CHAPTER III. The Origin of the Human Body

THE ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN BODY

In an article published August 31, 1895, in the New York Freeman’s Journal, 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 body, 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?

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 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.

§ 1. Two Theories of Descent

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.

The theory, however, which is most generally favored at the present time holds that, assuming the universality of the evolutionary 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. “Monkeys, apes, and men,” says Conklin, “have descended from some common but at present extinct ancestor. 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.)

Barnum Brown’s recent discovery of three jaws of the fossil ape Dryopithecus in the Siwalik Hills of India has, as previously intimated, resulted in a return on the part of certain scientists, e.g. Wm. K. Gregory and Dudley J. Morton, to views that more nearly approximate those of Charles Darwin. According to these men, the fossil anthropoid Dryopithecus is to be regarded as the common ancestor of men, chimpanzees, and gorillas. (Cf. Science, April 25, 1924, Suppl. XII.)

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 urosthenic (tail-strong), inasmuch as they propel themselves by means of their tails. Next in point of organization and time came the merosthenic vertebrates, which have their strength concentrated in the hind-limbs, e.g. reptiles like the dinosaurs. In the last place come the prosthenic vertebrates, whose strength is concentrated in the fore-limbs, e.g. the carnivora and apes. Now man belongs to the merosthenic type, and his mode of progression, therefore, is more primitive than that of apes, which are prosthenic, all anthropoid apes, such as the gorilla, the chimpanzee, the orang-utan and the gibbon having longer fore-limbs than hind-limbs.

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, 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—“die zentralle Lage dieser Oeffnung,” says Ranke alluding to the occipital foramen of man, “in der Schädelbasis ist für den Menschenschädel im Unterschied gegen den Tierschädel eine in hohem Masse typische.” (“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, e.g. the sagittal crest, the superciliary ridges, etc., while in man such features are practically absent.

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, 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.” (Op. cit., vol. II, p. 213.)

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, op. cit., 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 direct genealogical connection between man and any known type of ape or monkey—“The testimony of comparative anatomy,” to quote Bumüller, “is 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.)

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 Crysothrix 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 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.)

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.

§ 2. Embryological Resemblances

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.” The latter’s statement of the principle is as follows: “Die Ontogenesis ist die Palingenesis der Phylogenesis.”—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 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 embryonic and could never have functioned in adult forms, e.g. 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 embryonic 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.)

Haeckel’s “Biogenetisches Grundgesetz,” which he formulates thus: “Die Ontogenie (Keimesgeschichte) ist eine kurze Wiederholung der Phylogenie (Stammesgeschichte),” 1874.

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 “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.)

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.” (Revue Scientifique, 1877, I, p. 1101.) Haeckel tried in vain to save his discredited law by means of the expedient of cænogenesis, 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 cænogenesis and palingenesis, just as, in comparative anatomy, one can alternate capriciously between convergence and homology, on the general understanding of its being a case of: “Heads, I win; tails, you lose”—certainly, there is no objective 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 everything seemed to fit together in most beautiful order.” (Quoted by Dwight in “Thoughts of a Catholic Anatomist,” p. 187.)

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 embryonic features of one organism from the adult 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.” (Op. cit., pp. 22, 23.)

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 branchial (gill) arches and clefts in man. The visceral or pharyngeal arches and grooves appearing in the human embryo are unquestionably homologous with the genuine branchial arches and clefts in a fish 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 pharyngeal (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 (e.g. 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 branchial, 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.

The theory of embryological recapitulation is often applied 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.

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 pronephros, the middle one, the mesonephros and the posterior one, the metanephros. 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 opisthonephros of a fish, seeing that the latter is composed not only of mesonephridia (mesonephric tubules), but also of metanephridia (metanephric tubules). A brief description of the three nephridial systems of vertebrate embryos will serve to further clarify their interrelationship.

(1) The pronephric system: 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.

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 embryo, in which it may be a provisory solution of the excretory problem and not a vestige of past ancestry.

(2) The mesonephric system: 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 mesonephros 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.

(3) The metanephric system: 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).

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.e. 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.

It is, indeed, a well-known fact that larval and embryonic organisms are often obliged to defer temporarily the construction 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 Bipinnaria 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.

From this viewpoint, there is no difficulty in understanding why temporary solutions of the excretory problem should precede the definitive 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 Nautilus, 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 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.

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. Differentiation pertains to the final or adult 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, “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.’” (Op. cit., p. 593.)

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 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.” (Op. cit., 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.

§ 3. Rudimentary Organs

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.

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 functionless organs are atrophied or reduced. Facts, however, prove the contrary; for we find frequent instances of reduced organs which function, and, vice versa, 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.

To save his argument from this antagonism of the facts, Darwin resorts to the ingenious expedient of distinguishing between rudimentary organs and nascent 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” (ibidem), 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.” (Op. cit., ch. XIV, p. 470.)

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.” (Op. cit., 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.)

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.

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 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. Science, 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 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.

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 precision (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, e.g. 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.

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, e.g. monkeys with, and without, prehensile tails alike dwell in trees; while animals having the same organic structure may have different instincts, e.g. 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.

Another flaw in the Darwinian argument from rudimentary organs is that it confounds, in many cases, apparent, with real 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 they 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 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.

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 cryptorhetic system and is made of internally-secreting, ductless glands, now called endocrine glands. These glands generate and instill into the blood stream certain chemical substances called hormones, 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.

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 pineal eye 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 vestigial 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.

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.)

This elaborate piece of evolutionary contortion calls for no comment here. We are only interested in the fact that this wild and weird speculation was originally inspired by the false assumption that the hypophysis was a functionless organ. As a matter of fact, it is the source of two important hormones. The one generated in its anterior lobe is tethelin, 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. e. hands, feet, head), obesity, and genital dystrophy (i. e. suppression of secondary sexual characters). The posterior lobe of the pituitary body constitutes, with the pars intermedia, a second endocrine gland, which generates a stimulatory hormone called pituitrin. This hormone stimulates unstriated muscle to contract, and thereby regulates the discharge of secretions from various glands of the body, e. g. 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.

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.” (Op. cit., p. 654.) They are, however, endocrine glands, that generate a hormone known as thyroxin, 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.

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.)

Even the vermiform appendix 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 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.

Darwin gives the semilunar fold as another instance of a vestigial organ, claiming that it is a persistent rudiment of a former third eyelid or membrana nictitans, 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.” (Op. cit., 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.e. 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 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 know whether the palæozoic reptiles possessed this particular feature, or not. Nor can we argue from analogy and induction, because not all 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 must 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, vice versa, evolution a proof for rudiments.

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.

The coccyx 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.” (Op. cit., ch. I, p. 42.) That it serves no purpose as a tail, may be readily admitted, but that it serves no purpose whatever, 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.” (Ibidem.) 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 every viewpoint. It suffices that they are perfect with respect to the particular purpose 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.

Another consideration which Darwin and his partisans have failed to take into account is the possibility of an ontogenetic, as well as a phylogenetic, explanation of rudimentary organs. That is to say, rudimentary organs might, so far as a priori reasons are concerned, be the now useless vestiges of organs formerly developed and functional in the fœtus, 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—e.g. 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.

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 (cf. 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 (cf. Starling’s “Physiology,” 3rd ed., 1920, p. 1245); according to others, however, not until the period of full maturity, namely, puberty. (Cf. Gray’s “Anatomy,” loc. cit.) W. H. Howell cites both opinions, without venturing to decide the matter (cf. 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 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.

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.” (Science, Dec. 28, 1923, Suppl. XIII, XIV.)

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 alimentary canal and are therefore endodermic in origin. These include the tonsils, the thymus, 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.)

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 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.)

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.

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 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 anomaly, and, as anomalies are often interpreted as atavisms and reversions to a primitive type, it may be well to advert to this subject here.

Dwight has an excellent chapter on anatomical variations and anomalies. (Cf. “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, e.g. the occurrence of supernumerary legs in an insect, and those which consist in the suppression of one or more elements in a series, e.g. 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,” 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.” (Op. cit., 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.

