticists.</p> - -<p><i>Ciliate</i>: A protozoan whose motor-apparatus consists of -cilia, <i>i. e.</i>, hairlike protoplasmic projections capable of rapid -and coördinated vibratile movement.</p> - -<p><i>Cloaca</i>: A common passageway through which the intestine, -kidneys, and sex organs discharge their products,—it -occurs in certain fishes, in amphibia, reptiles, and birds, -and in a few mammals.</p> - -<p><i>Coccyx</i>: Lower extremity of the vertebral column in man.</p> - -<p><i>Colloids</i>: Insoluble gumlike substances, which will not diffuse -through organic membranes.</p> - -<p><i>Commensalism</i>: The harmonious cohabitation of two organisms -belonging to different species, where the relation -is not necessarily beneficial nor necessarily harmful to -either.</p> - -<p><i>Crossover</i>: The exchange or reciprocal transfer of whole -blocks of genes from one homologous chromosome to the -other, which sometimes occurs in synapsis, probably at -the strepsinema-stage.</p> - -<p><i>Crystalloids</i>: Soluble substances, which usually form crystals -and readily diffuse through organic membranes.</p> - -<p><i>Cyst</i>: A protective envelope formed around an organism -during period of rest.</p> - -<p><i>Cytode</i>: The non-nucleated cell hypothecated by Haeckel.</p> - -<p><i>Cyptoplasm</i>: The cell-body or extranuclear protoplasm of -a cell.</p> - - -<p><i>Endomixis</i>: A process of nuclear reorganization among the -protozoa, which does not require the coöperation of two -cells as in conjugation (amphimixis).</p> - -<p><i>Endoskeleton</i>: An internal living skeleton providing support -and protection (as well as organs of movement, in -the bone-levers to which the muscles are attached)—it is -characteristic of the vertebrates.</p> - -<p><i>Enzymes</i>: Organic catalysts, <i>i. e.</i>, complex chemical substances -formed by organisms and serving to accelerate -chemical processes taking place in said organisms, <i>e. g.</i>,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_367">[Pg 367]</span> -the digestive enzymes, which accelerate the hydrolysis of -starches, fats, and proteins.</p> - -<p><i>Epigenesis</i>: Development of the embryo by differentiation -of previously undifferentiated protoplasm.</p> - - -<p><i>Fats</i>: Esters of the higher fatty or organic acids (such as -stearic, palmitic, and oleic) esterified with the trihydric -alcohol glycerine (glycerol).</p> - - -<p><i>Gamete</i>: A reproductive cell specialized for syngamy, <i>i.e.</i>, -for union with a complementary germ cell, their union -giving rise to a synthetic cell known as a zygote.</p> - -<p><i>Ganglion</i>: An aggregate of nerve-cells consisting mainly of -neural cell-bodies together with supporting cells.</p> - -<p><i>Ganoids</i>: Fishes covered with enameled bony scales, and -now, for the most part, extinct.</p> - -<p><i>Gene</i>: A factor or infinitesimal element in a nuclear thread -or chromosome, the latter being a linear aggregate of -such factors, each having definite specificity and manifesting -itself in the external character which develops -from it.</p> - -<p><i>Genotype</i>: The total assemblage of germinal factors transmitted -by a given species of organism, that is, the complete -complex of genes synthesized in the zygote and perpetuated -by equation-divisions in the somatic cells. Hence -the basic germinal or hereditary constitution of an -organism or group of organisms.</p> - -<p><i>Germ Cells</i>: Cells specialized for reproduction as contrasted -with other vital functions, <i>e.g.</i>, spores and gametes.</p> - -<p><i>Germ-plasm</i>: The material basis of inheritance.</p> - -<p><i>Glacial Epoch</i>: After the close of the Tertiary period, -Europe and North America are said to have been covered -with vast ice sheets known as continental glaciers -(the result of great climatic changes in the Northern hemisphere). -As the weather varied these ice sheets advanced -and retreated, the retreats corresponding to the so-called -Interglacial intervals. Four Glacial and three Interglacial -stages are distinguished, and it was during the -Second and Third of these Interglacial stages that Palæolithic -Man is alleged to have entered Europe.</p> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_368">[Pg 368]</span> -<p><i>Golgi Bodies</i>: A cytoplasmic apparatus consisting, in its -localized form, of a network, and, in its dispersed form, -of scattered granules. It appears to divide on the mitotic -spindle, and seems to have some important function -connected with secretion.</p> - - -<p><i>Habitat</i>: The locality in which a given animal or plant -normally lives.</p> - -<p><i>Hallux</i>: The great toe, opposable in the ape, but not in man.</p> - -<p><i>Heredity</i>: “The appearance in offspring of characters whose -differential causes are in the germ cells” (Conklin).</p> - -<p><i>Heterozygous</i>: Hybrid,—the condition in which the chromosomal -genes paired by syngamy in the zygote are unlike.</p> - -<p><i>Homologous Chromosomes</i>: Corresponding chromosomes of -the same synaptic pair, being of paternal and maternal -origin respectively.</p> - -<p><i>Homozygous</i>: Pure,—the condition in which the chromosomal -genes paired in the zygote by syngamy are alike.</p> - -<p><i>Hormone</i>: 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 hormone, <i>e. g.</i>, secretin, gastrin, adrenalin, etc.</p> - -<p><i>Hydrotheca</i>: The cuplike extension of the perisarc (skeletal -sheath) surrounding the hypostome (oral cone) and tentacles -of certain polyps.</p> - -<p><i>Hyloblatic</i>: Resembling the gibbon.</p> - - -<p><i>Lemurs</i>: Four-handed animals allied to the Insectivora, -with curved nostrils and a claw instead of a nail on the -first finger of the rear hands.</p> - -<p><i>Lethals</i>: A genetical term for hereditary factors (genes) -which cause the death of the gametes or the zygotes that -contain them. In the case of zygotes, death results from -the homozygous, but not from the heterzygous, condition.</p> - -<p><i>Linin</i>: Same as oxychromatin.</p> - -<p><i>Litopterna</i>: A suborder of extinct ungulate mammals from -the Miocene and Pliocene of South America resembling -horses or llamas.</p> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_369">[Pg 369]</span> -<p><i>Mammals</i>: Vertebrate animals which suckle their young -after birth.</p> - -<p><i>Meiosis</i>: The process whereby the chromosomes of synaptic -pairs (in the primary oöcyte or spermatocyte) are separated -in such a way that the resulting gametes (eggs, -or sperms) receive a haploid (halved) number of unpaired -chromosomes, instead of the diploid (double) -number of paired chromosomes characteristic of the zygote -and the somatic cells of the species.</p> - -<p><i>Metista</i>: Animals and plants normally multicellular and -having their cells differentiated into at least two distinct -layers or tissues—the Metazoans and Metaphytes.</p> - -<p><i>Mitosis</i>: Typical cell-division, whose mechanism consists -of the spindle-fibers, 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-cells.</p> - -<p><i>Monism</i>: A system of thought which holds that there is but -one substance, either mind (idealistic subjectivism), or -matter (objectivistic materialism),—or else a substance -that is neither mind nor matter, but is the substantial -ground of both. Idealistic monism regards mind as the -sole reality and matter as its product. Materialistic -monism regards matter as the sole reality and mind as its -product.</p> - - -<p><i>Neolithic</i>: Pertaining to the Young-Stone Age, that is, to -prehistoric man of Post-glacial time. The implements of -the latter are of polished stone. The Young-Stone Age -is said to have begun about 7,000 years <span class="allsmcap">B.C.</span>, and to have -ended with the Copper Culture about 2,000 <span class="allsmcap">B.C.</span> The -Bronze Age, which followed it, belongs to history.</p> - -<p><i>Neurone</i>: The nerve-cell with all its processes, consisting, -therefore, of the nucleated cell-body, the axone or discharging -fiber, and the dentrites or receiving fibers.</p> - - -<p><i>Oölites</i>: An English term for the Jurassic, or middle system -of the Mesozoic group of fossiliferous rocks.</p> - -<p><i>Ontogeny</i>: The embryological development of the individual.</p> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_370">[Pg 370]</span> -<p><i>Opposable</i>: 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 digits.</p> - -<p><i>Organelle</i>: Literally, a “miniature organ,” <i>i.e.</i>, one of the -living components of a cell as distinguished from the metaplastic -or non-living inclusions.</p> - -<p><i>Oxychromatin</i>: That portion of the nuclear network which -stains with acidic dyes, the finer nuclear reticulum in -which the coarser strands of basichromatin appear to be -suspended.</p> - - -<p><i>Palæolithic</i>: Belonging to the Old-Stone Age, which corresponds -to the latter half of the Glacial or Pleistocene epoch. -It is alleged to be the second period of prehistoric man -(following the Eolithic) and is characterized by implements -of unpolished stone shaped from flint by the chipping -off of flakes of the latter substance.</p> - -<p><i>Palæontology</i>: The science of fossil organisms.</p> - -<p><i>Palæozoic</i>: A term applied to the second group of fossiliferous -rocks, following the earliest, or Proterozoic, group, -and preceding the Mesozoic group. It comprises the Cambrian, -Ordovician, Devonian, Silurian, and Carboniferous -systems, and its sediments are the first that contain well-preserved -fossils.</p> - -<p><i>Parasitism</i>: A condition in which one organism (the parasite) -residing in, or upon, another species of organism -(the host) lives at its expense, the relation being detrimental -to the latter.</p> - -<p><i>Parthenogenesis</i>: The production of offspring from unfertilized -eggs.</p> - -<p><i>Phenotype</i>: The sum-total of external characters by whose -enumeration an organism is described—the somatic or expressed -characters of an organism (or group of organisms) -as distinguished from those that are merely potential in -the germ cells.</p> - -<p><i>Phylogeny</i>: Developmental history of the race, the hypothetical -evolutionary history of the race, in contradistinction -to the embryological development of the individual -(ontogeny).</p> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_371">[Pg 371]</span> -<p><i>Phylum</i>: A term used in classification to denote any primary -group of the plant or animal kingdom.</p> - -<p><i>Plantigrade</i>: Walking on the whole sole of the foot, like -bears.</p> - -<p><i>Plastids</i>: Permanent organelles or living components of the -cellular cytoplasm, <i>e.g.</i>, chloroplasts, leucoplasts, etc.</p> - -<p><i>Pleistocene</i>: The lower series of the Quaternary system of -fossiliferous rocks. It corresponds to the so-called Glacial -epoch, and extends from the close of the Tertiary period -(system) to the dawn of the Recent or Historical epoch.</p> - -<p><i>Polar Cell</i>: A synonym for polar body, or policyte. The -polar bodies are minute abortive cells given off by the -egg undergoing meiosis. Into them are shunted the -chromosomes which the egg discards in its process of -nuclear reduction (maturation).</p> - -<p><i>Præformation</i>: Theory that the egg contains a complete -miniature of the organism into which it develops.</p> - -<p><i>Prehension</i>: Grasping, catching hold.</p> - -<p><i>Progression</i>: Advancing movement, locomotion.</p> - -<p><i>Pro-simiæ</i>: The lemurs as distinguished from genuine apes -(Simiæ).</p> - -<p><i>Protista</i>: Animals or plants which are normally unicellular -and which when multicellular show no differentiation into -tissues—the Protozoans and Protophytes.</p> - -<p><i>Protoplasm</i>: Living matter.</p> - - -<p><i>Receptor</i>: An organ specialized to receive stimuli, <i>e.g.</i>, a -sense-organ.</p> - - -<p><i>Sedimentary</i>: A term applied to rocks which originated as -sediments deposited under water.</p> - -<p><i>Serum</i>: Watery portion of the blood, the plasma.</p> - -<p><i>Somatic Cells</i>: Vegetative cells not especially set aside by -the organism for reproductive purposes, <i>e.g.</i>, tissue-cells.</p> - -<p><i>Somite</i>: One of the uniform segments of the longitudinal -series into which a metameric organism (such as an earthworm) -is partitioned.</p> - -<p><i>Spermatist</i>: An old term applied to one who held that the -animal embryo was produced entirely by the male parent.</p> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_372">[Pg 372]</span> -<p><i>Spore</i>: A single cell, incapable of syngamy, but capable -of giving rise to a new individual without the sexual -process.</p> - -<p><i>Symbiosis</i>: The obligatory association of two organisms of -different species for mutual benefit.</p> - -<p><i>Synapsis</i>: Union in pairs of corresponding (homologous) -chromosomes of opposite parental origin as a preliminary -to their separation in meiosis.</p> - -<p><i>Systematist</i>: An expert in classification (systematics), <i>i. e.</i>, -a taxonomist.</p> - - -<p><i>Taxonomy</i>: The science of classification.</p> - -<p><i>Tertiary Period</i>: A geological time-division corresponding -to the rock-system that comprises the greater part of the -Cenozoic group. It is made up of four series, namely, -the Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene. Its close -marks the beginning of the Glacial or Pleistocene epoch.</p> - -<p><i>Tissue</i>: A layer of uniform cells specialized for the same -function.</p> - -<p><i>Tissue Cell</i>: One of the somatic cells of which a tissue is -composed.</p> - -<p><i>Troglodytic</i>: Resembling the chimpanzee and the gorilla.</p> - - -<p><i>Woods Hole</i>: The seat of the Marine Biological Laboratory. -It is a watering-place on the New England coast opposite -Martha’s Vineyard.</p> - - -<p><i>Zygote</i>: The synthetic cell formed by the union of two -gametes and giving rise by division either to a new multicellular -organism, or to a rejuvenated cycle of unicellular -forms.</p> -</div> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_373">[Pg 373]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="INDEX_TO_AUTHORS">INDEX TO AUTHORS</h2> -</div> - - -<ul class="index"> - -<li class="ifrst">Adami, J. G., <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Aeby, Christoph Theod., <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Æsop, <a href='#Page_246'>246</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Alsberg, Moritz, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Altman, Richard, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Aquinas, St. Thomas, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a>, <a href='#Page_268'>268</a>, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Aristotle, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a>, <a href='#Page_155'>155</a>, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>, <a href='#Page_192'>192</a>, <a href='#Page_196'>196</a>, <a href='#Page_197'>197</a>, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Armstrong, H. E., <a href='#Page_190'>190</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Arrhénius, Svante, <a href='#Page_166'>166</a>, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a>, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a>, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Augustine, St., <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Bach, Alexis, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>, <a href='#Page_146'>146</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bacon, Francis, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bagg, H. J., <a href='#Page_266'>266</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Balfour, Arthur James, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ballou, W. H., <a href='#Page_318'>318</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bardon, L., <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bastian, Charlton, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bateson, Wm., <a href='#Page_1'>1</a>, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a>, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>, <a href='#Page_146'>146</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bather, F. A., <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_40'>40</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>, <a href='#Page_90'>90</a>, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Baudlisch, Oscar, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Baur, E., <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Beddoe, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bergson, Henri, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bernouilli, Jacques, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bey, Pruner-, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Binet, Alfred, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Biot, Jean Baptiste, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Blackwelder, Eliot, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Blake, C. Carter, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Blakeslee, Albert F., <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a>, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Blanford, Wm. Thomas, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Boule, Marcellin, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bouvier, E. L., <a href='#Page_239'>239</a>, <a href='#Page_260'>260</a>, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a>, <a href='#Page_265'>265</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bouyssonie, A. J. & P., <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Boveri, Th., <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Branco, W., <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Breuil, Abbé Henri, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Brown, Barnum, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a>, <a href='#Page_310'>310</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bryan, Wm. Jennings, <a href='#Page_1'>1</a>, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Buffon, C. L., <a href='#Page_305'>305</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bühler, Karl, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Bumüller, J., <a href='#Page_273'>273</a>, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Burroughs, John, <a href='#Page_244'>244</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Burton-Opitz, Russel, <a href='#Page_299'>299</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Calkins, Gary N., <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>, <a href='#Page_40'>40</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Campbell, Marius Robinson, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a> note</li> - -<li class="indx">Carazzi, D., <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Castle, W. E., <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Caullery, Maurice, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_277'>277</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Chamberlain, T. C., <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Chetverikov, S. S., <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Chiesa, Luigi, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Clausen, Roy Elwood, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Clemont, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Clifford, Wm. Kingdon, <a href='#Page_237'>237</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cohn, Ferd. Jul., <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Coleman, Arthur P., <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a>, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Comte, (Isidore) Auguste, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>, <a href='#Page_226'>226</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Conklin, E. G., <a href='#Page_270'>270</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Copernicus, Nicholas, XII, XIII.</li> - -<li class="indx">Coulter, John Merle, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Creighton, J. E., <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Croll, James, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Crookes, Sir Wm., <a href='#Page_183'>183</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Cuvier, Georges, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a>, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#Page_90'>90</a>, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Dana, James Dwight, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a>.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_374">[Pg 374]</span></li> - -<li class="indx">Darwin, Charles, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a>, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, <a href='#Page_65'>65</a>, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a>, <a href='#Page_191'>191</a>, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>, <a href='#Page_245'>245</a>, <a href='#Page_246'>246</a>, <a href='#Page_269'>269</a>, <a href='#Page_277'>277</a>, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a>, <a href='#Page_288'>288</a>, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a>, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a>, <a href='#Page_297'>297</a>, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a>, <a href='#Page_302'>302</a>, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a>, <a href='#Page_307'>307</a>, <a href='#Page_338'>338</a>, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>, <a href='#Page_353'>353</a>, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Da Vinci, Leonardo, <a href='#Page_257'>257</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Davis, Bradley Moore, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Davis, J. Barnard, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dawson, Sir John William, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dawson, Charles, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Deaver, J. B., <a href='#Page_295'>295</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">De Chardin, Teilhard, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">De Geer, Gerard, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Delage, Yves, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a>, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a>, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">De Mattos, Alexander Teixeira, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a> note.</li> - -<li class="indx">De Puydt, Marcel, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Descartes, René, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>, <a href='#Page_197'>197</a>, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">De Vires, Hugo, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dewey, John, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dorlodot, Canon Henri de, XII, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a>, <a href='#Page_34'>34</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dreisch, Hans, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>, <a href='#Page_190'>190</a>, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>, <a href='#Page_244'>244</a>, <a href='#Page_252'>252</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dubois, Eugène, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a>, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a>, <a href='#Page_318'>318</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Du Bois-Reymond, Emil, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>, <a href='#Page_268'>268</a>, <a href='#Page_277'>277</a>, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dumas, Jean Baptiste, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Duponceau, Pierre Étienne, <a href='#Page_338'>338</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dupont, André Hubert, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Dwight, Thomas, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href='#Page_59'>59</a>, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a>, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a>, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_336'>336</a>, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Ecclesiastes, <a href='#Page_192'>192</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ehrlich, Paul, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Eimer, Th., <a href='#Page_7'>7</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Eliot, Charles W., <a href='#Page_358'>358</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Evans, Sir Arthur, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ezekiel, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Fabre, J. H., <a href='#Page_240'>240</a>, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a> note, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>, <a href='#Page_251'>251</a>, <a href='#Page_252'>252</a>, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>, <a href='#Page_258'>258</a>, <a href='#Page_260'>260</a>, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>, <a href='#Page_264'>264</a>, <a href='#Page_265'>265</a>, <a href='#Page_266'>266</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Fechner, Gustav Theodor, <a href='#Page_149'>149</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Fenton, Henry John H., <a href='#Page_146'>146</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Fischer, Emil, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Fleischmann, Albert, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Flemming, W., <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Fontaine, T., <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Fraipont, Julien, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Fuhlrott, C., <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Galiani, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Galilei, Galileo, XII, XIII.</li> - -<li class="indx">Garbowski, Thad., <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Gaskell, Walter Holbrook, <a href='#Page_293'>293</a>, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Gatenby, J. B., <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Geikie, Sir Archibald, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a> note.</li> - -<li class="indx">Gerard, John, S.J., <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Goodrich, Edwin S., <a href='#Page_15'>15</a>, <a href='#Page_62'>62</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Goodspeed, T. H., <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Grabau, Amadeus, Wm., <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Grassi, B., <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Gray, Henry, <a href='#Page_299'>299</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Gregory, W. K., <a href='#Page_270'>270</a>, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_310'>310</a>, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a>, <a href='#Page_318'>318</a>, <a href='#Page_348'>348</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Grignard, Victor, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Gruender, Hubert, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a> note.</li> - -<li class="indx">Gummersbach, Joseph, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a> note.</li> - -<li class="indx">Guyer, M. F., <a href='#Page_15'>15</a>, <a href='#Page_266'>266</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Haacke, Joh. Wilh., <a href='#Page_275'>275</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Haeckel, Ernest, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a>, <a href='#Page_237'>237</a>, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a>, <a href='#Page_277'>277</a>, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hamann, Joh. Georg, <a href='#Page_149'>149</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Handlirsch, Anton, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hartmann, Karl Robert Eduard von, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Harvey, William, <a href='#Page_155'>155</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Haswell, Wm. A., <a href='#Page_316'>316</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hauser, O., <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hayes, Charles Willard, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a> note.</li> - -<li class="indx">Heilprin, Angelo, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Heim, Albert, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a> note.</li> - -<li class="indx">Helmholtz, Herman von, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Henderson, Lawrence J., <a href='#Page_6'>6</a>, <a href='#Page_153'>153</a>, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a>, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hertwig, Oskar, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hertwig, Richard, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Holmes, Oliver Wendell, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a>. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_375">[Pg 375]</span></li> - -<li class="indx">Holworth, Sir Henry, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Horace, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a>, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Howe, John Allen, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Howell, Wm. H. <a href='#Page_299'>299</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hrdlička, A., <a href='#Page_316'>316</a>, <a href='#Page_318'>318</a>, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hubrecht, Ambrosius Arnold William, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Hume, David, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Huxley, Thomas H., <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a> note, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_237'>237</a>, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Jaggar, T. A., Jr., <a href='#Page_346'>346</a>, <a href='#Page_347'>347</a>, <a href='#Page_348'>348</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">James, William, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Jennings, H. S., <a href='#Page_250'>250</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Johnson, Dr. George, XVI.</li> - -<li class="indx">Jordan, David Starr, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a>, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Jörgensen, J., <a href='#Page_146'>146</a>, <a href='#Page_147'>147</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Judd, J. W., <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Kammerer, Paul, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a>, <a href='#Page_266'>266</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Kant, Immanuel, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Keen, W. W., <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Keith, Arthur, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>, <a href='#Page_336'>336</a>, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Kellogg, Vernon I., <a href='#Page_46'>46</a> note, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a> note, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Kerr, J. Graham, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>, <a href='#Page_282'>282</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Keyser, C. J., <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Kidd, F., <a href='#Page_146'>146</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Klaatsch, A., <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Koenen, C., <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Kofoid, Charles A., <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Kohlbrugge, J. H. F., <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a>, <a href='#Page_277'>277</a>, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Kölliker, Rudolph Albert, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Kollman, Julius, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Kramberger, K. Gorjanović, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Lamarck, Jean Baptiste, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, <a href='#Page_65'>65</a>, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Lankester, E. Ray, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Laplace, Pierre Simon, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Lebedeff, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Le Conte, Joseph N., <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Lee, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Leydig, Franz, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Linné, Carl von, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Loeb, Jacques, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a>, <a href='#Page_252'>252</a>, <a href='#Page_264'>264</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Lohest, Maximin, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Lotsy, J. P., <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Lucretius, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Lull, Richard S., <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Macalister, R. A. S., <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">MacCurdy, George Grant, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">MacDowell, E. C., <a href='#Page_266'>266</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">MacManus, T., <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Macnamara, N. C., <a href='#Page_314'>314</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Manouvrier, L., <a href='#Page_316'>316</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Marx, Karl, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Mathews, Albert, <a href='#Page_293'>293</a>, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a>, <a href='#Page_302'>302</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Maxwell, J. Clerk, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">McCann, Alfred W., <a href='#Page_31'>31</a>, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>, <a href='#Page_34'>34</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">McConnell, R. G., <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, note, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">McGregor, J. H., <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Melanchthon, Phillip, <a href='#Page_197'>197</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Mendel, Gregor Johann, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Mendeléef, Dimitri Ivanovitch, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Mercier, Désiré Cardinal, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Meyer, Ludwig, <a href='#Page_302'>302</a>, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Michael Angelo, <a href='#Page_257'>257</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Miller, Arthur M., <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Miller, Gerrit, <a href='#Page_321'>321</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Minchin, E. A., <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Moore, Benjamin F., <a href='#Page_150'>150</a>, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>, <a href='#Page_166'>166</a>, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a>, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a>, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Morgan, C. Lloyd, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a> note, <a href='#Page_234'>234</a> note, <a href='#Page_237'>237</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Morgan, Thomas Hunt, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a>, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Morton, Dudley J., <a href='#Page_270'>270</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Muckermann, H., S.J., <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Müller, Fritz, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a>, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Müller, Max, <a href='#Page_338'>338</a>. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_376">[Pg 376]</span></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Nägeli, Karl Wilhelm, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a>, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Newman, John Henry, <a href='#Page_354'>354</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Newell, Bro. Matthias, <a href='#Page_347'>347</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Newton, Sir Isaac, XIII.</li> - -<li class="indx">Nicholson, Henry Alleyne, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Nicomachus, <a href='#Page_196'>196</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Obermaier, Hugues, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a>, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Occam, William of, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a>, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Osborn, Henry Fairfield, <a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>, <a href='#Page_65'>65</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>, <a href='#Page_90'>90</a>, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a>, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_318'>318</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Paley, William, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Parker, G. H., <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a> note, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Parker, T. Jeffery, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Pasteur, Louis, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a>, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Paulsen, Friederich, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Pawlow, Ivan, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>, <a href='#Page_266'>266</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Pearson, Karl, <a href='#Page_310'>310</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Peckham, Geo. W. and Eliz. G., <a href='#Page_265'>265</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Perrier, Remy, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Pfizenmayer, E., <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Pictet, Amé, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Pirrson, L. V., <a href='#Page_107'>107</a> note, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Plato, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>, <a href='#Page_197'>197</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Poulton, Edward B., <a href='#Page_186'>186</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Price, George McCready, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Price, T. S., <a href='#Page_167'>167</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Quatrefages De Breau, Jean Louis Armand de, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Ranke, J., <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a>, <a href='#Page_273'>273</a>, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Rautert, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ray, John, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Redi, Francesco, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a>, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Reinke, J., <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>, <a href='#Page_346'>346</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Renner, O., <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Richter, Herm. Eberh., <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Riddle, Oscar, <a href='#Page_300'>300</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Robinson, James Harvey, <a href='#Page_190'>190</a>, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>, <a href='#Page_195'>195</a>, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Rösch, Joseph, <a href='#Page_318'>318</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Rothpletz, Aug., <a href='#Page_107'>107</a> note.