The human body is certainly not a mosaic of heterogenetic organs, i.e. 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....

“But the supernumerary mammary glands are not a reversion 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.)

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 suppression and anomalous duplication of organs may result from factorial mutation, 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 ex aequo to produce results of this nature, e.g. 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 is an “effect of long-continued disuse,” and to regard the phenomenon as “wholly, or mainly, due to natural selection,” e.g. 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, e.g. 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.)

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 supernumerary and vestigial 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.

“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. 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.)

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 Neotoma. 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.

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.

§ 4. Fossil Links

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 Homo sapiens. 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 (sic) 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.” (The Ill. London News, Jan. 8, 1921, p. 40.)

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 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, op. cit., p. 195.)

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 Pithecanthropus erectus, 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.

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.” (Loc. cit.) 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 Propliopithecus 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 Museum-leaflet of 1923 on “The Hall of the Age of Man,” p. 29.) On April 14, 1923, however, Gregory announced the deposition of Propliopithecus and the enthronement of the jaw of Dryopithecus. This sudden accession of Dryopithecus to the post of common ancestor of apes and men was due to the discovery by Dr. Barnum Brown of three fossil jaws of Dryopithecus 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 Dryopithecus. 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 Propliopithecus “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” (loc. cit.), now tells us that both we and the apes have inherited our teeth from Dryopithecus, who had heretofore remained neglected on the side-lines. In 1923, apparently, Dr. Gregory was unimpressed with the crown patterns of Dryopithecus, whose jaw he then excluded from the direct human line. (Cf. Museum-leaflet, p. 5.) Now, however, that the new discoveries have brought Dryopithecus into the limelight, and, particularly because these jaws were found in Miocene deposits, Gregory has shifted his favor from Propliopithecus to Dryopithecus. (Cf. Science, April 25, 1924, suppl. XIII.)

When palæontologists are obliged to do a volte face 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 ... 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 Dryopithecus will not lose caste so speedily as that of Propliopithecus.

Propliopithecus, or Dryopithecus? 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 Dryopithecus, 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 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.

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 Homo sapiens, 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.

“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 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. The entire genealogical tree of man does not show so much as one fossil genus, or even one fossil species.” (Op. cit., 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.

(1) Pithecanthropus erectus: 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 Pliocene series. “The Trinil ape-man,” says Osborn, “ ... is the first of the conundrums of human ancestry. Is the Trinil race prehuman or not?” (Loc. cit., p. 40.) Certainly, Lower Pleistocene, or Upper Pliocene represents too late a time for the appearance of the 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.

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.” (Loc. cit., p. 450, footnote.) His first estimate of the total cranial capacity of Pithecanthropus was 1000 c.cm., but, later on, when he decided to reconstruct the skull on the basis of the cranium of a gibbon (Hylobates agilis) rather than that of a chimpanzee (Troglodytes niger), 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.” (Loc. cit., 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.e. to the true apes.” (Archiv. für Anthropologie, 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 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 relative, and not the absolute, 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 human pigmies, whereas the Pithecanthropus, according to Richard Hertwig, was a giant ape. “The fragments,” says Hertwig, “were regarded by some as belonging to a connecting link between apes and man, Pithecanthropus erectus Dubois; 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.)

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 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.

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.” (Op. cit., 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 normally occurs.” (Loc. cit., 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 fifty feet away from the skull-cap be overlooked, seeing that this fact destroys, once and for all, any possibility of certainty that both belonged to the same animal.

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, op. cit., 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 interpretation in a purely provisory and tentative sense, and does not dogmatize after the fashion of Osborn and Gregory.

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. Science, 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, North American Review, April, 1922.) A writer in Science says: “It has been rumored that he was influenced by religious bigotry” and refers to the bones as a “skeleton in the closet.” (Cf. loc. cit.) 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. Science, 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.

(2) The Heidelberg Man: 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 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, loc. cit., p. 516.) No other part of the skeleton except the jaw was discovered.

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 Homo heidelbergensis.” (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.” (Op. cit., 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 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.” (Op. cit., pp. 230, 231.)

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. Sitzungbericht der Preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaften, 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.

(3) Eoanthropus Dawsoni: 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 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.

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.” (Op. cit., 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 lower jaw a tooth which Gerrit Miller of the United States Museum assigns to the upper 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.

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 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.” (Loc. cit., p. 505.)

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.” (Loc. cit., p. 506.)

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. Nature, 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 older and on the order of the jaw of the fossil ape Dryopithecus, while the skull is less antique and indubitably human. The following abstract of Hrdlička’s view is given in Science, 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 Dryopithecus rhenanus. 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.” (Ibidem.) Still other authorities, however, have claimed that the jaw was that of a chimpanzee.

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.

(4) The Neanderthal Man (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 in situ. 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 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.” (Loc. cit., p. 395.)

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 genus of the Anthropidæ in 1901. In 1904, however, he repented of his rashness and contented himself with calling it a distinct human species, namely, Homo primigenius, in contradistinction to Homo sapiens (modern man). As we shall see presently, however, it is not a distinct species, but, at most, an ancient variety or subspecies (race) of the species Homo sapiens, differing from modern Europeans 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.

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.” (Archiv. für Anthropologie, 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 and Le Moustier, all of whom have been assigned to the Neanderthal group.

(5) Neanderthal Man (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.e. the Feldhofer Grotte). The bones were either washed into the broken cave, or buried there later. We have no indication whatever of their age.

(6) The Man of La Naulette: 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.)

(7) The Men of Spy: 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 (Rhinoceros tichorhinus), the mammoth (Elephas primigenius), and the great bear (Ursus spelaeus). There were also stone implements indicating Mousterian industry, and the 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.

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.

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 surviving 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.

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.)

(8) The Men of Krapina: 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 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 Rhinoceros merckii, Ursus spelaeus, Bos primigenius, etc. The aforesaid Rhinoceros is an older type than the Rhinoceros tichorhinus associated with the men of Spy, and implies a hot climate, wherein the Rhinoceros merckii managed to persist for a longer time than in the north. Hence the remains are thought to belong to the last Interglacial period.

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.” (Loc. cit., 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.

(9) The Le Moustier Man: This specimen, Homo mousteriensis Hauseri, 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 characters ... are not so distinct (i.e. 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 Homo primigenius which now also becomes Homo mousteriensis. 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 Homo sapiens. In the retreating forehead, prominent brow ridges, and prognathism (i.e. 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.” (Loc. cit., 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.

(10) The La Chapelle Man: 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 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.

“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.e. 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.

“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.” (Loc. cit., p. 574.)

The associated remains of fossil animals comprise the horse, reindeer, bison, Rhinoceros tichorinus, etc., and, according to Hrdlička, “indicate that the deposits date from somewhere near the middle of the glacial epoch.” (Loc. cit., 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 first instance of a palæolithic man, in which the basal parts 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.

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.)

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 Homo sapiens, we need not discuss them here. The same holds true, a fortiori, 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 distinct species of human being.

Anent this question, Professor MacCurdy has the following: “Boule estimated the capacity of the Chapelle-aux-Saints 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 Homo sapiens. 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.)

As for the structural features which are alleged to constitute a specific difference between the Neanderthal type and modern man, v.g. 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 Homo sapiens. Moreover, there is much fluctuation, 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 Homo neanderthalensis (cf. “Biolog. Zentralblatt,” 1905, p. 810; and Wasmann’s “Modern Biology,” Eng. ed., pp. 472, 473).

All the differences between modern and palæolithic man are explicable, partly upon the basis of acquired adaptation, inasmuch as the primitive mode of life pursued by the latter entailed the formation of body-modifying habits very different from our present customs and habits (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 mutations, which gave rise to new races or varieties or subspecies, 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 a priori 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.”

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 date their fossils and archæological cultures according to the theory of evolution, but, for one whose confidence in the “reality” of evolution is not so great, these palæontological chronometers are open to grave suspicion.

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 burying his dead. 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.

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 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.” (Op. cit., pp. 169, 170.)

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.” (Op. cit., 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 (America, Dec. 15, 1917, pp. 230, 231), has triumphantly vindicated 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.”

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.

That savagery and barbarism represent a degenerate, rather than a primitive, 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.)

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 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.

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 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 Homo sapiens, 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. Science, 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.

(11) The Rhodesian Man: 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 with) that of modern man.” (Science, 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.” (Loc. cit., 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.” (Ibidem.) 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.” (Ibidem.) 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 fluctuational character of the so-called Homo primigenius 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.

(12) The Foxhall Man: This is the earliest known prehistoric man. He is known to us, however, only through “his 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: Guide-leaflet 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.

Summa summarum: So far as science knows, only one human species has ever existed on the earth, and that is Homo sapiens. 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. “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 Homo primigenius, 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 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.

See Addenda.

§ 5. The Edict of the American Association

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: “The evidences in favor of the evolution of man are sufficient to convince every scientist in the world.”

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.

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 New York American 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.

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-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 Homo sapiens, 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 an historical fact, 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.”

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 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.” (Der Türmer, V, Oct., 1902, Part I, p. 13.)

A slave, we are told (Tertul., Apolog. 33), rode in the triumphal chariot of the Roman conqueror, to whisper ever and anon in his ear: Hominem memento te!—“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.

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, e.g. a stone, which, falling into a volcano, becomes coated with an external shell of lava. In addition to the bombs, 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

AFTERWORD

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.

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.

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: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem—“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.

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 simple explanations are not necessarily true 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.

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.”

Vernon Kellogg objects to our indictment. “The evolutionist,” he says, “does not like being called a bad man. He 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.” (Atlantic Monthly, 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.

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.” (Loc. cit., 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.

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, ibid., p. 491), they are condescendingly willing to concede. And small credit to them for this; for who can disprove the existence of God, or the spirituality of the human soul? Nevertheless, it is impossible, they maintain, to be certain 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 metaphysical, and metaphysics is for them synonymous 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.)

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.)

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 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.” (Op. cit., vol. I, pp. 81, 82.)

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.

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 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.

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.)

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 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.

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.

Such doctrines, too, are essentially antisocial. They destroy the very foundation of altruism. To seek immortality in the 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.

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.

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. 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.

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 Appeal to Reason (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.

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 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.”)

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 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.”)

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.

Grave little manikins digging in the slime Intent upon the old game of ‘Once-upon-a-time.’ Other little manikins engaged with things-to-come, Building up the sand-heap called Millennium. (Theodore MacManus)

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 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.

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:

“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.

“In truth, our common origin with the brutes being taken for granted, why should we not enjoy in common with them 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?

“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.

“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.)

GLOSSARY

Abiogenesis: The discredited hypothesis that life may originate spontaneously in lifeless matter, i.e., apart from the influence of living matter.

Adaptation: (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.

Allelomorphs: Genes located opposite each other on homologous chromosomes and representing contrasting characters; they are separated during meiosis according to the Mendelian law of segregation, e.g. 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.

Alluvial: 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.

Amino-acids: The chemical building-stones of the proteins—organic acids containing one or more amino-groups (—NH₂) in place of hydrogen, e.g., amino-acetic acid, CH₂·NH₂·COOH.

Amnion: 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.

Amphioxus: The most simply organized animal having a dorsal notochord. It is classified among the Acrania in contradistinction to the craniate Chordates which make up the bulk of the vertebrates.

Angiosperms: The higher plants, which have their seeds enclosed in seed-vessels.

Anthropoid Apes: Apes of the family SIMIIDÆ, which approach man most closely in their organization, namely, the chimpanzee, the gorilla, the gibbon, and orang-utan.

Antibody: 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.

Antigen: Any substance that causes the production of special antibodies in the blood of susceptible animals, after one or several injections.

Arthropods: The phylum of exoskeletal invertebrates comprising crustaceans, arachnida, insects, etc.

Atavism: The resemblance to an ancestor more distant than the parents.

Automatism: A spontaneous action, not in response to recognizable stimuli.

Basichromatin: That portion of a cell’s nuclear network which contains nuclein and is deeply stained by basic dyes.

Biparental: Derived from two progenitors, i.e., a father and mother.

Brachiopods: Invertebrate animals bearing a superficial resemblance to bivalve molluscs, but belonging to a totally different group—lamp shells.

Cambrian: The “oldest” system of the Palæozoic group of fossiliferous rocks.

Carbohydrates: The sugars, starches, etc.,—polyhydric alcohols with aldehydic or ketonic groups, and acetals of same, etc.

Catalyst: A substance which accelerates a chemical reaction without permanently participating in it, being left over unchanged at the end of the process.

Centriole: The centrioles or central bodies are the foci of 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.

Cephalopods: A class of molluscs in which the foot is developed into a headlike structure with eyes and a circle of arms, e.g., the octopus, the cuttlefish, the squid, and the nautilus.

Ceratites: A genus of extinct cephalopods having a coiled shell and crooked sutures.

Character: An external feature or sensible property of an organism. It is the joint product of germinal factors (genes) and environmental influences.

Chlorophyll: 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.

Chondriosomes: 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.

Chordates: The phylum of animals whose primary axial skeleton consists temporarily or permanently of a notochord.

Chromatin: Same as basichromatin.

Chromosomes: 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 heredity, each single chromosome being termed, on this account, a “linkage-group” by geneticists.

Ciliate: A protozoan whose motor-apparatus consists of cilia, i. e., hairlike protoplasmic projections capable of rapid and coördinated vibratile movement.

Cloaca: 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.

Coccyx: Lower extremity of the vertebral column in man.

Colloids: Insoluble gumlike substances, which will not diffuse through organic membranes.

Commensalism: The harmonious cohabitation of two organisms belonging to different species, where the relation is not necessarily beneficial nor necessarily harmful to either.

Crossover: 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.

Crystalloids: Soluble substances, which usually form crystals and readily diffuse through organic membranes.

Cyst: A protective envelope formed around an organism during period of rest.

Cytode: The non-nucleated cell hypothecated by Haeckel.

Cyptoplasm: The cell-body or extranuclear protoplasm of a cell.

Endomixis: A process of nuclear reorganization among the protozoa, which does not require the coöperation of two cells as in conjugation (amphimixis).

Endoskeleton: 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.

Enzymes: Organic catalysts, i. e., complex chemical substances formed by organisms and serving to accelerate chemical processes taking place in said organisms, e. g., the digestive enzymes, which accelerate the hydrolysis of starches, fats, and proteins.

Epigenesis: Development of the embryo by differentiation of previously undifferentiated protoplasm.

Fats: Esters of the higher fatty or organic acids (such as stearic, palmitic, and oleic) esterified with the trihydric alcohol glycerine (glycerol).

Gamete: A reproductive cell specialized for syngamy, i.e., for union with a complementary germ cell, their union giving rise to a synthetic cell known as a zygote.

Ganglion: An aggregate of nerve-cells consisting mainly of neural cell-bodies together with supporting cells.

Ganoids: Fishes covered with enameled bony scales, and now, for the most part, extinct.

Gene: 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.

Genotype: 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.

Germ Cells: Cells specialized for reproduction as contrasted with other vital functions, e.g., spores and gametes.

Germ-plasm: The material basis of inheritance.

Glacial Epoch: 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. Golgi Bodies: 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.

Habitat: The locality in which a given animal or plant normally lives.

Hallux: The great toe, opposable in the ape, but not in man.

Heredity: “The appearance in offspring of characters whose differential causes are in the germ cells” (Conklin).

Heterozygous: Hybrid,—the condition in which the chromosomal genes paired by syngamy in the zygote are unlike.

Homologous Chromosomes: Corresponding chromosomes of the same synaptic pair, being of paternal and maternal origin respectively.

Homozygous: Pure,—the condition in which the chromosomal genes paired in the zygote by syngamy are alike.