</li> - -<li class="indx">Russell, Bertrand, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Santayana, George, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sapir, Edward, <a href='#Page_338'>338</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Schaaffhausen, D., <a href='#Page_150'>150</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Schäfer, E. A., <a href='#Page_58'>58</a>, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a>, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a>, <a href='#Page_185'>185</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Schleiden, Matthias J., <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Schmidt, H. D., <a href='#Page_260'>260</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Schoetensack, Otto, <a href='#Page_318'>318</a>, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Schroeder, Ch. F., <a href='#Page_251'>251</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Schuchert, Charles, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a> note, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Schultze, F. E., <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Schultze, Max, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Schwalbe, Gust. Alb., <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Schwann, Theodor, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Scott, Wm. B., <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sedgwick, A., <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sellars, R. W., <a href='#Page_233'>233</a> note.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sewall, Anna, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Smith, G. Elliot, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Smith, John Talbot, <a href='#Page_355'>355</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Smith, William, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Snell, Karl, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Sollas, W. J., <a href='#Page_289'>289</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Spallanzani, Lazzaro, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a>, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Spencer, Herbert, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a>, <a href='#Page_166'>166</a>, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a>, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Starling, Ernest H., <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>, <a href='#Page_299'>299</a>, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Stockard, Charles R., <a href='#Page_62'>62</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Stoll, A., <a href='#Page_146'>146</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Taylor, J., <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Tertullian, <a href='#Page_346'>346</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Thayer, Wm. Sydney, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Tholuck, Fried. Aug., <a href='#Page_338'>338</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Thompson, Sir Wm., <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Thorndyke, Edward L., <a href='#Page_237'>237</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Tilden, Sir Wm., <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>, <a href='#Page_192'>192</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Titchener, Edward Bradford, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Tredgold, A. F., <a href='#Page_15'>15</a> note.</li> - -<li class="indx">Tuccimei, Giuseppe, XIII, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Tyndall, John, <a href='#Page_149'>149</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Vallisnieri, Antonio, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Van Loon, Hendrick Willem, <a href='#Page_190'>190</a>. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_377">[Pg 377]</span></li> - -<li class="indx">Vegard, Lars, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a> note.</li> - -<li class="indx">Vicari, E. M., <a href='#Page_266'>266</a>, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Virchow, Rudolph, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>, <a href='#Page_273'>273</a>, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>, <a href='#Page_346'>346</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Vogt, Carl, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Waagen, W., <a href='#Page_16'>16</a> note.</li> - -<li class="indx">Warner, H., <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Walkhoff, O., <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Walsh, James J., <a href='#Page_336'>336</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Ward, James, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wasmann, Erich, S.J., XII, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a> note, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a>, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a> note, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a>, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>, <a href='#Page_277'>277</a>, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Waterston, David, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Watson, John B., <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wayland, John Walter, <a href='#Page_357'>357</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Weismann, August, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_65'>65</a>, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a>, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Weber, Ernest Heinrich, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Weld, H. P., <a href='#Page_253'>253</a>, <a href='#Page_255'>255</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Welday, J. O., <a href='#Page_357'>357</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wells, H. G., <a href='#Page_1'>1</a>, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>, <a href='#Page_190'>190</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wenstrup, Edward, O.S.B., XVI.</li> - -<li class="indx">Werner, Abraham Gottlob, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>.</li> - - -<li class="indx"> -Wheeler, Geo. C. and Esther H., <a href='#Page_261'>261</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wiedersheim, Robert, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wilder, Harris Hawthorne, <a href='#Page_300'>300</a>, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Williams, H. S., <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Willis, Bailey, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a> note.</li> - -<li class="indx">Willstätter, R., <a href='#Page_146'>146</a>, <a href='#Page_147'>147</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wilson, Edmund B., <a href='#Page_6'>6</a>, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>, <a href='#Page_164'>164</a>, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a>, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>, <a href='#Page_201'>201</a>, <a href='#Page_211'>211</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Windle, Bertram C. A., <a href='#Page_134'>134</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wirth, Edmund J., <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wissler, Clark, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Woodruff, Lorande Loss, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Woods, Henry, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Woodward, A. Smith, <a href='#Page_321'>321</a>, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a>, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Woodworth, Robert S., <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wright, C. F., <a href='#Page_289'>289</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Wundt, Wilhelm, <a href='#Page_197'>197</a>, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_237'>237</a>, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>.</li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Zahm, J. A., <a href='#Page_268'>268</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Zeno, <a href='#Page_226'>226</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Zittel, Karl A. von, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>.</li> - -</ul> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_379">[Pg 379]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="INDEX_OF_SUBJECTS">INDEX OF SUBJECTS</h2> -</div> - - -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Abiogenesis, <a href='#Page_131'>131</a>, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a>, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a>, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a>, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a>, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“new theory” of, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“old theory” of, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“philosophical” proof of, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Absence of function, real, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">apparent, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Abstract concept, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Abstraction, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a>, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of active intellect predispositive, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of intellect, potential, cognitive, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">power of, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a>, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">process of, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Abstract thought, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">has soul as its exclusive agent and subject, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not same as imagery, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">unique prerogative of man, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Acids, butyric, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">carbonic, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fatty, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">formic, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Acromegaly, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Acromikria, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Act, <a href='#Page_199'>199</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Action, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a>, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a>, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">agent of, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">an expression of entity, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">chemical, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">effect of, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">electrical, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">energy-content of, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">immanent, defined, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">mechanical, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">physical, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">reflexive, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">subject of, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">transitive, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">defined, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">vital, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Active intellect, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Activity, organic cannot escape physical determinism, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Adaptation, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a>, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a>, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">acquired, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—not inheritable, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">innate (inherited), <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of instinctive behavior to emergencies, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">structural, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Additive properties, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a> <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Adjustments, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Adolescence, <a href='#Page_155'>155</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Adrenal bodies, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Adults, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Aeschna grandis L., <a href='#Page_115'>115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Aftermath of evolutionary propaganda, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Agametes, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Agamic, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Agent, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a>, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Age of Man, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a>, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Agnosticism, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>, <a href='#Page_355'>355</a>, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">parasitic, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Agulhas, Lost Land of, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Alberta, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Albumen, living and dead, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Alcohol, methyl, <a href='#Page_147'>147</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">phytyl, <a href='#Page_147'>147</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Aldehyde, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Aldol condensation, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Allelomorphic, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Allocation, taxonomic, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Alluvial epoch, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">loam, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Alpha Centauri, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Alps, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Altamira, caves of, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a>, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Alternating personalities, <a href='#Page_211'>211</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">psychopathic condition, <a href='#Page_211'>211</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Altruism, <a href='#Page_355'>355</a>, <a href='#Page_356'>356</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">without adequate motivation, <a href='#Page_356'>356</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Amboceptors, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a></li> - -<li class="indx">American Association for Advancement of Science, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Edict of, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ammonites, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">intergradence in, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ammonium cyanate, <a href='#Page_173'>173</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ammophila, <a href='#Page_264'>264</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ammophila gryphus, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ammophila urnaria, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Amnion, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Amœba albida, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Amphibia, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>, <a href='#Page_281'>281</a>, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Amphioxus, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Analogous organs, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a>, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Analogy, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>, <a href='#Page_59'>59</a>, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">convergent, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_380">[Pg380]</span></li> - -<li class="indx"> -Analysis, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">chemical, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">physical, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Anarchy, <a href='#Page_355'>355</a>, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Anatomists, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Anatomy, <a href='#Page_196'>196</a>, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>, <a href='#Page_277'>277</a>, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a>, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">comparative, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>, <a href='#Page_277'>277</a>, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of consciousness, attempted by Associationists, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ancestors, <a href='#Page_55'>55</a>, <a href='#Page_59'>59</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a>, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a>, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">collateral, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">common, <a href='#Page_55'>55</a>, <a href='#Page_59'>59</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_269'>269</a>, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a>, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">direct, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">hypothetical, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">necessary priority of, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of man, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—alleged to be fish-like, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">tertiary, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ancestry, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">entails antecedence in time, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of man, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ancitherium, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Angiosperms, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Animal, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>, <a href='#Page_307'>307</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">appetite, gratification of, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">as “reflex machines,”<a href='#Page_249'>249</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cave, <a href='#Page_307'>307</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Animalism, <a href='#Page_365'>365</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Animalistic man, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Animality of man, not a modern discovery, <a href='#Page_191'>191</a>, <a href='#Page_192'>192</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Animism, <a href='#Page_197'>197</a>, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Anisogametes, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Anisogamy, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Annelida, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Anomalies, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a>, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a>, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">anatomical, fluctuational, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">mutational, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of spatial distributions, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Antagonism, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">between modern progress and Christian ideal, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Anthropomorphism, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_246'>246</a>, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a>, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Darwinian, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Anthropologists, <a href='#Page_318'>318</a>, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">foremost ones confess their ignorance regarding origin of man, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Antibodies, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a>, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Antigen, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Antirrhinum, majus and molle, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Anti-vivisectionists, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ants, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a>, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">leaf-cutting, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ape, <a href='#Page_245'>245</a>, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a>, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a>, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a>, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a>, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a>, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">anthropoid, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a>, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a>, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a>, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cranial capacity, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">descended from man-like ancestor, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">descent from, not a doctrine of science, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">embryonic skull of, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">foot of, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—a hand functionally but not structurally, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fossil, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">giant, geneological tree of, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">higher, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">its cranium, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">large, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">living, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ape-like features, acquired adaptation, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Appalachians, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Appetite, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">rational, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sensual, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Appendicitis, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Appendix, vermiform, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a>, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">useful, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Apple-tree, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Apterix, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Arbacia punctulata, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Arboreal life, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Arca, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Archæan, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">record, damaged condition of, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Archæology, prehistoric, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Archæopteryx, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Archæozoic, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">times alleged to have been more favorable to origin of life, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Argument, <a href='#Page_226'>226</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">no avail against fact, <a href='#Page_226'>226</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Art, palæolithic, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Artefacts, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Artemia salina, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Artemisia absynthium, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Arthropoda, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Artificial illumination, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Artistic attainment, high level of, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Artists, palæolithic, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Asia, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ass, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Assimilation, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Association, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Associationists, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Astarte, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Asteroidea, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Atavism, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a>, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Atlantis, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Atmosphere, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a>, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">coronal of sun, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">formerly richer in carbon dioxide, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of earth, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_381">[Pg381]</span></li> - -<li class="indx"> -Atoms, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a>, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a>, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">structure of, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Atrophy, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>, <a href='#Page_288'>288</a>, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a>, <a href='#Page_299'>299</a>, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a>, <a href='#Page_302'>302</a>, <a href='#Page_307'>307</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">due to misuse, <a href='#Page_288'>288</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">somatic, <a href='#Page_307'>307</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Attention, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Audist, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Aurignacian Man, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Aurora borealis, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a>, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a> <i>note</i>, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a> <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Australian, <a href='#Page_321'>321</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">blacks, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—modern, have brow ridges, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">modern, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">skull of, <a href='#Page_321'>321</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Author of Nature, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Autogamy, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Automatisms, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a>, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">teleological, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Automixis, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Autonomy, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">dynamic, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">vital, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Axiom, <a href='#Page_223'>223</a>, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of reception, <a href='#Page_223'>223</a>, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Axon, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Azoic bottom, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Babylonia, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bacteria, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a>, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a>, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a> <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Barbarism, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">historically a state of degeneration and stagnation, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not a primitive condition, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">no instance of spontaneous emergence from, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bacteriologists, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Baltic Sea, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Banana, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Basichromatin, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bear Grass quarries, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Beaver, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>, <a href='#Page_257'>257</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bedding plane, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bees, <a href='#Page_257'>257</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Beetles, wingless, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Behavior, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>, <a href='#Page_255'>255</a>, <a href='#Page_260'>260</a>, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a>, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">instinctive, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>, <a href='#Page_255'>255</a>, <a href='#Page_260'>260</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—objectively useful, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>, <a href='#Page_255'>255</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—subjectively agreeable, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>, <a href='#Page_255'>255</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">concursively telic, <a href='#Page_260'>260</a>-262;</li> -<li class="isub1">consciously telic, <i>i. e.</i>, intelligent <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">unconcursively telic, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">must be perfect from outstart, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Behaviorism, degeneration of psychology into, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"> -Behaviorists, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bestial man, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">impossible, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">no traces of, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bestial origin, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of man, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of man, theory of, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bestial soul, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a>, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_234'>234</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">an emergent of matter, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>, <a href='#Page_234'>234</a> <i>note</i></li> -<li class="isub1">—not a product of physicochemical action, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">exists in the interest of the organism, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">incomplete complement of matter, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">material but not corporeal, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">operates only in conjunction with organism, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">perishes with dissolution of organism, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bible, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Biochemists, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Biogenetic Law, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a>, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>, <a href='#Page_277'>277</a>, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a>, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Biologists, <a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a> <i>note</i>, <a href='#Page_190'>190</a>, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>, <a href='#Page_257'>257</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Biology, xiv, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a>, <a href='#Page_196'>196</a>, <a href='#Page_197'>197</a>, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bion, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Biophysicists, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bipinnaria, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Biotic energy,”<a href='#Page_170'>170</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bird of Paradise, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a>, <a href='#Page_353'>353</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Birds, <a href='#Page_282'>282</a>, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a>, <a href='#Page_297'>297</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bison, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Black Beauty,”<a href='#Page_236'>236</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Blackberries, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Blindness, germinal and somatic, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Blue-green Algæ, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>, <a href='#Page_149'>149</a>, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Body, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bone cave, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bone fibres, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bos primigenius, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Botany, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a>, <a href='#Page_55'>55</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brachiopoda, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bradypus, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brain, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">human, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—convolutions of, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">relative and absolute size of, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">relative size of, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">simian, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brain case, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brain cavities, below modern average, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brain-fag, due to imaginative, not to intellectual activity, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a>, <a href='#Page_229'>229</a>, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">follows mere memorizing, <a href='#Page_229'>229</a> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_382">[Pg382]</span></li> - -<li class="indx">Branchial arches and clefts, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Branchial lamellæ, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Breasts, supernumerary, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Broken Hill Mine, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bronze Age, historic, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brow ridges, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">most pronounced of any human specimen, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brute, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a>, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">destitute of freedom, morality, responsibility, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">its psychic functions, all organic, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">lumination of, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">our common origin with, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Budding, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Burial, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">deep, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">makes age of bones uncertain, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">solemn, indicates belief in immortality, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Butyric acid, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Cæcum, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cænogenesis, <a href='#Page_277'>277</a>, <a href='#Page_288'>288</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cænozoic, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Calcium hydroxide, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Calicurgus, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cambrian, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Lower, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">terranes below, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">youthful appearance of, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Canadian Shield, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a> <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Canadian survey, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Canal, alimentary, <a href='#Page_293'>293</a>, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a>, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">neural, <a href='#Page_293'>293</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Canalization, <a href='#Page_265'>265</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Carbohydrates, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">production of, by plants, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>-148</li> -<li class="isub1">—not a synthesis, <a href='#Page_146'>146</a>-148</li> -<li class="isub1">—analogous to process in animals, <a href='#Page_146'>146</a>, <a href='#Page_147'>147</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Carbon dioxide, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>-147</li> - -<li class="indx">Carboniferous, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a>, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Lower, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Upper, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Carnivora, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Catarrhine monkeys, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Catastrophes, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cosmic, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Catastophism, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a>, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">new, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Caterpillar, <a href='#Page_260'>260</a>, <a href='#Page_264'>264</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cats, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Causation, active and efficient, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a>, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cave rat, <a href='#Page_307'>307</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Caves, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>, <a href='#Page_336'>336</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of France and Spain, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>, <a href='#Page_336'>336</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Spain, <a href='#Page_336'>336</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cell-division, <a href='#Page_59'>59</a>, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>, <a href='#Page_155'>155</a>, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cell, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>, <a href='#Page_155'>155</a>, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a>, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">definition of, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a multimolecule, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cannot originate through exclusive agency of physicochemical energies, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fundamental unit of organization, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">germ, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">simplest of organic units capable of independent existence, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">simplest of organisms, <a href='#Page_147'>147</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">somatic, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">submicroscopical components of, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">simplest form of organic life, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">vital, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sperm, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cell Theory, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cellular continuity, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Fifth article of, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Law of, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Centaur, constellation of, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Centers, sensory and motor, <a href='#Page_251'>251</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Central neurones, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">purpose of, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Centrioles, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cephalic index, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ceratites, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ceratodus, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cerebral cortex, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cerebral neurones, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">an extended receptor not proportioned to dematerialized abstract objects, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cerebrospinal system, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Certainty, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">based on objective necessity, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">scientific, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ceylon, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chain-reflex, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a>, <a href='#Page_252'>252</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chaldea, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chalk, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chance, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>-154;</li> -<li class="isub1">impotent to produce effect so complicatedly telic as an organism, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">its efficacy and impotence, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>-154</li> - -<li class="indx">Change, adaptive, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a> <i>note</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">germinal, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>, <a href='#Page_307'>307</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">kinds of, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">somatic, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">specific, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a>, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>, <a href='#Page_307'>307</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">varietal, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a>, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Characters (somatic or external), <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a>, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>, <a href='#Page_62'>62</a>, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a>, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">definition of, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">duplication and suppression of, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">embryonic not derived from adult, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">homologous and adaptational, <a href='#Page_62'>62</a>, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—distinction has no experimental basis, <a href='#Page_62'>62</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“inherited” and “acquired,”<a href='#Page_41'>41</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chapelle-aux-Saintes, <a href='#Page_288'>288</a>, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Cave of, remains, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">remains, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chela, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of lobster and African scorpion, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chemical analysis, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">destroys life, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chemical synthesis of living matter possible, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chemist, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">guiding intelligence of need in synthesis of organic compounds, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">necessity of regulation, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chemistry, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">physical, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chemotaxis, <a href='#Page_264'>264</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chick, <a href='#Page_255'>255</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chimaeroids, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chimpanzee, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a>, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chin, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">may be accentuated by a mutation, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">prominence in Spy No.