Hormone: 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, e. g., secretin, gastrin, adrenalin, etc.

Hydrotheca: The cuplike extension of the perisarc (skeletal sheath) surrounding the hypostome (oral cone) and tentacles of certain polyps.

Hyloblatic: Resembling the gibbon.

Lemurs: 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.

Lethals: 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.

Linin: Same as oxychromatin.

Litopterna: A suborder of extinct ungulate mammals from the Miocene and Pliocene of South America resembling horses or llamas. Mammals: Vertebrate animals which suckle their young after birth.

Meiosis: 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.

Metista: Animals and plants normally multicellular and having their cells differentiated into at least two distinct layers or tissues—the Metazoans and Metaphytes.

Mitosis: 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.

Monism: 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.

Neolithic: 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 B.C., and to have ended with the Copper Culture about 2,000 B.C. The Bronze Age, which followed it, belongs to history.

Neurone: 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.

Oölites: An English term for the Jurassic, or middle system of the Mesozoic group of fossiliferous rocks.

Ontogeny: The embryological development of the individual. Opposable: 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.

Organelle: Literally, a “miniature organ,” i.e., one of the living components of a cell as distinguished from the metaplastic or non-living inclusions.

Oxychromatin: 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.

Palæolithic: 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.

Palæontology: The science of fossil organisms.

Palæozoic: 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.

Parasitism: 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.

Parthenogenesis: The production of offspring from unfertilized eggs.

Phenotype: 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.

Phylogeny: Developmental history of the race, the hypothetical evolutionary history of the race, in contradistinction to the embryological development of the individual (ontogeny). Phylum: A term used in classification to denote any primary group of the plant or animal kingdom.

Plantigrade: Walking on the whole sole of the foot, like bears.

Plastids: Permanent organelles or living components of the cellular cytoplasm, e.g., chloroplasts, leucoplasts, etc.

Pleistocene: 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.

Polar Cell: 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).

Præformation: Theory that the egg contains a complete miniature of the organism into which it develops.

Prehension: Grasping, catching hold.

Progression: Advancing movement, locomotion.

Pro-simiæ: The lemurs as distinguished from genuine apes (Simiæ).

Protista: Animals or plants which are normally unicellular and which when multicellular show no differentiation into tissues—the Protozoans and Protophytes.

Protoplasm: Living matter.

Receptor: An organ specialized to receive stimuli, e.g., a sense-organ.

Sedimentary: A term applied to rocks which originated as sediments deposited under water.

Serum: Watery portion of the blood, the plasma.

Somatic Cells: Vegetative cells not especially set aside by the organism for reproductive purposes, e.g., tissue-cells.

Somite: One of the uniform segments of the longitudinal series into which a metameric organism (such as an earthworm) is partitioned.

Spermatist: An old term applied to one who held that the animal embryo was produced entirely by the male parent. Spore: A single cell, incapable of syngamy, but capable of giving rise to a new individual without the sexual process.

Symbiosis: The obligatory association of two organisms of different species for mutual benefit.

Synapsis: Union in pairs of corresponding (homologous) chromosomes of opposite parental origin as a preliminary to their separation in meiosis.

Systematist: An expert in classification (systematics), i. e., a taxonomist.

Taxonomy: The science of classification.

Tertiary Period: 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.

Tissue: A layer of uniform cells specialized for the same function.

Tissue Cell: One of the somatic cells of which a tissue is composed.

Troglodytic: Resembling the chimpanzee and the gorilla.

Woods Hole: The seat of the Marine Biological Laboratory. It is a watering-place on the New England coast opposite Martha’s Vineyard.

Zygote: 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.

INDEX TO AUTHORS

Adami, J. G., 57.

Aeby, Christoph Theod., 274.

Æsop, 246.

Alsberg, Moritz, 317.

Altman, Richard, 141.

Aquinas, St. Thomas, 32, 73, 268, 343.

Aristotle, 133, 155, 172, 174, 192, 196, 197, 200, 202, 214, 215, 227, 230.

Armstrong, H. E., 190.

Arrhénius, Svante, 166, 167, 182, 183, 184.

Augustine, St., 32, 73, 74, 75.

Bach, Alexis, 145, 146.

Bacon, Francis, 86, 87.

Bagg, H. J., 266.

Balfour, Arthur James, 358.

Ballou, W. H., 318.

Bardon, L., 330.

Bastian, Charlton, 165.

Bateson, Wm., 1, 5, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 28, 30, 43, 44, 73, 84, 85, 88, 145, 146, 334.

Bather, F. A., 3, 40, 76, 77, 86, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93.

Baudlisch, Oscar, 148.

Baur, E., 88.

Beddoe, 333.

Bergson, Henri, 262.

Bernouilli, Jacques, 248.

Bey, Pruner-, 324.

Binet, Alfred, 220.

Biot, Jean Baptiste, 135.

Blackwelder, Eliot, 117.

Blake, C. Carter, 324.

Blakeslee, Albert F., 17, 21, 22, 23.

Blanford, Wm. Thomas, 95.

Boule, Marcellin, 332.

Bouvier, E. L., 239, 260, 261, 265.

Bouyssonie, A. J. & P., 330.

Boveri, Th., 139.

Branco, W., 344.

Breuil, Abbé Henri, 290, 342.

Brown, Barnum, 270, 310.

Bryan, Wm. Jennings, 1, 343.

Buffon, C. L., 305.

Bühler, Karl, 218, 220.

Bumüller, J., 273, 274.

Burroughs, John, 244.

Burton-Opitz, Russel, 299.

Calkins, Gary N., 39, 40, 161.

Campbell, Marius Robinson, 107 note

Carazzi, D., 304.

Castle, W. E., 43.

Caullery, Maurice, 12, 28, 29, 277.

Chamberlain, T. C., 125.

Chetverikov, S. S., 115, 116.

Chiesa, Luigi, 210.

Clausen, Roy Elwood, 26.

Clemont, 324.

Clifford, Wm. Kingdon, 237.

Cohn, Ferd. Jul., 182.

Coleman, Arthur P., 113, 114, 115.

Comte, (Isidore) Auguste, 225, 226.

Conklin, E. G., 270.

Copernicus, Nicholas, XII, XIII.

Coulter, John Merle, 24.

Creighton, J. E., 238.

Croll, James, 290.

Crookes, Sir Wm., 183.

Cuvier, Georges, 67, 72, 76, 90, 91, 102.

Dana, James Dwight, 111, 114, 117, 270.

Darwin, Charles, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 24, 30, 32, 65, 68, 75, 81, 152, 191, 194, 236, 238, 245, 246, 269, 277, 286, 287, 288, 290, 295, 296, 297, 298, 302, 305, 307, 338, 349, 352, 353, 360.

Da Vinci, Leonardo, 257.

Davis, Bradley Moore, 25, 26, 27, 28.

Davis, J. Barnard, 324.

Dawson, Sir John William, 345.

Dawson, Charles, 320.

Deaver, J. B., 295.

De Chardin, Teilhard, 320.

De Geer, Gerard, 289.

Delage, Yves, 127, 150, 151.

De Mattos, Alexander Teixeira, 247 note.

De Puydt, Marcel, 326.

Descartes, René, 172, 197, 198, 202, 231, 249.

De Vires, Hugo, 16, 17, 20.

Dewey, John, 350.

Dorlodot, Canon Henri de, XII, 31, 34, 47, 70, 74.

Dreisch, Hans, 12, 70, 172, 174, 190, 202, 244, 252.

Dubois, Eugène, 313, 314, 316, 318.

Du Bois-Reymond, Emil, 11, 268, 277, 352.

Dumas, Jean Baptiste, 135.

Duponceau, Pierre Étienne, 338.

Dupont, André Hubert, 326.

Dwight, Thomas, 36, 51, 59, 274, 275, 278, 285, 303, 304, 309, 319, 320, 328, 336, 337.

Ecclesiastes, 192.

Ehrlich, Paul, 57.

Eimer, Th., 7.

Eliot, Charles W., 358.

Evans, Sir Arthur, 339.

Ezekiel, 89.

Fabre, J. H., 240, 247 note, 249, 251, 252, 254, 258, 260, 263, 264, 265, 266.

Fechner, Gustav Theodor, 149.

Fenton, Henry John H., 146.

Fischer, Emil, 145.

Fleischmann, Albert, 12.

Flemming, W., 137.

Fontaine, T., 208.

Fraipont, Julien, 327.

Fuhlrott, C., 323.

Galiani, 11.

Galilei, Galileo, XII, XIII.

Garbowski, Thad., 284.

Gaskell, Walter Holbrook, 293, 294.

Gatenby, J. B., 140.

Geikie, Sir Archibald, 96, 97, 107 note.

Gerard, John, S.J., 82.

Goodrich, Edwin S., 15, 62.

Goodspeed, T. H., 26.

Grabau, Amadeus, Wm., 335.

Grassi, B., 66.

Gray, Henry, 299.

Gregory, W. K., 270, 309, 310, 311, 318, 348.

Grignard, Victor, 209.

Gruender, Hubert, 233 note.

Gummersbach, Joseph, 247 note.

Guyer, M. F., 15, 266.

Haacke, Joh. Wilh., 275, 317.

Haeckel, Ernest, 33, 48, 89, 138, 186, 237, 275, 277, 278, 345.

Hamann, Joh. Georg, 149.

Handlirsch, Anton, 115.

Hartmann, Karl Robert Eduard von, 358.

Harvey, William, 155.

Haswell, Wm. A., 316, 317.

Hauser, O., 329.

Hayes, Charles Willard, 107 note.

Heilprin, Angelo, 120, 121.

Heim, Albert, 107 note.

Helmholtz, Herman von, 182, 298.

Henderson, Lawrence J., 6, 153, 175, 176, 179.

Hertwig, Oskar, 284.

Hertwig, Richard, 315.

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, 127.

Holworth, Sir Henry, 98.

Horace, 54, 109.

Howe, John Allen, 104, 105.

Howell, Wm. H. 299.

Hrdlička, A., 316, 318, 319, 322, 323, 325, 328, 329, 331, 332.

Hubrecht, Ambrosius Arnold William, 309, 317.

Hume, David, 198.

Huxley, Thomas H., 20, 67, 76, 98, 111 note, 236, 237, 314, 325, 333.

Jaggar, T. A., Jr., 346, 347, 348.

James, William, 205, 206, 212, 249.

Jennings, H. S., 250.

Johnson, Dr. George, XVI.

Jordan, David Starr, 4, 18, 28.

Jörgensen, J., 146, 147.

Judd, J. W., 94.

Kammerer, Paul, 14, 266.

Kant, Immanuel, 198.

Keen, W. W., 48.

Keith, Arthur, 319, 322, 328, 332, 336, 337.

Kellogg, Vernon I., 46 note, 53 note, 350, 351.

Kerr, J. Graham, 280, 282, 284.

Keyser, C. J., 204.

Kidd, F., 146.

Klaatsch, A., 308, 309, 312, 317, 326, 328, 330.

Koenen, C., 326.

Kofoid, Charles A., 118, 162.

Kohlbrugge, J. H. F., 274, 275, 277, 285, 308.

Kölliker, Rudolph Albert, 7.

Kollman, Julius, 285, 286, 317.

Kramberger, K. Gorjanović, 320, 333.

Lamarck, Jean Baptiste, 8, 9, 16, 30, 32, 65, 286, 290.

Lankester, E. Ray, 186.

Laplace, Pierre Simon, 181.

Lebedeff, 183.

Le Conte, Joseph N., 345.

Lee, 333.

Leydig, Franz, 137.

Linné, Carl von, 4.

Loeb, Jacques, 159, 249, 250, 252, 264.

Lohest, Maximin, 326.

Lotsy, J. P., 25.

Lucretius, 30.

Lull, Richard S., 115.

Macalister, R. A. S., 342.

MacCurdy, George Grant, 317, 326, 329, 331, 332.

MacDowell, E. C., 266.

MacManus, T., 359.

Macnamara, N. C., 314, 325.

Manouvrier, L., 316, 333.

Marx, Karl, 360.

Mathews, Albert, 293, 294, 302.

Maxwell, J. Clerk, 183.

McCann, Alfred W., 31, 32, 33, 34, 47, 50, 51.

McConnell, R. G., 107, note, 109.

McGregor, J. H., 315, 316, 317, 320, 322.

Melanchthon, Phillip, 197.

Mendel, Gregor Johann, 3, 24, 27, 28, 32.

Mendeléef, Dimitri Ivanovitch, 56.

Mercier, Désiré Cardinal, 204, 205, 208.

Meyer, Ludwig, 302, 324.

Michael Angelo, 257.

Miller, Arthur M., 97, 98.

Miller, Gerrit, 321.

Minchin, E. A., 5.

Moore, Benjamin F., 150, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170.

Morgan, C. Lloyd, 233 note, 234 note, 237.

Morgan, Thomas Hunt, 12, 16, 36, 44, 64, 85, 86, 88, 89, 276, 278, 306, 334.

Morton, Dudley J., 270.

Muckermann, H., S.J., 325.

Müller, Fritz, 48, 275, 278.

Müller, Max, 338.

Nägeli, Karl Wilhelm, 7, 186.

Newman, John Henry, 354.

Newell, Bro. Matthias, 347.

Newton, Sir Isaac, XIII.

Nicholson, Henry Alleyne, 97, 272.

Nicomachus, 196.

Obermaier, Hugues, 289, 290, 324, 327, 329, 342.

Occam, William of, 67, 349.

Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 2, 33, 65, 70, 76, 88, 89, 90, 170, 289, 290, 309, 318, 342.

Paley, William, 11.

Parker, G. H., 9, 233 note, 295.

Parker, T. Jeffery, 316, 317.

Pasteur, Louis, 135, 181.

Paulsen, Friederich, 206.

Pawlow, Ivan, 242, 249, 266.

Pearson, Karl, 310.

Peckham, Geo. W. and Eliz. G., 265.

Perrier, Remy, 296.

Pfizenmayer, E., 91, 92.

Pictet, Amé, 143.

Pirrson, L. V., 107 note, 109.

Plato, 172, 197.

Poulton, Edward B., 186.

Price, George McCready, 97, 98, 99, 100, 104, 105, 107, 109, 110, 120.

Price, T. S., 167.

Quatrefages De Breau, Jean Louis Armand de, 276.

Ranke, J., 271, 272, 273, 274, 324.

Rautert, 326.

Ray, John, 5, 20.

Redi, Francesco, 134, 136, 137.

Reinke, J., 345, 346.

Renner, O., 16.

Richter, Herm. Eberh., 182.

Riddle, Oscar, 300.

Robinson, James Harvey, 190, 194, 195, 236.

Rösch, Joseph, 318.

Rothpletz, Aug., 107 note.

Russell, Bertrand, 204.

Santayana, George, 350.

Sapir, Edward, 338.

Schaaffhausen, D., 150, 325, 333.

Schäfer, E. A., 58, 165, 179, 184, 185.

Schleiden, Matthias J., 136.

Schmidt, H. D., 260.

Schoetensack, Otto, 318, 319.

Schroeder, Ch. F., 251.

Schuchert, Charles, 97, 98, 104 note, 106, 109, 110.

Schultze, F. E., 218.

Schultze, Max, 137, 138.

Schwalbe, Gust. Alb., 286, 317, 324, 325, 333.

Schwann, Theodor, 136.

Scott, Wm. B., 78, 96, 103, 119, 120.

Sedgwick, A., 95.

Sellars, R. W., 233 note.

Sewall, Anna, 236.

Smith, G. Elliot, 289, 341.

Smith, John Talbot, 355.

Smith, William, 102.

Snell, Karl, 308.

Sollas, W. J., 289.