<a href='#Page_1'>1</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">recessive, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">recessiveness of the, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">recessiveness and protuberance of, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">recessiveness, an acquired adaptation, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">receding, acquired, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a></li> - -<li class="indx">China, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chinless mandible, not sloping backward, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chlorophyll, <a href='#Page_62'>62</a>, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>, <a href='#Page_147'>147</a>, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a>, <a href='#Page_149'>149</a>, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">chromogen group of, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">chromogen complex, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">colloidal solution of, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not a “sensitizer” like Eosin, <a href='#Page_147'>147</a>, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">regenerated from H_{2}O and CO_{2}, <a href='#Page_147'>147</a>, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“sensitizer,”<a href='#Page_145'>145</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chondriosomes, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Christianity, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chromatin, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chromiole, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chromosomes, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">diploid number normal, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">diploid number of, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">duplication of, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">haploid number of, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">homologous,</li> -<li class="indx">17, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">random assortment of, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chronology, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">lithic, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">principles of, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chronometer, palæontological, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chrysothrix, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cidaris, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ciliate, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Circumstances, environmental, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a>-252</li> - -<li class="indx">Civilization, old, destruction of, <a href='#Page_336'>336</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Classes, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Classification, taxonomic, not historical, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Clays, Pleistocene, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cleavage, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cloaca, <a href='#Page_281'>281</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Coccyx, alleged rudiment of former tail, <a href='#Page_297'>297</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">serves purpose, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cockroaches, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Coelenterates, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Coexistence of impressions, not a companion of them, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cognitive intellect, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Colloid systems, aggregates, not units, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Colloidal, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">substances, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">systems not analogous to organisms, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Colloids, <a href='#Page_166'>166</a>-169;</li> -<li class="isub1">hydrophilic, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a>, <a href='#Page_169'>169</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Columns, continental and submarine, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Commanchian period, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Commensal, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Commensalism, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Common stock, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Comparative anatomy, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a>, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Complexity, “Law” of, <a href='#Page_166'>166</a>, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Components, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cytoplasmic and nuclear, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of cell, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—self-perpetuating, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of protoplasmic system, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Compounds, organic, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Concepts, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">abstract and general, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">rational, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Conceptual thought, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>, <a href='#Page_223'>223</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">concerned with the reality of essence, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_384">[Pg384]</span>excludes materiality</li> -<li class="isub1">from its specific agent and receptive subject, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not communicated to organism, <a href='#Page_223'>223</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">subject in soul alone, <a href='#Page_223'>223</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Conduction path, <a href='#Page_265'>265</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Condyles, occipital, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Conformity, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“deceptive,”<a href='#Page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">normal significance of, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“upside-down,”<a href='#Page_107'>107</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Conjugation, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Consciousness, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>, <a href='#Page_211'>211</a>, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a>, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a>, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and unconsciousness, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">attests existence superficially variable but radically unchangeable subject of mental life, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">attests persistence of our personal identity, <a href='#Page_211'>211</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">dependence of all science upon, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">etymology of, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">its testimony to the reality of the ego, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">organic and spiritual, <a href='#Page_199'>199</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">phenomenal, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sentient, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a>, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">testimony of, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Constructions, complex and systematic, not producible by accident, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Consolation, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a>, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">destroyed, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">eliminated, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Contamination of media, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Contiguity, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">association of, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">law of, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Continents, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">permanence of, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Continuity, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">destructive as metaphysics, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">leads to materialistic monism, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">principles of, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">nuclear, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Control, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_251'>251</a>-253;</li> -<li class="isub1">intelligent, <a href='#Page_253'>253</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">psychic, <a href='#Page_251'>251</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">rational and moral, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sensory, <a href='#Page_251'>251</a>-253</li> - -<li class="indx">Consequences—socialism, anarchy, despair, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Convergence, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a>, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a>, <a href='#Page_59'>59</a>, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_277'>277</a>, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">kinds of <a href='#Page_77'>77</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Corpuscular, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Correlation, <a href='#Page_90'>90</a>, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a>, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Cuvier’s Law of, <a href='#Page_90'>90</a>, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">stratigraphic, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a>, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cortical, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a>, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">area, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">surface, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cosmic scale, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Cosmogony, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>, <a href='#Page_185'>185</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cosmopolitan species, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cosmozoa, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cranial box, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cranial capacity, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">absolute, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">human, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">large, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of man and ape compared, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">relative, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cranial vault, more spacious in Spy No.<a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cranium, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>, <a href='#Page_321'>321</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">dolichocephalic, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">flat on top, broad in back, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">modern, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">human, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of ape, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of man, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not subsequent to barbarism, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Spy, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Creation, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a>, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a>, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">defined, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">new, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a>, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">simultaneous or recessive, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Creationism, <a href='#Page_55'>55</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Creator, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a>, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Credulous persons misled, <a href='#Page_353'>353</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cretaceous, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a>, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">shales, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Crete, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cretinism, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cries, <a href='#Page_246'>246</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">emotional, <a href='#Page_246'>246</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">instinctive, <a href='#Page_246'>246</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Crinoids, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Crossing, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a>, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>-21, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>-28, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">interspecific, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>-21, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">intervarietal, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">does not produce “new species,”<a href='#Page_25'>25</a>-28</li> - -<li class="indx">Crossover, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Crust, terrestrial, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Crustaceans, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cryptorhetic system, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>-294</li> - -<li class="indx">Crystalloids, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Crystals, <a href='#Page_153'>153</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Crystal units, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ctenomys, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cultures, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a>, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sterilized and aërated, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Curved femur, acquired adaptation, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cycads, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cycas, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cysts, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cytodes, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a>, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cytologist, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_385">[Pg385]</span></li> - -<li class="indx">Cytology, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cytoplasm, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>-139, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of eggs differentiated, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cytoplasmic components self-perpetuating, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cytosome, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Darwinism, <a href='#Page_1'>1</a>, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a>, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>, <a href='#Page_265'>265</a>, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">contradicted by history, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">obsolete theory, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Datura stramonium, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a>, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Death, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Deceptive conformities, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Deep sea bottoms, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Degeneracy, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a>, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a> <i>note</i>, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_336'>336</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Degradation of energy, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a>, <a href='#Page_180'>180</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">implies beginning of life, <a href='#Page_180'>180</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">law of, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Delitzch, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dependence, <a href='#Page_217'>217</a>, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">direct, of psycho-organic functions on organism, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">incompatible with spirituality, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">intrinsic on matter, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">objective, not subjective, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Descent, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>, <a href='#Page_269'>269</a>, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>, <a href='#Page_277'>277</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a>, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>, <a href='#Page_310'>310</a>, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">collateral, <a href='#Page_269'>269</a>, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—of man, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—theory of, <a href='#Page_269'>269</a>, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">common, <a href='#Page_269'>269</a>, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—reference of, <a href='#Page_269'>269</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">direct, Darwin’s theory of, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">from ape, theory of, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">human, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—from pithecoid primates, not a historical fact, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—theory of, <a href='#Page_269'>269</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">lineal, <a href='#Page_269'>269</a>, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a>, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—a chain of creatures, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—from ape, theory of, <a href='#Page_269'>269</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—upheld by Darwin, <a href='#Page_269'>269</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of man, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>, <a href='#Page_310'>310</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">theory of, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_277'>277</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Deterioration of organism does not always involve deterioration of superorganic powers, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Devonian, <a href='#Page_62'>62</a>, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Middle, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a></li> - -<li class="indx">De-Vriesianism, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a>, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>, <a href='#Page_265'>265</a>, <a href='#Page_266'>266</a>, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Diester, phytyl-methyl, <a href='#Page_147'>147</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Differences, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a>, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_237'>237</a>, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a>, <a href='#Page_273'>273</a>, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">anatomical, between</li> -<li class="indx">Homo primigenius and Homo sapiens, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—between man and ape, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>-273;</li> -<li class="isub1">between living and lifeless, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fluctuational, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">generic, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">individual, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—alleged summation of, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">major, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—relative and absolute, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">minor, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">mutational, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">ordinal, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">psychological, between man and brute, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_237'>237</a>, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—amount to a distinction of kind, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_237'>237</a>, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">specific, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">varietal, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Differential threshold, law of, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Differentiation, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Diffusion of venom, <a href='#Page_264'>264</a>, <a href='#Page_265'>265</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Digestion, stimulates lymphatic glands, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dileptus gigas, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Diluvium, European, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dinoflagellata, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dinosaurs, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Diphasic, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Diploid forms, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dipnoan, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Diptera, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Discernment, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Discina, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Disconformity, non-evident, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Discrimination, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Discursive analysis, <a href='#Page_243'>243</a>, <a href='#Page_244'>244</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Disease germs, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>, <a href='#Page_169'>169</a>, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">invisible, identified by the pathological effects, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">submicroscopic, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>, <a href='#Page_169'>169</a>, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Disintegration, atomic, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dispersing medium, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dissociation, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Distributed nucleus, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Distribution, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">chronological, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">geographical, hard to distinguish from chronological, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of plants and animals, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">spatial, anomalies of, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Disuse, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>, <a href='#Page_288'>288</a>, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a>, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">effects, alleged of, <a href='#Page_288'>288</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Divergence, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a>, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Divine action, vivifying matter, not a miracle, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a>, <a href='#Page_188'>188</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dog, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a>, <a href='#Page_255'>255</a>, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dogmatism, evolutionary, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dolphins, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Domination of intellect and will over organic powers, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Doubt, “scientific,”<a href='#Page_198'>198</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dragonflies, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Drone, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Drosophila, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">melanogaster, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—gradations in eye-color, wing-length and pigmentation of, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dryopithecus, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a>, <a href='#Page_310'>310</a>, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">dentition of, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a>, rhenanus, teeth, human-like, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dualism, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>, <a href='#Page_199'>199</a>, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a>, <a href='#Page_234'>234</a>, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">conscious and unconscious, of Descartes, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">hylomorphic, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of emergence and resistance, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a>, <a href='#Page_234'>234</a> <i>note</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of potency and act, <a href='#Page_199'>199</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">psychic and physical, of Descartes, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">psychophysical, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Duckbill, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Duplication, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">chromosomal, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of organs, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dynamic, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Ear, <a href='#Page_302'>302</a>, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">helix of, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Earth columns, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Earthworm, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a>, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a></li> - -<li class="indx">East Indies, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Echinodermata, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Education, <a href='#Page_245'>245</a>, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a>, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">responsible, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Educator, modern, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Effect, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Eggs, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>, <a href='#Page_255'>255</a>, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of sea urchin, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">unfertilized, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">reduced, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">unreduced, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ego, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the thinking, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Egoism, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Egypt, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Electrolytes, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Electronic theory, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Electrons, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a>, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Elements, radioactive, <a href='#Page_180'>180</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Elephants, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">brain of, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Siberian, sudden extinction of, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Elephas:</li> -<li class="isub1">antiquus, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">primigenius, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Embryologists, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Embryology, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a>, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">comparative, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">experimental, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Embryonic additions, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Embryos, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a>, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>, <a href='#Page_281'>281</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">alleged fish-like stage of, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a>, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">human, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">mammalian, <a href='#Page_281'>281</a>, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">vertebrate, <a href='#Page_281'>281</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Emergents, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a> <i>note</i>, <a href='#Page_234'>234</a> <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Energy-content, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Emotion, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>, <a href='#Page_246'>246</a>, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">functions of sensual appetite, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a psycho-organic function, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">organic function, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Emperor moth, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Emulsifier, <a href='#Page_169'>169</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Emulsion, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Encasement, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Encystment, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a></li> - -<li class="indx">End, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Endocrine glands, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>-295, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not functionless, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Endomixis, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a>, <a href='#Page_178'>178</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Endoskeletal, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Energy, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">content, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">defined, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">kinetic and potential, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Energy-environment, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Enlightenment, <a href='#Page_244'>244</a>, <a href='#Page_245'>245</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Entelechy, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>-175, <a href='#Page_199'>199</a>, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">definition of, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Aristotelian sense perverted by Driesch, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a constant in living units, a variant in inorganic units, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a>, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">common to inorganic units and living organisms, <a href='#Page_173'>173</a>, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">consubstantial with matter, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">entitive, not dynamic, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>, <a href='#Page_201'>201</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">equivalent to static affinity or structural valence, <a href='#Page_173'>173</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">inorganic, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not an agent but a specifying type, <a href='#Page_201'>201</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Entitive, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Environment, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a>-9, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>-15, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a>, <a href='#Page_153'>153</a>, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>, <a href='#Page_180'>180</a>-182, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a>, <a href='#Page_307'>307</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cosmic, of life, <a href='#Page_180'>180</a>, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">internal, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a>, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not a mechanism for molding organisms, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a>, <a href='#Page_153'>153</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_387">[Pg387]</span></li> - -<li class="indx"> -Environmental conditions, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Environmental stimulus, <a href='#Page_255'>255</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Enzymes, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Eoanthropus, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a combination of simian and human remains, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Dawsoni, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>-323, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">jaw older than cranium, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Eocene, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Lower, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Middle, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Eoliths, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a>, <a href='#Page_321'>321</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Eosin, a sensitizer, <a href='#Page_147'>147</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Epeira, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Epicyclic subterfuges, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Epigenesis, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Epiphysis, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Equus, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">American