Spallanzani, Lazzaro, 134, 136.

Spencer, Herbert, 10, 12, 98, 102, 103, 148, 166, 179, 360.

Starling, Ernest H., 57, 299, 301.

Stockard, Charles R., 62.

Stoll, A., 146.

Taylor, J., 340.

Tertullian, 346.

Thayer, Wm. Sydney, 135.

Tholuck, Fried. Aug., 338.

Thompson, Sir Wm., 182.

Thorndyke, Edward L., 237.

Tilden, Sir Wm., 151, 192.

Titchener, Edward Bradford, 205, 209, 274.

Tredgold, A. F., 15 note.

Tuccimei, Giuseppe, XIII, 360, 361.

Tyndall, John, 149.

Vallisnieri, Antonio, 134.

Van Loon, Hendrick Willem, 190.

Vegard, Lars, 183 note.

Vicari, E. M., 266, 267.

Virchow, Rudolph, 137, 273, 316, 317, 324, 346.

Vogt, Carl, 276, 324.

Waagen, W., 16 note.

Warner, H., 274.

Walkhoff, O., 317.

Walsh, James J., 336.

Ward, James, 163.

Wasmann, Erich, S.J., XII, 11, 33, 46, 47, 48, 49, 49 note, 67, 70, 134, 247 note, 261, 262, 277, 312, 313, 325, 333.

Waterston, David, 322.

Watson, John B., 198, 204, 250.

Wayland, John Walter, 357.

Weismann, August, 10, 13, 16, 25, 65, 186, 267.

Weber, Ernest Heinrich, 227.

Weld, H. P., 253, 255.

Welday, J. O., 357.

Wells, H. G., 1, 33, 190.

Wenstrup, Edward, O.S.B., XVI.

Werner, Abraham Gottlob, 99, 102, 103.

Wheeler, Geo. C. and Esther H., 261.

Wiedersheim, Robert, 292.

Wilder, Harris Hawthorne, 300, 301.

Williams, H. S., 96.

Willis, Bailey, 107 note.

Willstätter, R., 146, 147.

Wilson, Edmund B., 6, 12, 13, 140, 141, 143, 160, 164, 168, 170, 200, 201, 211.

Windle, Bertram C. A., 134, 341.

Wirth, Edmund J., 205.

Wissler, Clark, 344.

Woodruff, Lorande Loss, 39, 115.

Woods, Henry, 77, 78, 79, 80, 86, 118, 119.

Woodward, A. Smith, 321, 322, 340, 341.

Woodworth, Robert S., 198.

Wright, C. F., 289.

Wundt, Wilhelm, 197, 205, 206, 209, 212, 236, 237, 238.

Zahm, J. A., 268.

Zeno, 226.

Zittel, Karl A. von, 313, 345.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Abiogenesis, 131, 135, 136, 142, 160, 165, 167, 179, 183, 186; “new theory” of, 165; “old theory” of, 165; “philosophical” proof of, 186

Absence of function, real, 291; apparent, 291

Abstract concept, 219

Abstraction, 221, 224, 254, 261, 262; of active intellect predispositive, 221; of intellect, potential, cognitive, 221; power of, 261, 262; process of, 221, 224

Abstract thought, 215, 267; has soul as its exclusive agent and subject, 215; not same as imagery, 215; unique prerogative of man, 267

Acids, butyric, 159; carbonic, 145; fatty, 145; formic, 145

Acromegaly, 294

Acromikria, 294

Act, 199

Action, 174, 175, 176, 177, 215, 216; agent of, 176; an expression of entity, 125, 216; chemical, 175; effect of, 176, 177; electrical, 176; energy-content of, 174; immanent, defined, 177; mechanical, 175; physical, 175; reflexive, 177; subject of, 176; transitive, 174, 177; defined, 177; vital, 175

Active intellect, 220, 221

Activity, organic cannot escape physical determinism, 232

Adaptation, 7, 8, 9, 16, 45, 46, 47, 52, 53, 63, 124, 250, 290, 291, 328; acquired, 8, 9, 16, 45, 290, 328, 333 —not inheritable, 9; innate (inherited), 45, 46, 47, 52, 53, 63, 124; of instinctive behavior to emergencies, 250; structural, 291

Additive properties, 233 note

Adjustments, 204

Adolescence, 155

Adrenal bodies, 292, 295

Adults, 276

Aeschna grandis L., 115

Aftermath of evolutionary propaganda, 360

Agametes, 156

Agamic, 156

Agent, 171, 177

Age of Man, 289, 290

Agnosticism, 352, 355, 358; parasitic, 358

Agulhas, Lost Land of, 114

Alberta, 108

Albumen, living and dead, 144

Alcohol, methyl, 147; phytyl, 147

Aldehyde, 145, 148

Aldol condensation, 145

Allelomorphic, 42

Allocation, taxonomic, 320

Alluvial epoch, 313; loam, 324

Alpha Centauri, 184

Alps, 109

Altamira, caves of, 339, 340, 343

Alternating personalities, 211; psychopathic condition, 211

Altruism, 355, 356; without adequate motivation, 356

Amboceptors, 57

American Association for Advancement of Science, 343, 344; Edict of, 343

Ammonites, 84, 86, 249; intergradence in, 84

Ammonium cyanate, 173

Ammophila, 264

Ammophila gryphus, 261

Ammophila urnaria, 261

Amnion, 276

Amœba albida, 159

Amphibia, 61, 281, 296

Amphioxus, 60, 161

Analogous organs, 35, 36, 61

Analogy, 35, 59, 60; convergent, 61

Analysis, 144; chemical, 144; physical, 144

Anarchy, 355, 360

Anatomists, 296

Anatomy, 196, 208, 276, 277, 303, 308; comparative, 276, 277, 308; of consciousness, attempted by Associationists, 208

Ancestors, 55, 59, 76, 82, 83, 92, 95, 115, 270, 280, 296, 304, 308, 309, 317, 349; collateral, 76; common, 55, 59, 83, 92, 269, 270, 278, 308; direct, 76; hypothetical, 308, 309, 317; necessary priority of, 82, 83; of man, 298 —alleged to be fish-like, 280; tertiary, 270

Ancestry, 92, 280; entails antecedence in time, 92; of man, 280

Ancitherium, 76

Angiosperms, 72, 73

Animal, 242, 249, 307; appetite, gratification of, 242; as “reflex machines,” 249; cave, 307

Animalism, 365

Animalistic man, 350, 352

Animality of man, not a modern discovery, 191, 192

Animism, 197, 198

Anisogametes, 157, 158

Anisogamy, 157, 158

Annelida, 117, 278, 280

Anomalies, 112, 303, 305, 319, 320; anatomical, fluctuational, 303; mutational, 303; of spatial distributions, 112

Antagonism, 358; between modern progress and Christian ideal, 358

Anthropomorphism, 236, 246, 250, 262; Darwinian, 236, 250

Anthropologists, 318, 344; foremost ones confess their ignorance regarding origin of man, 344

Antibodies, 14, 15

Antigen, 15

Antirrhinum, majus and molle, 88

Anti-vivisectionists, 236

Ants, 261, 262; leaf-cutting, 261

Ape, 245, 270, 272, 275, 285, 308, 309, 311, 314, 315, 316, 317, 345; anthropoid, 270, 271, 272, 275, 309, 315, 317; cranial capacity, 314; descended from man-like ancestor, 285; descent from, not a doctrine of science, 345; embryonic skull of, 285; foot of, 50, 51 —a hand functionally but not structurally, 50, 51; fossil, 308, 313; giant, geneological tree of, 315; higher, 311; its cranium, 271; large, 315; living, 308

Ape-like features, acquired adaptation, 330

Appalachians, 107

Appetite, 221, 235, 241; rational, 221; sensual, 235, 241

Appendicitis, 295

Appendix, vermiform, 295, 296; useful, 296

Apple-tree, 6, 88, 161

Apterix, 305

Arbacia punctulata, 159

Arboreal life, 271, 308

Arca, 118

Archæan, 104, 117; record, damaged condition of, 117

Archæology, prehistoric, 339

Archæopteryx, 86

Archæozoic, 104, 148; times alleged to have been more favorable to origin of life, 148

Argument, 226; no avail against fact, 226

Art, palæolithic, 340

Artefacts, 154

Artemia salina, 159

Artemisia absynthium, 248

Arthropoda, 61, 119, 261, 284

Artificial illumination, 340

Artistic attainment, high level of, 340

Artists, palæolithic, 335

Asia, 335

Ass, 5, 81, 304

Assimilation, 143

Association, 208, 235, 241, 242

Associationists, 208, 236

Astarte, 118

Asteroidea, 121, 122

Atavism, 303, 304

Atlantis, 114

Atmosphere, 148, 181, 183; coronal of sun, 183; formerly richer in carbon dioxide, 148; of earth, 183

Atoms, 58, 144, 162, 165, 167, 170, 202; structure of, 58

Atrophy, 285, 286, 288, 294, 299, 301, 302, 307; due to misuse, 288; somatic, 307

Attention, 208

Audist, 219

Aurignacian Man, 332

Aurora borealis, 183, 183 note, 184 note

Australian, 321, 325, 328, 330, 333; blacks, 325, 333 —modern, have brow ridges, 328; modern, 325, 330; skull of, 321

Author of Nature, 193

Autogamy, 158, 159, 161

Automatisms, 238, 240, 262; teleological, 240

Automixis, 161

Autonomy, 174, 202; dynamic, 174; vital, 202

Axiom, 223, 224; of reception, 223, 224

Axon, 213

Azoic bottom, 125

Babylonia, 337

Bacteria, 135, 138, 183, 183 note

Barbarism, 337; historically a state of degeneration and stagnation, 337; not a primitive condition, 337; no instance of spontaneous emergence from, 337

Bacteriologists, 183

Baltic Sea, 104, 105

Banana, 162

Basichromatin, 139

Bear Grass quarries, 106

Beaver, 247, 257

Bedding plane, 106

Bees, 257

Beetles, wingless, 306

Behavior, 249, 254, 255, 260, 261, 262, 263; instinctive, 249, 254, 255, 260 —objectively useful, 254, 255 —subjectively agreeable, 254, 255; concursively telic, 260-262; consciously telic, i. e., intelligent 262; unconcursively telic, 262; must be perfect from outstart, 263

Behaviorism, degeneration of psychology into, 198

Behaviorists, 204, 250

Bestial man, 340, 342; impossible, 340; no traces of, 342

Bestial origin, 345, 352; of man, 352; of man, theory of, 345

Bestial soul, 114, 194, 213, 214, 234; an emergent of matter, 194, 234 note —not a product of physicochemical action, 194; exists in the interest of the organism, 214; incomplete complement of matter, 213; material but not corporeal, 194, 214; operates only in conjunction with organism, 213; perishes with dissolution of organism, 213

Bible, 127

Biochemists, 179

Biogenetic Law, 48, 275, 276, 277, 278, 283, 285

Biologists, 2, 3, 11, 19, 29, 53 note, 190, 200, 257

Biology, xiv, 24, 196, 197, 205

Bion, 170, 171

Biophysicists, 179

Bipinnaria, 283

“Biotic energy,” 170

Bird of Paradise, 154, 353

Birds, 282, 296, 297

Bison, 331, 332

“Black Beauty,” 236

Blackberries, 25

Blindness, germinal and somatic, 306

Blue-green Algæ, 138, 149, 181

Body, 198

Bone cave, 340

Bone fibres, 317

Bos primigenius, 329

Botany, 31, 55

Brachiopoda, 117, 118, 120

Bradypus, 52

Brain, 274, 315, 316; human, 274 —convolutions of, 274; relative and absolute size of, 315; relative size of, 316; simian, 274

Brain case, 272

Brain cavities, below modern average, 329

Brain-fag, due to imaginative, not to intellectual activity, 228, 229, 230; follows mere memorizing, 229

Branchial arches and clefts, 278, 279

Branchial lamellæ, 279

Breasts, supernumerary, 304

Broken Hill Mine, 340

Bronze Age, historic, 337

Brow ridges, 328, 330, 333, 341; most pronounced of any human specimen, 341

Brute, 213, 233, 235, 236, 360; destitute of freedom, morality, responsibility, 233; its psychic functions, all organic, 213; lumination of, 236; our common origin with, 360

Budding, 156

Burial, 330, 335; deep, 335; makes age of bones uncertain, 335; solemn, indicates belief in immortality, 330

Butyric acid, 159

Cæcum, 295

Cænogenesis, 277, 288

Cænozoic, 118, 119, 335

Calcium hydroxide, 145

Calicurgus, 263

Cambrian, 99, 100, 104, 105, 110, 116, 117, 118, 125; Lower, 117; terranes below, 125; youthful appearance of, 104, 105

Canadian Shield, 104 note

Canadian survey, 108

Canal, alimentary, 293, 295, 301; neural, 293

Canalization, 265

Carbohydrates, 145, 148; production of, by plants, 145-148—not a synthesis, 146-148—analogous to process in animals, 146, 147

Carbon dioxide, 145-147

Carboniferous, 73, 92, 115, 118; Lower, 92; Upper, 115

Carnivora, 271

Catarrhine monkeys, 287

Catastrophes, 72, 182; cosmic, 182

Catastophism, 67, 68, 98, 312; new, 98

Caterpillar, 260, 264

Cats, 284

Causation, active and efficient, 171, 172

Cave rat, 307

Caves, 335, 336; of France and Spain, 335, 336; of Spain, 336

Cell-division, 59, 137, 138, 139, 155, 162, 163

Cell, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 155, 165, 168, 202, 301; definition of, 137; a multimolecule, 165; cannot originate through exclusive agency of physicochemical energies, 142; fundamental unit of organization, 136; germ, 156; simplest of organic units capable of independent existence, 138; simplest of organisms, 147; somatic, 156; submicroscopical components of, 141; simplest form of organic life, 142; vital, 142; sperm, 137

Cell Theory, 136

Cellular continuity, 137, 141; Fifth article of, 141; Law of, 141

Centaur, constellation of, 184

Centers, sensory and motor, 251

Central neurones, 213, 222; purpose of, 222

Centrioles, 140

Cephalic index, 329

Ceratites, 86

Ceratodus, 119

Cerebral cortex, 206, 213, 221, 222

Cerebral neurones, 222; an extended receptor not proportioned to dematerialized abstract objects, 222

Cerebrospinal system, 213

Certainty, 124, 125; based on objective necessity, 124; scientific, 125

Ceylon, 315

Chain-reflex, 250, 252

Chaldea, 337, 340

Chalk, 79, 86

Chance, 11, 151-154; impotent to produce effect so complicatedly telic as an organism, 151; its efficacy and impotence, 151-154

Change, adaptive, 53 note; germinal, 42, 43, 68, 307; kinds of, 42; somatic, 68; specific, 7, 23, 68, 88, 89, 307; varietal, 7, 68, 88

Characters (somatic or external), 5, 6, 17, 18, 41, 62, 63, 87, 88, 121, 122, 278, 306, 334; definition of, 41; duplication and suppression of, 306; embryonic not derived from adult, 278; homologous and adaptational, 62, 63, 121 —distinction has no experimental basis, 62; “inherited” and “acquired,” 41

Chapelle-aux-Saintes, 288, 331; Cave of, remains, 331; remains, 228

Chela, 61, 261; of lobster and African scorpion, 61

Chemical analysis, 143, 144, 216; destroys life, 143, 144

Chemical synthesis of living matter possible, 142, 144

Chemist, 151; guiding intelligence of need in synthesis of organic compounds, 151; necessity of regulation, 151