and European, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">asinus, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">caballus, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Erosion, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Eskimo, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_338'>338</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">language more complex than English, <a href='#Page_338'>338</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Euphemisms, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Europe, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Eurypterids, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Events, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Evolution (active and passive) of life from inorganic matter, <a href='#Page_132'>132</a>, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Evolution (alleged) of human soul, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>, <a href='#Page_195'>195</a>, <a href='#Page_268'>268</a>, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Evolution (alleged) of human body, <a href='#Page_268'>268</a>, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Evolution, xi-xiv, <a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a>, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a>, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a>, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, <a href='#Page_34'>34</a>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_90'>90</a>, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a>, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>, <a href='#Page_131'>131</a>, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>, <a href='#Page_268'>268</a>, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a>, <a href='#Page_297'>297</a>, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a>, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>-361;</li> -<li class="isub1">aspects, moral and social, of, <a href='#Page_353'>353</a>-361;</li> -<li class="isub1">causes of, <a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">evidence for, experimental, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a>, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—inferential or circumstantial, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—genetical, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—zoological, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, <a href='#Page_34'>34</a>, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—palæontological, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>-76, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fact of, <a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">heliocentric theory not on a par with, xii, xiii, law of, <a href='#Page_1'>1</a>, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">monistic basis of, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>-353;</li> -<li class="isub1">necessary as hypothesis, not as</li> -<li class="indx">dogma, xi;</li> -<li class="isub1">senses of, <a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_131'>131</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">spirit not a product of, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>, <a href='#Page_268'>268</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">systems of, <a href='#Page_1'>1</a>, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a>, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Augustinian, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Batesonian, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>-21, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">monophyletic, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">polyphyletic, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">progressive, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Evolutionary thought, crisis in, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Evolutionists, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Exoskeletal, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Expediency, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Experience, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>, <a href='#Page_253'>253</a>, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">learning by, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sensory, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>, <a href='#Page_253'>253</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Experimentation, <a href='#Page_197'>197</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Eye, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>, <a href='#Page_217'>217</a>, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a>, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a corporal element intrinsic to the visual sense, <a href='#Page_217'>217</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">an example of convergence, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">constituent part of agent and subject of vision, <a href='#Page_217'>217</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">human, defective, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not replaced by telescope, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">vertebrate type of, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Factorial, complex, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Factors, germinal (genetic, hereditary), <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a>, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a>, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a>, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a>, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—diagnosis of, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—fractionation of, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—positive and inhibitive, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">environmental, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a>, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a>, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—blind, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—of disuse and selection, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Facts, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">former cannot be formulated except with reference to ego, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in terms denoting or connoting ego, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">intramental and extramental, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Falsifications” of ancestral records, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Families, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">chemical, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Family-tree, evolutionary, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fats, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Faulting, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">horizontal and vertical, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“Low angle,”<a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">normal, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fayûm, the, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Feldhofer Grotte, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Felis leo fossilis, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_388">[Pg388]</span></li> - -<li class="indx"> -Femur, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not curved as in Neanderthal type, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">shows curvature, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ferns, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fertilization, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Filiation, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Finality, immanent law of, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a></li> - -<li class="indx">First causes, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fishes, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a>, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a>, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a>, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">adult, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a>, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">embryo of, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fish-kidney, <a href='#Page_302'>302</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fission, binary, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">unequal, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">multiple, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fixism, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a>, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>, <a href='#Page_268'>268</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">unable to furnish “natural” explanation of homology, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">uniformitarian, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Flat worms, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Flies, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fluctuants, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fluctuations, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_302'>302</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cause of, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">instance of, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">non-inheritable, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fœtal life, special conditions of, <a href='#Page_299'>299</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fœtus, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fonte de Gaume, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Foot-and-mouth disease, germ of, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a> <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Foramnifera, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Force, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">defined, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">no special vital, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Forehead, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">higher, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">low, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">retreating, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Formaldehyde, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>-148;</li> -<li class="isub1">not first step in origin of life nor in photosynthesis, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>-147</li> - -<li class="indx">Formaldehyde-hypothesis, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>-148</li> - -<li class="indx">Formaldoxime, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Formations, fossiliferous, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Formations, geological, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a>, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a>, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">time-value of, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Formed bodies of cell, self-perpetuating, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Formose, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Forms, <a href='#Page_246'>246</a>, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a>, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fossil, sequence of, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—intermediate, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">grammatical, <a href='#Page_246'>246</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">intermediate, none between man and apes, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fortuitous result, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"> -Fossil bones, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fossil facts, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fossiliferous stratification, universality of, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fossil remains, human, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fossils, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">dated by theory of descent, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">evade experimental breeding tests, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">no invariable sequence of, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">reconstructed, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">still “medals of Creation,”<a href='#Page_94'>94</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">time-value problematic, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Foxhall Man, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">alleged to be Tertiary, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">flint implements prove intelligence of, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">no fossils of, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Freedom, human, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of will, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Free will, a myth, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Frescoes, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a>, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">polychrome, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">primeval, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a>, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Frog, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a>, <a href='#Page_281'>281</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">tadpole, <a href='#Page_281'>281</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fruit-flies, eyeless, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">vestigial, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">wingless, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Functions, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a>, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">extrinsically dependent on organism, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sensitivo-nervous, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">superorganic, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fundulus, <a href='#Page_62'>62</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Future life, <a href='#Page_354'>354</a>, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a myth, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of retribution, <a href='#Page_354'>354</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Gametes, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a>, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">production of, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">specialization of, for kinetic and trophic functions, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ganoids, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gar pike, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gastrula, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gelation, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gemmation, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Geneology, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>, <a href='#Page_348'>348</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">hypothetical, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of horse, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of man, <a href='#Page_348'>348</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Geneological tree of man, <a href='#Page_348'>348</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Genera, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a>, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fossil, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a>, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_389">[Pg389]</span></li> - -<li class="indx"> -Generalization, power of, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Generation, univocal and equivocal, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Genes, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">inhibitive, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Genetic cellular continuity, law of, no exception to, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a>, <a href='#Page_164'>164</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Genetic continuity, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fivefold law of, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">law of, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—may not prevail in submicroscopic world, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Geneticists, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Genetics, <a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a>, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a> <i>note</i>, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a>, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>, <a href='#Page_302'>302</a>, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Genital distrophy, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Genotype, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Geodesists, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Geological column, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Geological record, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>-84, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a>, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a>, <a href='#Page_297'>297</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">damaged, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">enigmatic, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a>, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">incomplete, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">incompleteness assumed to explain absence of intermediates, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">time-value presupposes its completeness, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Geologists, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Geology, xiv, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">can only prove local order of succession, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Germ, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_155'>155</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">multicellular and unicellular, <a href='#Page_155'>155</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Germ cells, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Germ plasm, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a>, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_265'>265</a>, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Germ tract, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Germinal constitution, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gerrymandering, geological, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Giantism, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gibbon, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>, <a href='#Page_310'>310</a>, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a>, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gibraltar skull, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gill arches and clefts, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gills, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a>;</li> - -<li class="isub1">permanent, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Glacial, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a> <i>note</i>, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a>, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">deposits, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a> <i>note</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">epoch, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—middle of, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—close of, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">period, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a>, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—fourth or last, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—close of, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Glaciation, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Glacier, continental, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a>, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Glacier National Park, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Glaciologists, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Glands, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a>, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">muciparous, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">supernumerary mammary, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Glaurus overthrust, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Globigerina, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Glucose, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gluteal region, <a href='#Page_273'>273</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Glyceraldehyde, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a></li> - -<li class="indx">God, <a href='#Page_180'>180</a>, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">admitted as hypothetical, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Author of Life, <a href='#Page_180'>180</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">impossible to prove existence of, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Golgi bodies, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gonads, interstitial cells of, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gondwana Land, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a>, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gorilla, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a>, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a>, <a href='#Page_273'>273</a>, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">face of, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">skull of, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gradation, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">morphological, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of forms, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">series, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">temporal succession, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gradual approximation, dogma of, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Grammar, “scientific” revision of, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Graptolites, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Great Peacock Moth, <a href='#Page_260'>260</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Grey Worm, <a href='#Page_246'>246</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Grignard reaction, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Groups, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gryphaea, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Guest, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Habit, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, <a href='#Page_265'>265</a>, <a href='#Page_266'>266</a>, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">automatisms of, alleged to be source of instinct, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">body-modifying, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—of squatting, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">modern, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Habitat, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hæmoglobin, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hallucinations, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hallux, human, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">simian, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Halogens, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Haptophores, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Heidelberg Man, <a href='#Page_318'>318</a>, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">jaw anomalous, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hen, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>, <a href='#Page_260'>260</a> - -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_390">[Pg390]</span></li> - -<li class="indx">Heredity, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">alleged cause of homology, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">biparental, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Heterogametes, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hererogamy, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hererozygous, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Histogenesis, <a href='#Page_59'>59</a></li> - -<li class="indx">History, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>, <a href='#Page_338'>338</a>, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">contradicts evolutionary assumption, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>, <a href='#Page_338'>338</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">dawn of, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">proves primitive man to have been civilized, not barbaric, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Homœomorphy, heterogenetic, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Homology, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, <a href='#Page_34'>34</a>, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a>, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>, <a href='#Page_40'>40</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a>, <a href='#Page_59'>59</a>, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a>, <a href='#Page_65'>65</a>, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>, <a href='#Page_268'>268</a>, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>, <a href='#Page_277'>277</a>, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a>, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a>, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">definition of, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">anatomical, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">application to man, <a href='#Page_34'>34</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href='#Page_268'>268</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">disguised by external diversity, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">embryological, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">evolutionary argument from, <a href='#Page_34'>34</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a> <i>note</i>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a>, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a>, <a href='#Page_65'>65</a>, <a href='#Page_268'>268</a>, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">genetic explanation of, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>, <a href='#Page_40'>40</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Homologous organs, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Homo neanderthalensis, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Homo primigenius, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a variety, not a distinct species, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">same as Homo Mousteriensis, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">type, fluctional nature of, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Homo sapiens, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">only human species, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Homozygous, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Horizon, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a>, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>, <a href='#Page_310'>310</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">level, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">stratigraphical, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a>, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">stratigraphic, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>, <a href='#Page_310'>310</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hormones <a href='#Page_14'>14</a>, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a>, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Horse, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Host, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hottentots, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Human, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fossils all belong to the species, Homo sapiens, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">mind</li> -<li class="isub1">—alleged to be of animal extraction, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—reflects, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—spiritual, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">reason, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">remains more ancient than formations in which they are found, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"> -Human body, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">evolution of, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">ignorance and uncertainty regarding origin, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not a mosaic of heterogenetic organs, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">origin of, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Humanization of brute, subjective, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Humanizers of brute, Darwinian, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Human language attests reality of ego, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Human nature, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Darwinian conception of, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—evils of popularizing it, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Human Soul, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a>, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a>, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a>, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>, <a href='#Page_268'>268</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">could only originate by creation, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">creation of, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">discarnate, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—not a complete person or nature, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">exists for its own sake, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">immortal, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">intrinsically independent of organism, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not an emergent of matter, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—alone active in superorganic functions, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">same as mind, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">simplicity of, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—not to be confounded with spirituality of, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">spirituality of, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a>, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a>, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a>, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a> <i>note</i>, <a href='#Page_268'>268</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—proofs of, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a>, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—from rational thought and volition, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a>, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a>, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a> <i>note</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">substantiality of, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">underivable from matter, <a href='#Page_268'>268</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hunter, life of, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hyaloplasm, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hybridism, constant, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hybridization, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">interspecific and intervarietal, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hybrids, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a>, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">interspecific, sterile, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a>, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">invarietal, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">as intermediates, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hydrang, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hydrogen, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">liquid, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a> <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Hydroglissia, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hydrosol, <a href='#Page_169'>169</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hydrosphere, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hydrotheca, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hydroxylamine, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hyrozoa erroneously classified, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_391">[Pg391]</span></li> - -<li class="indx"> -Hylobatic, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a>, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#Page_318'>318</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">type, <a href='#Page_318'>318</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hylomorphic dualism, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hylomorphic vitalism, does not discourage experimental analysis of life, <a href='#Page_201'>201</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hylomorphism, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hypogamete, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hypertrophy, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a>, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">due to use, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hypophysis, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>, <a href='#Page_293'>293</a>, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a>, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not functionless, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Ice Age, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ichthyosaurs, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Igneous masses, not basal, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Illusions, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Imageless thought, sense of term, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Imagery, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a>, <a href='#Page_229'>229</a>, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>, <a href='#Page_243'>243</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a function of the living cerebral cortex, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">association of, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cerebral, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">concrete, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">different in different persons, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">distributed by abnormal state of cortex, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">motor, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">neurographic, <a href='#Page_243'>243</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">represents only superficial and exterior properties, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">rigid, correlated with metabolic process at work in cerebral cortex, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a>, <a href='#Page_229'>229</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">rigidly proportioned underlying neurogram, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sensible, presupposed by thought and volition, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">shows corresponding degrees of integrity and intensity, <a href='#Page_229'>229</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sporadic and fragmentary, <a href='#Page_229'>229</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">tactile, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Imagination, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a>, <a href='#Page_229'>229</a>, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cerebral sense, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a>, <a href='#Page_229'>229</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">its normal exercise depends on physiological normality of cerebral cortex, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">organic function, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Imaginative activity, <a href='#Page_229'>229</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Immortality, considered an anodyne, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Immunity, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Immutibility, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Impenetrability, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of matter, law of, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">reflection opposed to, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"> -Improvised structures, <a href='#Page_281'>281</a> <i>note</i>, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Incubation, purposeless, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Independent Assortment, Law of, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Index fossils, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a>, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a>, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">basis of stratigraphic correlation, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a>, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">an arbitrary and elastic criterion, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">final court of appeal, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a>, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in conflict with physical and stratigraphic evidence, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>-112</li> - -<li class="indx">India, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Indian dialects, work of philosophers, <a href='#Page_338'>338</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Indian Ocean, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a>, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Individuation, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">concrete, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Indo-Europeans, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Industry, Mousterian, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Acheulean, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Aurignacian, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Inertia, defined, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Infusion, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not supernatural, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of spirit into matter, not a miracle, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Infantilism, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Inference, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">mediate, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Infundibulum, <a href='#Page_293'>293</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Infusoria, supposed abiogenetic origin of, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Inheritance, <a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a>, <a href='#Page_40'>40</a>, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>, <a href='#Page_62'>62</a>, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a>, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">definition of, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">biparental, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">chemical theory of, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">laws of, <a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">similifying process, <a href='#Page_40'>40</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—not only one, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—also said to diversify, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">variable, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Inhibition, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a>, <a href='#Page_252'>252</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Initial vivification, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">act, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of matter required a formative, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">rather than creative, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Inquilines, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Insectivora, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Insects, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>, <a href='#Page_307'>307</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">evolutionary diminuendo of, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">wingless, <a href='#Page_307'>307</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Instinct, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a>, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a>, <a href='#Page_251'>251</a>, <a href='#Page_252'>252</a>, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a>, <a href='#Page_257'>257</a>, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>, <a href='#Page_264'>264</a>, <a href='#Page_265'>265</a>, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a>, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">defined, <a href='#Page_255'>255</a>, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_392">[Pg392]</span>James’ definition of, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">according to external circumstances, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a>-252;</li> -<li class="isub1">according to physiological state of organism, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">adjustment of, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a>, <a href='#Page_252'>252</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">constructive, <a href='#Page_251'>251</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">effective only under normal circumstances <a href='#Page_258'>258</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">evolutionary origin of, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—improbable, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fixity of, <a href='#Page_258'>258</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">improbability of, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">its regulatory principal sense, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not gradually acquired, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>, <a href='#Page_264'>264</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not intelligence, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">only slightly undefiable, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">origin of, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">psychic regulation of, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">requires no apprenticeship, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">teleology of, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">telic, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">variability of, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Instinctive acts, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Instruction, <a href='#Page_244'>244</a>, <a href='#Page_245'>245</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Instrumentation, <a href='#Page_197'>197</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Intellect, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>, <a href='#Page_226'>226</a>-230, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">active, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">activity of, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cognitive, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">conscious of its own operations, <a href='#Page_226'>226</a>, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">indirectly dependent on physiological condition of cortex, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">its immaterial nature, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">objectively dependent on organic activity of imagination, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not bound to material organ, <a href='#Page_226'>226</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not debilitated by intense thinking, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not incapacitated but invigorated by intense thinking, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not regulated by physiological vicissitude, <a href='#Page_229'>229</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not subject to metabolic laws, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">rooted in a spiritual principle, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">superorganic nature of, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Intellectual, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a>, <a href='#Page_229'>229</a>, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">activity may reach highest points of concentration and intensity without involving commensurate fatigue on part of organism, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Intelligence, <a href='#Page_239'>239</a>-241, <a href='#Page_243'>243</a>, <a href='#Page_245'>245</a>, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a>, <a href='#Page_257'>257</a>, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">definition of, <a href='#Page_239'>239</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">autonomous, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a generalizing and abstracting power, <a href='#Page_257'>257</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“bestial,”<a href='#Page_245'>245</a>, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>, <a href='#Page_257'>257</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">conscious, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">deceptive semblance of, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a>, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Divine, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">etymology of, <a href='#Page_239'>239</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">finite, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">genuine, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a>, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">infinite, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">incapable of being evolved from matter, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">inherent, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a>, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of worker bees, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">subjective or inherent, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">used to denote power of profiting by experience, <a href='#Page_239'>239</a>, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Intensity, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">does not increase in same proportion as intensity of stimulus, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">may reach maximum with involving corresponding fatigue, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of thought does not follow fluctuations of neural metabolism, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Interactionism, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Interaction, three types of, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Interglacial period, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">last, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Intergradation, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Intergradence, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>-87;</li> -<li class="isub1">may indicate hybridism, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">no argument for common ancestry, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>-86;</li> -<li class="isub1">of mutants genetically independent, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Intergradents, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">hybrid, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">mutational, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">specific, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Interjections, negligible part of human language, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Interpretation, ontogenetic, an alternative for phylogenetic, <a href='#Page_302'>302</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Intervals, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">lost, unrepresented by deposition, erosion or disturbance, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Intravitous staining, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Introspection, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">does not create personality, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">impossible to a material organ, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Intrusions, igneous, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Invertebrate, <a href='#Page_293'>293</a>, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">stage, <a href='#Page_293'>293</a>, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Involution, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Iron, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Irrational man unknown either to history or prehistory, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Islands, <a href='#Page_153'>153</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Islets of Langerhans, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Isobares, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Isogametes, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Isogamy, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Isomers, <a href='#Page_173'>173</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_393">[Pg393]</span></li> - -<li class="indx"> -Isostacy, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Isostatic equilibrium, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Jacob’s Cavern, in Missouri, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Java, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jaw, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">lower, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">lower missing, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jimson Weed, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Judgment, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jupiter, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jura, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jura, European, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jurassic, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Kena Kakoe, <a href='#Page_346'>346</a>-348;</li> -<li class="isub1">extinct volcano, <a href='#Page_346'>346</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Kidney, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>-283;</li> -<li class="isub1">adult, <a href='#Page_282'>282</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">embryonic, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fish, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>, <a href='#Page_282'>282</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">mammalian, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">permanent, <a href='#Page_281'>281</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Kiluea, observatory at volcano of, <a href='#Page_346'>346</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Kingdom, animal, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Kleistogamy, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Knowledge, <a href='#Page_190'>190</a>, <a href='#Page_191'>191</a>, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">conceptional, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">experimental, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">technical, absence of, does not always disqualify, <a href='#Page_190'>190</a>, <a href='#Page_191'>191</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Krapina, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">type of, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Laboratory syntheses differ from those occurring in organism, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a></li> - -<li class="indx">La Chapelle-aux-Saints remains, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>-333</li> - -<li class="indx">Lamarckism, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a>, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a>, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a>, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a> <i>note</i>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a>, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>, <a href='#Page_265'>265</a>, <a href='#Page_266'>266</a>, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">recent revival of, <a href='#Page_266'>266</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lamps, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a></li> - -<li class="indx">La Naulette remains, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">alleged to be distinct species, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">absence of chin, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">allied to Neanderthal type, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Land bridges, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Language, <a href='#Page_245'>245</a>, <a href='#Page_246'>246</a>, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_338'>338</a>, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">descriptive, conceptual and articulate, <a href='#Page_246'>246</a>, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">first step in formation of, <a href='#Page_245'>245</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">formation of, presupposes an artist as great as his works, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">human, <a href='#Page_246'>246</a>, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">indicative, emotional and articulate, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of animals, <a href='#Page_245'>245</a>,</li> -<li class="indx">246, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of savage races point to former civilization, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a></li> - -<li class="indx">La Quina, industry of, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Law, definition of, <a href='#Page_166'>166</a>, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Law of Weber, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Learning” of animals, <a href='#Page_243'>243</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Le Moustier, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">remains, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a>, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lemuroids, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lemurs, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lepontine Alps, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lethals, balanced, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>-28</li> - -<li class="indx">Lias, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Liberalism, <a href='#Page_257'>257</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Life, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a>, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a>, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a>, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a>, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a>, <a href='#Page_188'>188</a>, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">organic, definition of, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">active cause of extramundane, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">alleges submicroscopical units of, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Author of, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a>, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">conscious, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">initiation of, not a creation, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a>, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—not a miracle, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a>, <a href='#Page_188'>188</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—not supernatural, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a>, <a href='#Page_188'>188</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">integrating and formative principle of, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">metabolic, sentient and rational, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">more than a chemical problem, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">origin of, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a></li> -<li class="isub1">chemical hypothesis, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—not a problem of translation, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">spontaneous origin of, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Life-cycle, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>, <a href='#Page_155'>155</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lima, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Limit of microscopic vision, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Limulus polyphemus, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lingula, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Linin, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Links, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">connecting, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—between men and apes, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">connecting, so called are (a) human, (b) simian, (c) mixed remains, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">generic and ordinal, insufficient, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“missing,”<a href='#Page_341'>341</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">specific, minimum, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">transitional, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—none between man and apes, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Linkage groups, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lithosphere, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a>, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Litopterna, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Living beings derive their matter from inorganic world, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_394">[Pg394]</span></li> - -<li class="indx">Living matter, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">its uniqueness, a simple fact, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">maintains its specific type, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lizards, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Loess, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Logarithmic spiral, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Locomotion, mechanism of, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Logic, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>, <a href='#Page_245'>245</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of scepticism, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of thought, escapes our imagery, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">saltatory, <a href='#Page_245'>245</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Loss, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>, <a href='#Page_353'>353</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of artistic taste by Darwin, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>, <a href='#Page_353'>353</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lucina, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lumpers, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lumping, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lychnis diurna and vespertina, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lycosa, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lycosids, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>-265</li> - -<li class="indx">Lymphatic glands, stimulated by digestive process, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lymphatic system, adjuncts of, <a href='#Page_300'>300</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lymphatic vessels, <a href='#Page_300'>300</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lymph nodules, <a href='#Page_300'>300</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lymphocytes, <a href='#Page_300'>300</a>, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lymphoid cells, follicle, <a href='#Page_299'>299</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Macrogamete, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Macrosomes, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Madeira, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Magalenians, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Maggots, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Magnesium, <a href='#Page_146'>146</a>, <a href='#Page_147'>147</a>, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mammal, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_59'>59</a>, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a>, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>, <a href='#Page_282'>282</a>, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a>, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a>, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">age of, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">early, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">evolutionary “crescendo” of, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mammalian stock, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mammoth, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Man, <a href='#Page_192'>192</a>, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">bestial, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">brutalization of, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">destitute of instincts, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">face of, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">indications of his physical presence always accomplished by signs of intelligence, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">left defenceless by nature, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">modern, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">more than a decaying organism, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">never found apart from evidence of his intelligence, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">physically helpless, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">skull of, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">unique</li> -<li class="indx">in his soul, not in his body, <a href='#Page_192'>192</a>, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mantids, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Marattia, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mars, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Marsoulas, caves of, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Marsupial, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a>, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mason bee, <a href='#Page_251'>251</a>, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>, <a href='#Page_260'>260</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mastodons, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a>, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“prehistoric,” engraving of, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Material, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">functions, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">organism coöperates intrinsically in organic substrate, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sense of term, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">substance, inaccessible to senses, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Materialism, <a href='#Page_178'>178</a>, <a href='#Page_199'>199</a>, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>, <a href='#Page_355'>355</a>, <a href='#Page_357'>357</a>, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a>, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a purely academic philosophy, <a href='#Page_211'>211</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">attempt to gloss over, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Darwinian, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">evolutionary, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">its destructive effect on religion, ideals and morality, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">parasitic, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Materialistic, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>-356, <a href='#Page_357'>357</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">philosophy ignores active rôle of mind, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">view of human nature unnatural and intolerable—complete and consistent application impossible, <a href='#Page_357'>357</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">view make morality unthinkable—antisocial, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>-356</li> - -<li class="indx">Material organ cannot be effected by the supersensible, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Matterhorn, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Materialist, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Materialists, many evolutionists are avowed, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Matter, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a>, <a href='#Page_173'>173</a>, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a>, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a>, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>, <a href='#Page_199'>199</a>, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a constant in inorganic units, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a source of indeterminism, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a variant in living organisms, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">constant in chemical reactions, variant in metabolism, <a href='#Page_199'>199</a>, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">does not coincide with sum total of reality, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">initial vivification of, due to supermaterial agency, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">inorganic, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not more real than mind, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">notions of, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">ponderable and imponderable, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Maturity, <a href='#Page_155'>155</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_395">[Pg395]</span></li> - -<li class="indx"> -Mauer, <a href='#Page_318'>318</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mayflies, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Means, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Measles, invisible germ of, <a href='#Page_169'>169</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mechanics, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mechanism, <a href='#Page_153'>153</a>, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a>, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a>, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a>, <a href='#Page_250'>250</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">environmental, <a href='#Page_153'>153</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">teleological but simple, <a href='#Page_153'>153</a>, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mechanist, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a>, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">many evolutionists are avowed, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mechanistic universe, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Media, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Medium, vibrant, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Meganeura monyi Brogn, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Meiosis, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Melia, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Melocrinidae, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Membrana nictitans, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a>, <a href='#Page_297'>297</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not functionless, <a href='#Page_297'>297</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Memory, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a>, <a href='#Page_243'>243</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">associative, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sensitive, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a>, <a href='#Page_243'>243</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sentiment, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Men, <a href='#Page_318'>318</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and apes, link between, <a href='#Page_318'>318</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—intermediate between, <a href='#Page_318'>318</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fossil, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Krapina, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mendelism, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a>, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <i>note</i>, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mental protuberance, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mental states, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Merosthenic, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mesonephric duct, <a href='#Page_281'>281</a>, <a href='#Page_282'>282</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mesonephros, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>, <a href='#Page_281'>281</a>, <a href='#Page_282'>282</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mesozoic, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a>, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a> <i>note</i>, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">lowest series of, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">middle system of, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Metabolism, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>, <a href='#Page_211'>211</a>, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">destructive and constructive, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Metagenesis, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Metamorphosis, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a>, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Metamorphism, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of rocks, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Metanephros, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>, <a href='#Page_282'>282</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Metaphysical, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Metaphysics, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a>, <a href='#Page_185'>185</a>, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Epicurian, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">monistic, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">vs. physical science, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Metaphytes, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Metazoa, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Metazoans, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Meteorites, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Metista, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_59'>59</a>, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Microgamete, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Microns, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Microörganism, <a href='#Page_169'>169</a>, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Microsomes, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Migrations, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Millennium, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mimicry, <a href='#Page_246'>246</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mind, <a href='#Page_195'>195</a>, <a href='#Page_196'>196</a>, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>, <a href='#Page_211'>211</a>, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>, <a href='#Page_223'>223</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">active and passive, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">apprehends material objects under dematerialized form, <a href='#Page_223'>223</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a substance, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">connotation of, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cannot utilize coöperation of material organ in abstract conceptions, <a href='#Page_223'>223</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">frame of, <a href='#Page_211'>211</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">human, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of man alleged to be of animal extraction, <a href='#Page_195'>195</a>, <a href='#Page_196'>196</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">phenomenalistic notion of, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">science of, <a href='#Page_197'>197</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">states of, not less real than states of matter, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">noumenal, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Minimum, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">an empirical rule, not an axiom, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">principle of, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a>, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Miocene, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>, <a href='#Page_310'>310</a>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Upper, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Miracle, definition of, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Miraculous, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>-356, <a href='#Page_357'>357</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mitachondria, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mitosis, <a href='#Page_59'>59</a>, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>, <a href='#Page_155'>155</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Modification, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a>, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a>, <a href='#Page_307'>307</a>, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">adaptive, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">environmentally-induced, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">heritable, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_307'>307</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">non-inheritable, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">parallel, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">product of variation, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of specific magnitude, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of varietal magnitude, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Moeritherium, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Molars, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">teeth, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mole, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a>, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mole-cricket, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Molecule, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a>, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a>, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a>, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">biophoric, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">complex, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">complex endothermic, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">living and dead, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">structure of, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Molluscs, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a>, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mongolian, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cossack, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_396">[Pg396]</span></li> - -<li class="indx">Monism, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">destructive of culture, spirituality, morality, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fail to motivate Christian morality, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">makes God immanent in world, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">makes will law unto itself, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">materialistic, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Monist, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Monistic view vitiates artistic taste, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Monkey, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a>, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Monomolecules, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">are not units, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Monotremeta, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Montana, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a> <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Moral consequences of failure to discriminate, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Morality, <a href='#Page_354'>354</a>, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">evolutionary conception of, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Motor-verbalist, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Morphogenetic forces, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Laws, uniform, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Morphogeny, organic, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Morphology, embryonic and adult, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mountain columns, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mountains, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>, <a href='#Page_153'>153</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mouse, brain of, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Moustier Cave, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Movements, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">reflex, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">spontaneous, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Mule, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Müllerian duct, <a href='#Page_281'>281</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Multimolecule, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a>, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>, <a href='#Page_166'>166</a>, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a>, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">are not units, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">colloidal, <a href='#Page_166'>166</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">crystalloidal, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>, <a href='#Page_166'>166</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not a link between molecules and cells, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">structure of, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Murder, as an experiment, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Muscles, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mutants, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a>, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">chromosomal, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a>, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—balanced and unbalanced, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—balance, odd and even, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—status as “new species” not established, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">factorial, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">pseudo, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mutation, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a> <i>note</i>, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a>, <a href='#Page_265'>265</a>, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a>, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a>, <a href='#Page_307'>307</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">changes of loss, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">chromosomal, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">factorial,</li> -<li class="indx">19, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—a varietal, not a specific change; fortuitous, <a href='#Page_265'>265</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">heritable, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">pseudo, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mutation, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Theory, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Myxœdema, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Nahun beds, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Natural explanations, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Naturalism borrows moral standards, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Natural process, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Natural science, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Natural Selection, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a>, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a>, <a href='#Page_153'>153</a>, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a>, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a>, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a theory of chance, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">has no positive efficacy, <a href='#Page_153'>153</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">theory has impeded progress of science, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Nature, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>, <a href='#Page_185'>185</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">inorganic impotent to duplicate even laboratory synthesis, not to speak of vital phenomena, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—lacks means of self-vivification, <a href='#Page_185'>185</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not automatic, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Nautilus, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Neanderthal, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a>, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">bone, show some racial characteristics, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cranium, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—capacity underestimated, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>, not ancestral to Cro-Magnon type, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not more ancient than modern type, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">remains, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—human, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">skull, cranial capacity of, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">type of, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Neanderthal Man, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a>, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">distinctly human, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a dwarf, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">No.<a href='#Page_1'>1</a>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">divided opinion on, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">No.<a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, skeleton, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—skull missing, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Neanderthal type, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>, <a href='#Page_336'>336</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">alleged to be distinct species, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">alleged to be more ancient, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">degenerate, <a href='#Page_336'>336</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">differences, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">race, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">no longer considered oldest type, <a href='#Page_336'>336</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_397">[Pg397]</span></li> - -<li class="indx"> -Neanderthaloid, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">characteristics occur in modern skulls, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">race, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">skulls, modern features occur in, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Nebular, hypothesis, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Negroes, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Neo-Darwinism, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Neo-Kantian, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">phenomenalist, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Neo-Lamarkism, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Neolithic, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Neontologists, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Neotoma, <a href='#Page_307'>307</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Neo-vitalism, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a>, <a href='#Page_201'>201</a>, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">postulates a unique force, an agent “sui generis,”<a href='#Page_171'>171</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Neo-vitalists, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a>, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>, <a href='#Page_201'>201</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">regard vital principle as force “sui generis,” a unique agent, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>, <a href='#Page_201'>201</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Nephridia, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Neptune, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Nerve plasm, <a href='#Page_265'>265</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Neurograms, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">extended, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">imprinted on neurons, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">objects capable of stimulating an extended organ, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">objects of, endowed with concrete properties, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">proportioned to stimuli, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">physical basis of imagery, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Neurons, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sensory and central, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">utility of sensory, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a></li> - -<li class="indx">New names for fossil duplicates of modern species, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a></li> - -<li class="indx">New Stone Age, prehistoric, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Nihilism, philosophical, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Nitrogen snow, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a> <i>note</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">reddish light of, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a> <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Non-cosmopolitan species, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Non-enents, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Non-opposability of human hallux, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Non-phenomenon or substance, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Non-specialist, when disqualified and when not, <a href='#Page_189'>189</a>-191</li> - -<li class="indx">Non-viable, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Novelty, emergent, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Nuclear components, self-perpetuating, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Nuclear reorganization, <a href='#Page_155'>155</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a restorative process,</li> -<li class="indx">155, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">means of rejuvenation, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">none in somatogenic reproduction, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">periodic, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">primitive, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Nuclear sap, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Nucleus, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cellular, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">daughter, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">distributed, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">germinal, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">parent, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Nucula, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Nutrition, a reflexive activity, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Object, <a href='#Page_217'>217</a>, <a href='#Page_223'>223</a>, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">concurrence of, extrinsic, <a href='#Page_217'>217</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">indicated spiritual nature of mind, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">(material) abstract, made of representation, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of abstract thought, incapable of making impressions or leaving records on material receptors, <a href='#Page_223'>223</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Occipital foramen, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Occiput, broad, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ocean beds, elevation of, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a>, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ocean bottoms, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>-115</li> - -<li class="indx">Ocean floor, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Octopus, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Œnothera, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">gigas, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Lamarkiana, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Œsophagus, invertebrate, <a href='#Page_293'>293</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Old Stone Age, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a>, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">class of, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">prehistoric, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Oligocene, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Onion-coat, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a convenient device, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Alpine, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">hypothesis of, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—“transcendental form of,”<a href='#Page_102'>102</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">lithological and biological, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">mineral envelopes, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">theory, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ontogeny, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a>, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Oölites, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Opisthonephros, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>, <a href='#Page_282'>282</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Opposability of simian hallux, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Opposition, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>, <a href='#Page_234'>234</a>, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">between imagery and thought, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">between psycho-organic and spiritual activity, <a href='#Page_234'>234</a>, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">entails distinction, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Orang-utan, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Orders, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Organ, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>, <a href='#Page_226'>226</a>, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a>, <a href='#Page_288'>288</a>, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a>, <a href='#Page_300'>300</a>, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">embryonic, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">functionless, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a>, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_398">[Pg398]</span>incapable of reflection, <a href='#Page_226'>226</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">material, cannot be effected by the supersensible, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">nascent and rudimentary, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a>, <a href='#Page_288'>288</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">distinction, arbitrary, <a href='#Page_288'>288</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">reduced, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">vestigial, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>, <a href='#Page_300'>300</a>, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">useless, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Organelles, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Organic activity, rigidly regulated by metabolism, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Organic functions, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">agent and subject of, not soul alone, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not only functions in man, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Organic substances, <a href='#Page_149'>149</a>, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">laboratory synthesis of, <a href='#Page_149'>149</a>, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not to confounded with living or organized substances, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Organisms, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a>, <a href='#Page_155'>155</a>, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a>, <a href='#Page_201'>201</a>, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>, <a href='#Page_246'>246</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a product of the law of Complexity, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">multicellular, <a href='#Page_155'>155</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">none subcellular, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of some species, syntonic, <a href='#Page_246'>246</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">participates as coefficient factor in physiological and sensory functions, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">soul-informed, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">unicellular, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a>, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Organization, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">elude art of chemist, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Order, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">ideal, phenomenalists confuse it with real order of things, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">real, of things, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ordivician, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Orientation of forces, centrifugal and centripetal, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Origins, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">biparental, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">common, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—of man and brute, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">organic, need not be unified in space but should be in time, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of concepts, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Orneau, river, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">valley, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ornithorhynchus, <a href='#Page_59'>59</a>, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ornithosaurs, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Orthogenesis, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a>, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a> <i>note</i>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cannot explain adaptation, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Osmia, <a href='#Page_252'>252</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Outcrop, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Overthrust, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a triumph of modern research, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ovists, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Oximes, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Oxychromatin, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Oysters, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a></li> - - - -<li class="ifrst">Palæobotany, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a></li> - -<li class="isub1">Palæolithic, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">artists, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">human remains, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">man, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Palæontological argument, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>-127;</li> -<li class="isub1">defects in, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in abstract, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>-75;</li> -<li class="isub1">in concrete, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>-127;</li> -<li class="isub1">a theoretical construction, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Palæontological evidence, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>-80, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a>, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">imperfection of, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">rated as outweighing physical evidence, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Palæontological pedigrees, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">definition of, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of horse, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">camel, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a>,</li> -<li class="isub1">and elephant, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Palæontologists, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_190'>190</a>, <a href='#Page_310'>310</a>, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>, <a href='#Page_321'>321</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">incompetent to decide questions of specific origin or distinction, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Palæontology, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a>, <a href='#Page_195'>195</a>, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a>, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">facts of, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_195'>195</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">ignorant concerning origin of man, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">orthodox, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Palæotherium, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Palæozoic, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a>, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a> <i>note</i>, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Palingenesis, <a href='#Page_277'>277</a>, <a href='#Page_288'>288</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pan-Pacific Conferences, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>, <a href='#Page_346'>346</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Panspermia, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Parallelism, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>vs.</i> divergence, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Paramœcium, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>, <a href='#Page_178'>178</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">aurelia, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Parasites, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Parasitism, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Parathyroids, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Parent cell, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Parthenogenesis, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">artificial, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—not violation of law of genetic continuity, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pathology, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Patient, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pear-tree, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pebrine, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pecking instinct of chicks, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pecten, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pedigrees, of genera, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pelopæus, <a href='#Page_260'>260</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_399">[Pg399]</span></li> - -<li class="indx"> -Penguin, wings of, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pentacrinus, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Perception, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>, <a href='#Page_253'>253</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">an act of, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of personality, not personality, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sensory, <a href='#Page_253'>253</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Percepts, objective, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sensory, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Periodicity, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of elements, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">families of elements, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Peri Psyches, Aristotle’s, <a href='#Page_196'>196</a>, <a href='#Page_197'>197</a>, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Perissodactyla, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Permian, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Persistence, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cannot be subsumed under same principles as transmutations, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">its significance intensified by current theories, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of types, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of unchanged types, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Persistent types, generic and specific, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Personal identity, sense of, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Personality, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>, <a href='#Page_211'>211</a>, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a unitary and uniform reality, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">alternating, <a href='#Page_211'>211</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">based on unchanging principle, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">perception of, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pessimism, <a href='#Page_355'>355</a>, <a href='#Page_357'>357</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Petit-Puymoyen, industry of, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Phæophytin, <a href='#Page_147'>147</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pharyngeal arches and clefts, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Phase, reversal of, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a>, <a href='#Page_169'>169</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Phenomena, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">phenomenalists’ substantialization of, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Phenomenalism, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>, <a href='#Page_211'>211</a>, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a purely academic philosophy, <a href='#Page_211'>211</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">identifies mind with “thought stream,”<a href='#Page_212'>212</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Phenomenalistic school, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Phenomenalists, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">inconsistently admit of physical phenomena while denying subject of psychic phenomena, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Phenotype, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Philology, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">proves primitive man to have been civilized, not barbaric, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Philosophers, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Philosophy, <a href='#Page_189'>189</a>, <a href='#Page_190'>190</a>, <a href='#Page_195'>195</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in rôle of critic, <a href='#Page_189'>189</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in rôle of sycophant,</li> -<li class="indx">190;</li> -<li class="isub1">materialistic, <a href='#Page_195'>195</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">relation to science, <a href='#Page_189'>189</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Phonetic elements, <a href='#Page_246'>246</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Photosynthesis, <a href='#Page_146'>146</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Phycocyanin, <a href='#Page_149'>149</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Phylogeny, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a>, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a>, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">human, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">palæontological, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Phylum, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a>, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Physical impressions, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Physical science, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>, <a href='#Page_354'>354</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Physicochemical action, reducible to interaction between unequally energized masses and particles, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Physicochemical forces, executive factors in vital operations, <a href='#Page_201'>201</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Physiology, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Phytol, <a href='#Page_147'>147</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Picotee sweet pea, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Piltdown skull, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pineal eye, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pineal gland, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>, <a href='#Page_293'>293</a>, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not functionless, <a href='#Page_293'>293</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pioneer colonies, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pithecanthropus, distinctly simian, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pithecanthropus erectus, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>-318, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cranial capacity of, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a giant ape, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">existing casts inaccurate, <a href='#Page_318'>318</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pituitary body, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>, <a href='#Page_293'>293</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pituitrin, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Placenta, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Planarian, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Planetesimal, hypothesis, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Plantigrade, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Plastids, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Platycrinidae, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Platyrhine monkeys, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pleistocene, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Lower, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Middle, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pleurotomaria, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Plica, semilunaris, <a href='#Page_297'>297</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pliocene, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Upper, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pluteus, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Polar body, second, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Polariscope, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Polymorphism, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Polynesians, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Polynuclear condition, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_400">[Pg400]</span></li> - -<li class="indx"> -Polyphemus, the Cyclops, <a href='#Page_293'>293</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pompilids, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a>, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>, <a href='#Page_264'>264</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pompilius, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Popular trust not to be abused, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>, <a href='#Page_346'>346</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Postauricular muscles, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Post-glacial time, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Preadaptations, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">adventitious appearance of, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">divergent, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">entail modifications of specific magnitude, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">evolution as “natural explanation” of, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">inherited, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pre-Cambrian, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">terranes, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—extension great, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Preformation, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Prehension, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Prehistoric, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Prehuman, arboreal stage, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_217'>217</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Presupposition, latent in materialistic logic, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pre-tertiary, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Primates, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Primitive man, <a href='#Page_338'>338</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not irrational, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not a savage, <a href='#Page_338'>338</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Primula, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Principles, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a>, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">entitive and dynamic, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a>, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Priocnemis, flavicornis, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Priority, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a “sine qua non” condition of ancestry, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Process, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">divorced from agents, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of reflection entails identity of observer and observed, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">subjectless and sourceless, of phenomenalists, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Prognathic face, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Prognathism, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of upper jaw accentuated, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Progress,”<a href='#Page_355'>355</a>, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">modern, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of science, <a href='#Page_355'>355</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Progression, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">bipedal, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">modes of, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Prehistory, undocumented, unreliable, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pronephric duct, <a href='#Page_281'>281</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pronephros, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>, <a href='#Page_281'>281</a> <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Prophylaxis, <a href='#Page_356'>356</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Propliopithecus, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Prosthenic, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Protein, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>, <a href='#Page_147'>147</a>, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">multimolecule of, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Proterotheres, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Proterotheriidæ, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Proterozoic, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a> <i>note</i>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Protista, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_59'>59</a>, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">polynuclear condition not rare among, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Protoplasm, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a>, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">dead, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">how reinvigorated, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">invisible structure, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not a chemical compound but a complex system, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">persistent specificity of, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">ultramicroscopic structure of, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">visible, a picture of, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Protococcus, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">viridis, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Protons, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Protophytes, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a>, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Protoplasmic architecture, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Protozoa, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a>, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Psyche, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a>, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Psychic, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a>, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and physical dualism of Descartes, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">functions, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—of organic type, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">states, correlated with organic states, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Psychology, <a href='#Page_196'>196</a>, <a href='#Page_197'>197</a>, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>, <a href='#Page_211'>211</a>, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">alone competent to pronounce origin of man, <a href='#Page_196'>196</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">as science of behavior, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">human, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">positive, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">reveals psychic activities as modification of abiding ego, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sole science that studies man on his distinctively human side, <a href='#Page_196'>196</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">vulgar, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">without a soul, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Psychophysical, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">dualism, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">parallelism, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Psychosis, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>, <a href='#Page_255'>255</a>, organic, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—has for agent and recipient the psycho-organic composite, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">psycho-organic, <a href='#Page_255'>255</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Physiological process not reducible to mere physicochemical reaction, <a href='#Page_199'>199</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_401">[Pg401]</span></li> - -<li class="indx"> -Potency, <a href='#Page_199'>199</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Purpose, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>, <a href='#Page_255'>255</a>, <a href='#Page_258'>258</a>, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Divine, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">unconscious of, <a href='#Page_255'>255</a>, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Purposiveness, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">no intelligence, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">objective, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">unconscious, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Quadrumana, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Qasr-el-Sagha, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Quaternary, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Early, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Races, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Radiation, pressure of, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Radioactive elements, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Radio-activity, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Radiolaria, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Radiometer, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Radius, shows curvature, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ragweed, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Raft of Red River, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Random Assortment, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of chromosomes, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ratio, body-brain, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rays, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reactants, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reaction, <a href='#Page_243'>243</a>, <a href='#Page_252'>252</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">elementary, motor, <a href='#Page_252'>252</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">historical basis of <a href='#Page_243'>243</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reaction-systems, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reason, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a>, <a href='#Page_244'>244</a>, <a href='#Page_245'>245</a>, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not evolved, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sole means of human preservation, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">superorganic power of, <a href='#Page_244'>244</a>, <a href='#Page_245'>245</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reasoning, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Recapitulation, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a>, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a>, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">embryonic, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a>, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Receptors, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">extended, necessary to perceive material stimuli, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Recessive chin, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Recognition, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Recombination, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">chromosomal, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">factorial, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reconstructions, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>, <a href='#Page_90'>90</a>, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_321'>321</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of fossil skulls, <a href='#Page_321'>321</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">psychological motivation of, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>, <a href='#Page_90'>90</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">scientific, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>, <a href='#Page_90'>90</a>, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Recuperation, autonomous, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Recurrent faunas,”<a href='#Page_110'>110</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"> -Reduction, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reflection, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>, <a href='#Page_226'>226</a>, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a>, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a fact, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>, <a href='#Page_226'>226</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">alleged impossibility of, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">only possible to spiritual agent, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">undeniable fact of, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reflexes, innate and conditioned, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reflexion, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reflexive orientation, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of energies, no living being, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of forces in living organism, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in living being, <a href='#Page_201'>201</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Regression of organ, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Regulation, <a href='#Page_253'>253</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">intelligent, <a href='#Page_253'>253</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sensory, <a href='#Page_253'>253</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rejuvenation, <a href='#Page_155'>155</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">three kinds of, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rejuvenescence, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reign of Terror, <a href='#Page_357'>357</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">French, <a href='#Page_357'>357</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Russian, <a href='#Page_357'>357</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reindeer, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Re-integration of atoms, impossible, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Relationships, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">causal and telic, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">supersensible, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Religion, <a href='#Page_354'>354</a>, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">only sanction of morality, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Remains, Javanese, <a href='#Page_318'>318</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Repair-work, <a href='#Page_251'>251</a>, <a href='#Page_252'>252</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reproduction, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a>, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">biparental (bisexual), <a href='#Page_24'>24</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cytogenic, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">link between life-cycles, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">nonsexual, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>—three kinds of, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">reducible to cell-division, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sexual, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—autosexual, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—bisexual, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—unisexual, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a></li> -<li class="isub1">somatogenic, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—limited, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—no rejuvenation in, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reptiles, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_281'>281</a>, <a href='#Page_282'>282</a>, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a>, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">flying, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">palæozoic and modern, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Resemblance, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a>, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a>, <a href='#Page_58'>58</a>, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">compatible with separate ancestry, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—even specific, does not entail common origin, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">family, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a>, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">generic, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a>, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">heterogenetic, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">ordinal, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_402">[Pg402]</span>phyletic, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">specific, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a>, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">to modern man, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Responsibility, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a>, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">harmful consequences, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">implies mastery of will over its own actions, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of evolutionary propagandists, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Resultants, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a> <i>note</i>, <a href='#Page_234'>234</a> <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Resurrection, natural basis of, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reversion, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a>, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">to type, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rhinoceros etruscus, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">merckii, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">tichorhinus, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rhodesian Man, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">may be modern, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rhynchonella, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Right-handedness, human, <a href='#Page_288'>288</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">duration of, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a></li> - -<li class="indx">River drift, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rocks, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a>, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>, <a href='#Page_297'>297</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">composition and mineral contents disregarded in classification, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">crystalline, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fossiliferous, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">European classification of, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">groups of, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">igneous, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">metamorphic, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sedimentary, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a>, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">systems of, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rubidium, isotopes of, <a href='#Page_173'>173</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rudiment, <a href='#Page_293'>293</a>, <a href='#Page_297'>297</a>, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a>, <a href='#Page_302'>302</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">ontogenetic, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a>, <a href='#Page_302'>302</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">phylogenetic, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a>, <a href='#Page_302'>302</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rudimentary, <a href='#Page_299'>299</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rudimentary organs, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a>, <a href='#Page_293'>293</a>, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a>, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">criticism of, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">evolutionary argument from, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">ontogenetic explanation of, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">phylogenetic, <a href='#Page_298'>298</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—explanation of, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Running birds, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a>, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">S-R bonds, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Salamander, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Saurians, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Savagery, not prior to civilization, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Savages, descended from civilized ancestry not vice versa, <a href='#Page_338'>338</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Scandinavia, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Scepticism, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a></li> -<li class="isub1">logic of, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Scholastics, <a href='#Page_191'>191</a>, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"> -Scholastic, theory of origin of concepts, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Science, <a href='#Page_188'>188</a>, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">as religion, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">gives no heed to consequences, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">its attitude towards philosophy, <a href='#Page_188'>188</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sham, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Scientists, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>, <a href='#Page_348'>348</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">many not satisfied with “evidence” for human evolution, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fallibility of, <a href='#Page_348'>348</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Scientific questions, decided by evidence, not by authority, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Scotland, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sea-anemone, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sea floor, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sea-urchin, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">egg of, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Second causes, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">efficacy finite, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sediment, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a>, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">primordial, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">universal layer of, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Seedlings, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Segregation, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Selection, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_65'>65</a>, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a>, <a href='#Page_153'>153</a>, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">artificial, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—not on a par with natural selection, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">intelligent and fortuitous, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a>, <a href='#Page_153'>153</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">principle, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_65'>65</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">values, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Self, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Self-fertilization, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Self-observation, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">impossible for an organ, <a href='#Page_226'>226</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">power of, cannot reside in material organ, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">requires a spiritual principle, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Self-regulation, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Self-sacrifice, rendered meaningless, <a href='#Page_356'>356</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Semilunar fold, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a>, <a href='#Page_297'>297</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Senescence, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">an inherent tendency of living matter, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">tendency practically if not actually universal, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sensationists, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sensations, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>, <a href='#Page_242'>242</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">intensity of, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sense, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a>, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>, <a href='#Page_254'>254</a>, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">debilitated by powerful stimulus, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">external, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">organic nature of, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">their power of reaction temporarily inhibited by process of repair, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_403">[Pg 403]</span></li> - -<li class="indx">Sense organs, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>, <a href='#Page_251'>251</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sense-perception, <a href='#Page_199'>199</a>, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a brain function <a href='#Page_199'>199</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a psycho-organic function, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">concerned with factual reality of existence, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">involves a decomposition of neural tissue, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not independent of body, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">organic function, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sensibility, organic, <a href='#Page_244'>244</a>, <a href='#Page_245'>245</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sensori-motor, <a href='#Page_251'>251</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sensory functions of the nervous system, <a href='#Page_199'>199</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sensual appetites, exhaustible, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sensual emotion, organic function, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sequence, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">inverted or “wrong,”<a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">no invariable order of, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of fossiliferous strata, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“wrong,”<a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a> <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Serum, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sexual (gametic) incompatibility, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a>, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sharks, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Shell-craters,”<a href='#Page_347'>347</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Shoots, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sight, <a href='#Page_217'>217</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">intrinsic dependence on eye, <a href='#Page_217'>217</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">extrinsic dependence on object, <a href='#Page_217'>217</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Silurian, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Middle, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Simia satyrus, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Simple explanations not necessarily true, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Siwalik beds, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>, <a href='#Page_310'>310</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Skeleton, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">human, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Skulls, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fossil, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">human, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Skull cap, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a>, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sleep, would interrupt process of relaying consciousness from thought to thought, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a>, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sloth, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Snapdragon, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Social inequalities, artificial laws for benefit of rich, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Socialism, <a href='#Page_357'>357</a>, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Marxian, <a href='#Page_357'>357</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Scientific, <a href='#Page_357'>357</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sodium, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>, <a href='#Page_166'>166</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">bromide, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">chloride, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>, <a href='#Page_166'>166</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">iodide, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"> -Solemn burial, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">most ancient instances, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Solutreans, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Soma, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_59'>59</a>, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Somatella, <a href='#Page_59'>59</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Somatic cells, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a>, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Somites, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sophism, Comte’s like that of Zeno, <a href='#Page_226'>226</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Soul, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a>, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>, <a href='#Page_197'>197</a>, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>, <a href='#Page_201'>201</a>, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>, <a href='#Page_211'>211</a>, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a>, <a href='#Page_268'>268</a>, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a>, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">definition of, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a “formative power” and “integrating” and unifying principle, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>, <a href='#Page_211'>211</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a vital entelechy, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">as revealed in biology and psychology, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">consubstantial with matter, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">differs in kind, not merely in degree from bestial soul, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">discarded by Descartes, <a href='#Page_197'>197</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">discarded by scientific psychology, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">formal principle of life, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">functional, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—cannot be primary principle of life, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">name, not reality of, rejected, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not a complete entity, <a href='#Page_201'>201</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">primary ground of life, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">rejected in dynamic, not in entitive sense, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>, <a href='#Page_201'>201</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">spiritual, not a product of evolution, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a>, <a href='#Page_268'>268</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—originates by a creative act, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>, <a href='#Page_268'>268</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">subject of psychology, <a href='#Page_197'>197</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">subsistent in man, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">substantial, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">term alleged to be meaningless, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Specialism, advantages and disadvantages of, <a href='#Page_189'>189</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Species, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a>, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a>, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>-123, <a href='#Page_131'>131</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a>, <a href='#Page_257'>257</a>, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">definition of, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">change of, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a>, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">differentiation and multiplication of, <a href='#Page_131'>131</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">difficulty of distinguishing, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>-123;</li> -<li class="isub1">elementary, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">extinct and extant, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>-123, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">extinct, precarious basis for time-scale, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">formation as contrasted with transformation of, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_131'>131</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fossil, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a>, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_404">[Pg404]</span>intermediate, -absence of, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">intersterility of, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a>, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">only one human, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">persistent, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">syngamy, an essential requisite of, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Species-by-species method, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spectral analysis of constitution of sun, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spectroscope, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Speech, bestial, <a href='#Page_245'>245</a>, <a href='#Page_246'>246</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sperm, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">activation by means of, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spermists, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sphex gryphus (Sm), <a href='#Page_261'>261</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spiders, <a href='#Page_257'>257</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spiral cleavage, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spirit, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">definition of, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spiritual, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spiritualism, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a>, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Aristotelian, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a>, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—admits direct dependence of lower psychic functions on organism, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—admits indirect dependence of higher psychic functions upon organism, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Cartesian, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">destroyed by facts of physiological psychology, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">hylomorphic, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Aristotle, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">psychophysical of Descartes, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a>, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spirituality, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">excludes co-agency of organism, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of human soul, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spiritual representations, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spleen, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Splitters, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Splitting, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spontaneous generation, <a href='#Page_131'>131</a>, <a href='#Page_132'>132</a>, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a>, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a>, <a href='#Page_149'>149</a>, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a>, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a>, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>, <a href='#Page_185'>185</a>, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">defined, <a href='#Page_131'>131</a>-133;</li> -<li class="isub1">antiquity of, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">old and new exception of, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">philosophical “proof” of, <a href='#Page_185'>185</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spontogenesis, an outlawed hypothesis, <a href='#Page_164'>164</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spores, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a>, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">bacterial, <a href='#Page_181'>181</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sporulation, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Springopora, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spy, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">bones, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">crania, capacity underestimated, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"> -Spy remains, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_330'>330</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">skeletons of No.<a href='#Page_1'>1</a> and No.<a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Squatting, a habit of savage races, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Squirrel, <a href='#Page_260'>260</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Starfish, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a>, <a href='#Page_382'>382</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">egg of, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">symmetry of, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a></li> - -<li class="indx">States, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">conscious or psychic, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">mental, active and passive, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of matter, not more real, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Statistics, moral, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stems, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stentor, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sterility, interspecific, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sterilization, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a>, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stimulators, <a href='#Page_243'>243</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stimulus, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stizus ruficornis, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stock, <a href='#Page_310'>310</a>, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">hylobatic and troglodyte, <a href='#Page_310'>310</a>, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">pithecoid, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stone implements, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">characteristic, unsafe basis for time-scale, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stratification, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">scheme of, universal, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">synchronous deposition of, different in mineral content, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stratigraphers, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stratigraphic, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">continuity, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">facts, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">horizons, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sequence, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—invariable order of, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stratigraphy, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Strata, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>-96, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>,108, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">classification of, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">concrete sequence of, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">dated by fossils and fossils by strata, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fossiliferous, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—classification of, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—European classification of, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">how characterized, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">intervening, skipped, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">mineral, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">substitution of fossiliferous for lithological, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">substitution of fossiliferous for mineral, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">wrong order of, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“younger” and “older,”<a href='#Page_108'>108</a>, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Strontium, isotopes of, <a href='#Page_173'>173</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_405">[Pg405]</span></li> - -<li class="indx"> -Structures, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">constant and adaptive, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">distinction influenced by personal equation, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">embryonic, undifferentiated, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">homologous and adaptive, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Struggles for existence, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sturgeons, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sub-archæan beginnings of life impenetrable, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Subject, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">abiding, of our thoughts, feelings and desires, <a href='#Page_205'>205</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">active, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of thought, active, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Subjective abstractions, phenomenalist objectivation of, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Subjectless thought, an abstraction, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Submicron, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>, <a href='#Page_183'>183</a> <i>note</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Submicroscopic dimensions, no obstacle to manifestation of vital phenomena, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Submicroscopic organisms show genetic continuity, reproductiveness and typical vital power, <a href='#Page_169'>169</a>, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Subspecies, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Substages, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Substance, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Substantial composite of body and soul, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Succession, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">to be distinguished from filiation, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not descent, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sunlight, once richer in actinic rays, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Superciliary ridges, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Superorganic, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Superorganic functions, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">have soul as their exclusive agent and recipient, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Superorganic functions, soul alone active cause and receptive subject, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Supernatural, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a>, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">defined, <a href='#Page_187'>187</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Supernumerary, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a>, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">mammary glands, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">organs, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a>, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Superposition, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a>, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">as a criterion of comparative antiquity, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">criterion of, confined to local areas, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—not available</li> -<li class="indx">for correlation of strata in different localities, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">only safe means of distinguishing between spatial and chronological distribution, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">restricted to local areas, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Suppression of organs, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sweden, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Syllogisms, of no avail against facts, <a href='#Page_226'>226</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Symbiosis, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Symbiotes, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Synapsis, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Syngamy, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>-161;</li> -<li class="isub1">essential to biparental inheritance, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">means of rejuvenation, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">qualification of a true species, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Synthesis, chemical, spontaneous and artificial, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Systems, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">colloidal, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">complete polyphasic, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">how determined, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of rocks, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of strata, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">polyphasic, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">protoplasmic, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">simple, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Systematist, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Tactisms, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tactualist, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Taenia, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Taiga, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tarantula, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tasmanian blacks, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tautomerism, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Taxonomic questions, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Taxonomist, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Taxonomy, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a>, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a>, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a>, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a>, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fossil, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—basis of correlation, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—arbitrary and unreliable, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">homology, basis of, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">influence of palæontology, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">need of revision in, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Teleological, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Teleology, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a>, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a>, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">a material expression of intelligence, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">does not entail vibrant intelligence, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">its combination with sentient consciousness, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of organisms, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of artefacts, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a>;</li> -<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_406">[Pg406]</span>psychic -implication of, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">unconscious, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Teleosts, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Telic, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a>, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">phenomena of nature, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Terebratulina, striata, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">caput serpentis, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Termitomyia, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Termitoxenia Heimi, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tertiary, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a>, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a>, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a>, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a>, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a>, <a href='#Page_308'>308</a>, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">ancestor, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Man, <a href='#Page_154'>154</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tertiary envelopes of eggs, <a href='#Page_300'>300</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tethelin, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tethys, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tetraploid race, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">origin of, not yet observed, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tetraploidy, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a>, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thigh, bone, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Third eyelid, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a>, <a href='#Page_297'>297</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Third Interglacial Period, latter half of, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thoatherium, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thought, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>-222, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>, <a href='#Page_229'>229</a>, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a>, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and imagery, concomitant but incommensurable, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">digs below phenomenal surface, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">distinguished from imagery, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">intellectual, steady, lucid and continuous, <a href='#Page_229'>229</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not function of material organism, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">power does not always degenerate with old age, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">presupposes imagery, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">proceeds with complete ease after initial exertion of imagination, <a href='#Page_229'>229</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">rational, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—has spiritual soul for source and subject, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—reflective, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—spiritual, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—superorganic function of, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">reflective, a superorganic function, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">requires substrate of sensible images, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—on which it is objectively dependent, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">some in all individuals, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">spiritual, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">untranslatable into adequate imagery, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thrust faults, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thrust planes like bedding planes, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thymus, <a href='#Page_299'>299</a>, <a href='#Page_300'>300</a>, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a>, <a href='#Page_302'>302</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">an ontogenetic rudiment, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a>, <a href='#Page_302'>302</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thyroid glands, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a>, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a>, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a></li> - - -<li class="indx"> -Thyroxin, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Time-value, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of geological formations, dubious, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of index fossils, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—affords no basis for scientific certainty, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tissue, lymphatic, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tissue cells, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a>, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tonsils, <a href='#Page_301'>301</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tools, use of, by animals, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Trachelocerca, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Training, <a href='#Page_244'>244</a>, <a href='#Page_245'>245</a>, <a href='#Page_256'>256</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Transformism, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a>, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a>, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, <a href='#Page_40'>40</a>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href='#Page_55'>55</a>, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>, <a href='#Page_59'>59</a>, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a>, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>-72, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a>, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a>, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a>, <a href='#Page_131'>131</a>, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>, <a href='#Page_268'>268</a>, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">definition of, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">impotent to explain origin of intelligence, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a>, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a> <i>note</i>, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">interpretation, not corollary, of fossil facts, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">monophyletic, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“natural” explanation of homology, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">proofs for, empirical, aphoristic, and aposterioristic, <a href='#Page_55'>55</a>, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">rests on personal belief rather than on facts, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">ultra-partisans of, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">unconcerned with origin of life, <a href='#Page_131'>131</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">unifies origins in time, but not in space, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Transformist, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Transmutation, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>, <a href='#Page_40'>40</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_65'>65</a>, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a>, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a>, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a>, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Trial and error, <a href='#Page_241'>241</a>, <a href='#Page_243'>243</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Triassic, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Trilobites, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Triploidy, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Troglodyte, <a href='#Page_34'>34</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a>,</li> -<li class="isub1">type, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Troglodytes niger, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tropisms, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tubercule of Darwin, not homologous with apex of horse’s ear, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tubers, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tubules, nephridial or excretory, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Types, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a>, <a href='#Page_55'>55</a>, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>-120, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a>, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>, <a href='#Page_336'>336</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Ancestral, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">annectant, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">approximation in, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">common ancestral, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Crô-Magnon, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_407">[Pg407]</span>no evidence of its descent from Neanderthal -type, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">generalized, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a>, <a href='#Page_55'>55</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">are abstractions, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a>, <a href='#Page_55'>55</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">generic, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">persistence of, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Grimaldi, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">intergradent, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">invertebrate, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">modern, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Neanderthaloid, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_335'>335</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">persistent, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">persistence of, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">phyletic, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">permanence of, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">specific, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—persistence of, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fossil doctrine of their invariable sequence, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Ultramicron, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">destitute of reproductive power, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">may not be natural unit, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of colloidal solutions, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ultramicroscope, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">limit of, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ultraspiritualism of Descartes, <a href='#Page_199'>199</a>, <a href='#Page_202'>202</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ultra-violet rays, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a>, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Unchange, not explained by theory of exchange, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Understanding, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ungulates, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fossil, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Uniformitarianism, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a>, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Uniformity of nature, <a href='#Page_149'>149</a>, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">only justification for reconstruction of the past, <a href='#Page_149'>149</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">principle of, <a href='#Page_169'>169</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Union of soul and body, according to Descartes, <a href='#Page_198'>198</a>, <a href='#Page_199'>199</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Units, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a>, <a href='#Page_166'>166</a>, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a>, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a>, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>-177, <a href='#Page_199'>199</a>-201;</li> -<li class="isub1">difference between, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">inorganic, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a>, <a href='#Page_166'>166</a>, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a>, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a>, <a href='#Page_201'>201</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—and living, <a href='#Page_170'>170</a>, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a>-177</li> -<li class="isub1">—incapable of other than transitive action, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">living and non-living, <a href='#Page_199'>199</a>, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">natural, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">new, of life to be discovered, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of nature, non-living, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Universe, Stone Book of, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Uranium, <a href='#Page_146'>146</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Urea, <a href='#Page_173'>173</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ureter, <a href='#Page_282'>282</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Uroleptus mobilis, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>, <a href='#Page_161'>161</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Urosthenic, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ursus spelaeus, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Use, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Utility, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Valence, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">atomic, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">molecular (residual), <a href='#Page_165'>165</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Variation, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_40'>40</a>, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">agencies of, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cause of modification, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">converges and diverges, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">fluctuational, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">heritable, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">intra-specific, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">mutational, a change of loss, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">non-inheritable, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">process of diversifying, <a href='#Page_40'>40</a>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">trans-specific, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a></li> -<li class="isub1">—no experimental evidence of, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Varieties, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vault, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a>, <a href='#Page_332'>332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vegetarians, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Versatility, <a href='#Page_257'>257</a>, <a href='#Page_258'>258</a>, <a href='#Page_259'>259</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">distinctive mark of intelligence, <a href='#Page_257'>257</a>, <a href='#Page_258'>258</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vertebræ, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vertebrate, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vertebrata, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_270'>270</a>, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a>-284, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>, <a href='#Page_297'>297</a>, <a href='#Page_300'>300</a>, <a href='#Page_302'>302</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">amniotic, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>-282;</li> -<li class="isub1">anamniotic, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>, <a href='#Page_282'>282</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vestigial remnants, <a href='#Page_299'>299</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Viability, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a>, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vibration, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">pure, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">without vibrant medium, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vinegar fly, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Violet, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Visceral arches and clefts, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Visualist, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vital activity, <a href='#Page_201'>201</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vital continuity, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a>, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>, <a href='#Page_155'>155</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">genetic, first article of, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">law of, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a>, <a href='#Page_155'>155</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">law of, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">its fourth article, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vital force, no special, <a href='#Page_201'>201</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vitality, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">eludes art of chemist, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vital principle, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">as defined by Neo-Vitalists, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">entitive, not dynamic, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">term alleged to be meaningless, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">term in disfavor, <a href='#Page_200'>200</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vivisection, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Volcanic bombs, <a href='#Page_346'>346</a>-348</li> - -<li class="indx">Volition, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not function of the material organism, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_408">[Pg408]</span>presupposes conception, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">rational, has spiritual soul for source and subject, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">rational, superorganic, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Walrus, <a href='#Page_296'>296</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wasp, predatory, <a href='#Page_247'>247</a>, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Weddas, cranial capacity of, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Weight, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Whale, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">flipper of, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a></li> - -<li class="indx">White Leghorns, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wild Kirchli, industry of, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Will, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a>, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">insatiable, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of man, free, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">self-determining or reflexive, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">superior to sensual appetite, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wing venation, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a> <i>note</i>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wisconsin, Cambrian sediments of, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wolffian duct, <a href='#Page_281'>281</a>, <a href='#Page_282'>282</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Woods Hole, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li> - -<li class="indx">World War, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Worm, <a href='#Page_249'>249</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wormwood, <a href='#Page_248'>248</a>, <a href='#Page_255'>255</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">common, <a href='#Page_255'>255</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Würtzburg, School of, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">X-rays, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a>, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Yoldia Sea, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Yolk-sac, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a></li> - - -<li class="ifrst">Zamia, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Zebra, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Zones, stratigraphic, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">zoögeographical, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Zoölogists, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Zoölogy, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>, <a href='#Page_55'>55</a>, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a>, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Zoöpsychologists, <a href='#Page_240'>240</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Zygote, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>-158</li> - -</ul> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="label">[1]</a> A good definition of degeneracy is that of A. F. Tredgold, who says: -“I venture to define degeneracy as ‘a retrograde condition of the individual -resulting from a pathological variation of the germ cell.’” -(Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for 1918, p. 548.)</p> - -</div> -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="label">[2]</a> The term mutation had been used long before and in a similar sense -by the German palæontologist Waagen, who employed it to designate -the variations of a specific type that succeed one another in successive -strata, a thing which rarely occurs. (Cf. Waagen’s <i>Die Formenreihe des -Ammonites subradiatus</i>, Geognost. paläont. Beitr., Berlin, 1869.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="label">[3]</a> It may be remarked, in passing, that experimental genetics and -mutation furnish no clue to the origin of adaptive characters. The -Lamarckian idea alone gives promise in this direction. Orthogenesis -leaves unsolved the mystery of preadaptation; yet only orthogenetic -systems of evolution can be constructed on the basis of genetical facts. -“Mutations and Mendelism,” says Kellogg, “may explain the origin of -new species in some measure, but they do not explain adaptation in -the slightest degree.” (<i>Atlantic Monthly</i>, April, 1924, pp. 488, 489.) -We have seen in the previous chapter that they are impotent to explain -in <i>any</i> measure the origin of new species.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_4" href="#FNanchor_4" class="label">[4]</a> Rev. Erich Wasmann, S. J., accepts the evolutionary inference from -homology as regards <i>plants</i> and <i>animals</i>. When it comes to <i>man</i>, however, -he attempts to draw the line, and argues painstakingly against the -assumption of a bestial origin of the human body.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_5" href="#FNanchor_5" class="label">[5]</a> This transitory lymphatic, or tracheal venation appearing in the -appendages at the stenogastric stage may not have the particular -significance that Father Wasmann assigns. Such venation, even if -vestigial and aborted, need not necessarily be a vestige of former -<i>wing</i> venation. To demonstrate the validity of the atavistic interpretation, -all other possible interpretations would have to be definitively -excluded.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_6" href="#FNanchor_6" class="label">[6]</a> Vernon Kellogg has expressed this same view in a recent article, -though he frankly admits that it is an as yet unrealized desideratum. -“Altogether,” he says, “it 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 lifetime. It would -give them an explanation of evolution, especially of adaptation, much -more satisfactory than any other explanation at present claiming the -acceptance of biologists.” (<i>Atlantic Monthly</i>, April, 1924, p. 488.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_7" href="#FNanchor_7" class="label">[7]</a> See Addenda.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_8" href="#FNanchor_8" class="label">[8]</a> “It is a common occurrence,” says Charles Schuchert, “on the Canadian -Shield to find the Archæozoic formations overlain by the most -recent Pleistocene glacial deposits, and even these may be absent. It -appears as if in such places no rocks had been deposited, either by -the sea or by the forces of the land, since Archæozoic time, and yet -geologists know that the shield has been variously covered by sheets of -sediments formed at sundry times in the Proterozoic, Palæozoic, and, to -a more limited extent, in the Mesozoic.” (“Textbook of Geology,” -ed. of 1920, II, p. 569.) It may be remarked that, when geologists -“know” such things, they know them in spite of the facts!</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_9" href="#FNanchor_9" class="label">[9]</a> Thus, to explain away “wrong sequences” of fossils, Heim and -Rothpletz postulate the great Glaurus overthrust in the Alps, Geikie -the great overthrust in Scotland, McConnell, Campbell, and Willis -a great overthrust along the eastern front of the Rockies in Montana -and Alberta, while Hayes recognizes numerous overthrusts in the -southern Appalachians. “The deciphering of such great displacements,” -says Pirrson, speaking of thrust faults, “is one of the greatest triumphs -of modern geological research.” (“Textbook of Geology,” 1920, I, p. -367.) Desperate measures are evidently justifiable, when it is a question -of saving the time-value of fossils!</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_10" href="#FNanchor_10" class="label">[10]</a> “All that geology can prove,” says Huxley, “is local order of succession.” -(“Discourses Biological and Geological,” pp. 279-288.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_11" href="#FNanchor_11" class="label">[11]</a> Recently, by means of photography with short-length light waves, -the bacteria of “Foot-and-mouth disease,” invisible to the highest -power microscope, have been revealed as rods about 100 submicrons -(<i>i.e.</i> O.1 micron, or O.0001 millimeter) in length. (<i>cf.</i> <i>Science</i>, May 30, -1924, Supplement X.) -Germs of this dimension could be as easily transported by radiation -as the alleged electrically charged stardust in the aurora borealis. It -may be of interest, however, to note, in this connection, that the most -recent theory of the aurora borealis discards stardust in favor of -nitrogen snow. Lars Vegard, a Norwegian professor, ascribes the -peculiar greenish tint in the Northern Lights to the action of solar -radiations on nitrogen snow, which he assumes to exist at an altitude -of more than 60 miles above the earth. When he condensed crystals -of solid nitrogen on a copper plate by freezing with liquid hydrogen, -he found that these crystals, after bombardment with cathode rays, -emit a light of green color, which gives the same strong green spectrum -line as the spectrum of the aurora. As the solid nitrogen evaporates, -it begins to emit the reddish light characteristic of nitrogen gas. This -phenomenon would explain the changes of color that occur in the -aurora borealis. (<i>cf.</i> <i>Science</i>, April 18, 1924, Suppl. X.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_12" href="#FNanchor_12" class="label">[12]</a> To develop the argument drawn from rational volition for the -spirituality of the human soul would carry us too far afield. Those who -wish to pursue the subject further may consult Chapter VIII of -Gründer’s monograph entitled “Psychology without a Soul,” also his -monograph on “Free Will.”</p> - -<p>G. H. Parker of Harvard, though admitting the fact of human freedom, -tries to explain it away in terms of materialism. The following -is the description which he gives of his theory: “It is a materialist -view which, however, recognizes in certain types of organized matter a -degree of free action consistent with human behavior and the resultant -responsibility.” (<i>Science</i>, June 13, 1924, p. 520.) Freedom, in other -words, “emerges” from matter having a peculiar “type of organization.”</p> - -<p>This view must be interpreted in the light of the philosophy of -“Emergent Evolution,” which Parker holds in common with C. Lloyd -Morgan and R. W. Sellars. The philosophy in question recognizes in -nature an ascending scale of more and more complexly organized units, -starting with protons and electrons, at the bottom, and culminating in -the human organism, at the top. At each higher level of this cosmic -scale we find higher units formed by coalescence of the simpler units -of a lower level. These higher units, however, are <i>something more</i> -than a mere summation of the lower units; for, in addition to <i>additive</i> -properties that can be predicted from a knowledge of the components, -they exhibit genuinely <i>new</i> properties which, not being mere sums of -the properties of the component units, are unpredictable on that basis. -Given, for example, the weight of two volumes of hydrogen and one -volume of oxygen, we could predict an <i>additive</i> property such as -the <i>weight</i> of the compound, <i>i.e.</i> the water, formed by their combination. -Other properties, of the compound, however, such as liquidity, are not -foreshadowed by the properties of the component gases. Similarly, the -weight of carbon disulphid (CS<sub>2</sub>) is an additive function of the combining -weights of sulphur and carbon, but the other properties of this -mobile liquid are not predictable on the basis of the properties of sulphur -and carbon. Hence <i>two</i> kinds of properties are distinguished: (1) -<i>additive</i> (quantitative) properties called <i>resultants</i>, which are predictable; -(2) <i>specificative</i> (qualitative) properties called <i>emergents</i>, which -are unprecedented and unpredictable. Freedom and intelligence, accordingly, -are pronounced to be <i>emergents</i> of matter organized to that -degree of complexity which we find in man.</p> - -<p>This dualism of resultance and emergence is merely a new verbal -vesture for the hylomorphic dualism of Aristotle. The <i>additive</i> -properties (<i>resultants</i>) are based on <i>matter</i>, which is the principle of <i>continuity</i>. -The <i>specificative</i> (constituitive or qualitative) properties called -emergents are rooted in <i>entelechy</i> (form), which is the principle of -<i>novelty</i>. In fact, entelechy (form) itself is <i>an emergent of matter</i> just -as the specificative properties are <i>emergents</i> of matter, with the sole -difference that <i>entelechy</i> is <i>the primary emergent</i> of matter, whereas -the specificative or qualitative properties are <i>secondary emergents</i>. For -in Aristotelian philosophy, entelechy is not, as it is in Neo-vitalism, “an -alien principle inserted into matter” abruptly and capriciously “at the -level of life,” but a <i>primary emergent</i> and <i>constituent</i> of matter both -living and non-living. In fine, entelechy is an <i>emergent</i> of matter in all -the units of nature from the simplest atom to the most complex plant -or animal organism. The only entelechy, which is not an <i>emergent</i>, -but an <i>insert</i> into matter, is the <i>spiritual human soul</i>. Neither the -human soul nor the <i>superorganic</i> functions rooted in it, namely, abstraction, -reflection, and election, are <i>emergents</i>. Here we have <i>novelty -without continuity</i>, and therefore not <i>emergence</i> (eduction), but <i>insertion</i> -(infusion).</p> - -<p>In his “Emergent Evolution,” 1923, Lloyd Morgan lays it down as -axiomatic that <i>emergence involves continuity</i>—“There may often be -resultants,” he says, “without emergence; but there are no emergents -that do not involve resultant effects also. Resultants give quantitative -continuity which underlies new constitutive steps in emergence.” (<i>Op. -cit.</i>, p. 5.) Now our proofs for human spirituality consist precisely in -the <i>complete exclusion of quantitative continuity</i> between <i>organic</i> functions -(<i>e. g.</i> sensation) and <i>superorganic</i> functions (<i>e. g.</i> conceptual -thought and free volition). Hence, by the very axiom which Morgan -himself formulates, the human soul and its <i>superorganic functions</i> are -excluded from the category of material <i>emergents</i>. If there can be no -emergence without quantitative continuity, then the human soul is not -an <i>emergent from</i>, but an <i>insert into</i>, matter. <i>Free choice</i>, too, it is needless -to say, is not an <i>emergent of matter</i>, but an <i>expression of the supermaterial -nature of the human soul</i>. So much for the new-old dualism -of emergence and resultance.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_13" href="#FNanchor_13" class="label">[13]</a> Title of a horse’s autobiography by Anna Sewall, the horse’s <i>alter -ego</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_14" href="#FNanchor_14" class="label">[14]</a> J. Henri Fabre and Erich Wasmann, S.J., have formulated very -sound and critical views on the subject of instinct. The works of -these authors are now available in English. (<i>Cf.</i> de Mattos’ translation -of the <i>Souvenirs etymologiques</i>: “The Mason Bees,” Ch. VII; “The -Bramble Bees,” Ch. VI; “The Hunting Wasps,” Chs. IX, X, XX; <i>cf.</i> -also Wasmann’s <i>Instinct and Intelligence</i>, and <i>Psychology of Ants and -of Higher Animals</i>, Engl. translation by Gummersbach.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_15" href="#FNanchor_15" class="label">[15]</a> Cf. Nelson’s Encyclopedia, v. 6, p. 452.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_16" href="#FNanchor_16" class="label">[16]</a> Haeckel’s “Biogenetisches Grundgesetz,” which he formulates thus: -“<i>Die Ontogenie (Keimesgeschichte) ist eine kurze Wiederholung der -Phylogenie (Stammesgeschichte)</i>,” 1874.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_17" href="#FNanchor_17" class="label">[17]</a> The objection may be raised that a purely embryonic organ like -the pronephros, which is functional in but few vertebrate adults and -which originates in vertebrate embryos only to undergo atrophy, can -have no other explanation than that of “recapitulation.” The objection, -however, fails to take into account the possibility of the organ -being serviceable to the <i>embryo</i>, in which it may be a provisory solution -of the excretory problem and not a vestige of past ancestry.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_18" href="#FNanchor_18" class="label">[18]</a> See Addenda.</p> - -</div> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin-top:4em'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CASE AGAINST EVOLUTION ***</div> -<div style='text-align:left'> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will -be renamed. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. -</div> - -<div style='margin-top:1em; font-size:1.1em; text-align:center'>START: FULL LICENSE</div> -<div style='text-align:center;font-size:0.9em'>THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE</div> -<div style='text-align:center;font-size:0.9em'>PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person -or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when -you share it without charge with others. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work -on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the -phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: -</div> - -<blockquote> - <div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most - other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions - whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms - of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online - at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this eBook. - </div> -</blockquote> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg™ License. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain -Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: -</div> - -<div style='margin-left:0.7em;'> - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation.” - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ - works. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - </div> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right -of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread -public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state -visit <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate/">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. -</div> - -</div> -</body> -</html> |