Chemistry, 142, 350; physical, 142

Chemotaxis, 264

Chick, 255

Chimaeroids, 119

Chimpanzee, 33, 270, 314, 323

Chin, 319, 320, 328; may be accentuated by a mutation, 320; prominence in Spy No. 1, 328; recessive, 320; recessiveness of the, 319; recessiveness and protuberance of, 320; recessiveness, an acquired adaptation, 320; receding, acquired, 328

China, 110, 337

Chinless mandible, not sloping backward, 332

Chlorophyll, 62, 145, 147, 148, 149, 151, 154; chromogen group of, 148; chromogen complex, 148; colloidal solution of, 145; not a “sensitizer” like Eosin, 147, 148; regenerated from H₂O and CO₂, 147, 148; “sensitizer,” 145

Chondriosomes, 140

Christianity, 359

Chromatin, 138, 139

Chromiole, 138

Chromosomes, 17, 21, 27, 44, 45, 139, 141, 157, 158, 159; diploid number normal, 159; diploid number of, 157, 158, 159; duplication of, 17, 21, 44, 45; haploid number of, 157, 158, 159; homologous, 17, 21; random assortment of, 27

Chronology, 98; lithic, 98; principles of, 98

Chronometer, palæontological, 135

Chrysothrix, 274

Cidaris, 119

Ciliate, 163

Circumstances, environmental, 250-252

Civilization, old, destruction of, 336

Classes, 37

Classification, taxonomic, not historical, 112

Clays, Pleistocene, 289

Cleavage, 154, 159

Cloaca, 281

Coccyx, alleged rudiment of former tail, 297; serves purpose, 298

Cockroaches, 115

Coelenterates, 78, 118

Coexistence of impressions, not a companion of them, 208

Cognitive intellect, 220, 221

Colloid systems, aggregates, not units, 168

Colloidal, 141, 170; substances, 141; systems not analogous to organisms, 170

Colloids, 166-169; hydrophilic, 168, 169

Columns, continental and submarine, 114

Commanchian period, 72

Commensal, 46

Commensalism, 52

Common stock, 39

Comparative anatomy, 279, 304

Complexity, “Law” of, 166, 167

Components, 138, 139, 141, 142, 168; cytoplasmic and nuclear, 138, 139; of cell, 141 —self-perpetuating, 168; of protoplasmic system, 141

Compounds, organic, 142

Concepts, 219, 220, 221, 247; abstract and general, 220, 247; rational, 247

Conceptual thought, 219, 222, 223; concerned with the reality of essence, 219; excludes materiality from its specific agent and receptive subject, 222; not communicated to organism, 223; subject in soul alone, 223

Conduction path, 265

Condyles, occipital, 272

Conformity, 105, 107, 110; “deceptive,” 105, 110; normal significance of, 105; “upside-down,” 107

Conjugation, 157, 161

Consciousness, 198, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 211, 235, 238, 240, 248, 262; and unconsciousness, 198; attests existence superficially variable but radically unchangeable subject of mental life, 206; attests persistence of our personal identity, 211; dependence of all science upon, 204; etymology of, 205, 206; its testimony to the reality of the ego, 205; organic and spiritual, 199; phenomenal, 198; sentient, 235, 238, 240, 248; testimony of, 208

Constructions, complex and systematic, not producible by accident, 53, 154

Consolation, 358, 361; destroyed, 361; eliminated, 358

Contamination of media, 135

Contiguity, 241, 242; association of, 241; law of, 241, 242

Continents, 113, 114; permanence of, 114

Continuity, 350; destructive as metaphysics, 350; leads to materialistic monism, 350; principles of, 350; nuclear, 137

Control, 236, 251-253; intelligent, 253; psychic, 251; rational and moral, 236; sensory, 251-253

Consequences—socialism, anarchy, despair, 360

Convergence, 10, 36, 58, 59, 61, 63, 77, 78, 79, 80, 277, 283, 284, 287; kinds of 77

Corpuscular, 174

Correlation, 90, 91, 93, 99, 101, 111; Cuvier’s Law of, 90, 91; stratigraphic, 93, 96, 99, 101, 111

Cortical, 294, 315; area, 274; surface, 315

Cosmic scale, 350; Cosmogony, 181, 185

Cosmopolitan species, 73

Cosmozoa, 182

Cranial box, 272

Cranial capacity, 274, 315, 317, 322, 325, 332, 341; absolute, 332; human, 341; large, 341; of man and ape compared, 274; relative, 317, 332

Cranial vault, more spacious in Spy No. 2, 327

Cranium, 118, 271, 321, 325, 328, 329, 331, 333, 337, 341; dolichocephalic, 325, 331; flat on top, broad in back, 341; modern, 333; human, 328; of ape, 271; of man, 271; not subsequent to barbarism, 337; Spy, 331

Creation, 67, 72, 186, 187; defined, 187; new, 67, 72; simultaneous or recessive, 72

Creationism, 55

Creator, 72, 249, 298, 350

Credulous persons misled, 353

Cretaceous, 100, 104, 108, 109, 111, 118; shales, 109

Crete, 337

Cretinism, 294

Cries, 246; emotional, 246; instinctive, 246

Crinoids, 119

Crossing, 4, 5, 19-21, 25-28, 88; interspecific, 19-21, 26, 27; intervarietal, 19, 20, 27, 28; does not produce “new species,” 25-28

Crossover, 17, 26, 42

Crust, terrestrial, 113

Crustaceans, 117

Cryptorhetic system, 292-294

Crystalloids, 144

Crystals, 153

Crystal units, 144, 165

Ctenomys, 305

Cultures, 135, 309, 317; sterilized and aërated, 135

Curved femur, acquired adaptation, 328

Cycads, 118

Cycas, 118

Cysts, 134

Cytodes, 138, 179, 207

Cytologist, 136, 141

Cytology, 137

Cytoplasm, 137-139, 141; of eggs differentiated, 141

Cytoplasmic components self-perpetuating, 139

Cytosome, 140

Darwinism, 1, 5, 6, 16, 24, 29, 30, 32, 78, 79, 85, 263, 265, 285, 291, 325; contradicted by history, 337; obsolete theory, 29, 30, 349

Datura stramonium, 21, 22, 23

Death, 156

Deceptive conformities, 98

Deep sea bottoms, 113

Degeneracy, 15, 15 note, 18, 336

Degradation of energy, 162, 163, 180; implies beginning of life, 180; law of, 162, 163

Delitzch, 118

Dependence, 217, 218, 221, 231; direct, of psycho-organic functions on organism, 231; incompatible with spirituality, 218; intrinsic on matter, 218; objective, not subjective, 221

Descent, 67, 80, 87, 88, 267, 269, 274, 277, 284, 305, 308, 310, 312, 315, 317, 345; collateral, 269, 308, 312, 317 —of man, 308, 317 —theory of, 269, 312; common, 269, 315 —reference of, 269; direct, Darwin’s theory of, 274; from ape, theory of, 274; human, 317, 345 —from pithecoid primates, not a historical fact, 345 —theory of, 269; lineal, 269, 305, 308, 309, 317 —a chain of creatures, 305 —from ape, theory of, 269 —upheld by Darwin, 269; of man, 308, 310; theory of, 80, 277

Deterioration of organism does not always involve deterioration of superorganic powers, 230

Devonian, 62, 99, 103, 106; Middle, 106

De-Vriesianism, 23, 24, 29, 263, 265, 266, 349

Diester, phytyl-methyl, 147

Differences, 9, 12, 13, 16, 28, 37, 46, 81, 82, 84, 86, 89, 121, 171, 236, 237, 271, 272, 273, 320, 331, 333, 334, 359; anatomical, between Homo primigenius and Homo sapiens, 331, 334 —between man and ape, 271-273; between living and lifeless, 171; fluctuational, 121; generic, 37, 46, 82, 84, 86; individual, 16 —alleged summation of, 9, 20, 29; major, 9, 37, 46, 320 —relative and absolute, 37; minor, 9, 37, 46, 320; mutational, 121, 334; ordinal, 46; psychological, between man and brute, 236, 237, 359, 360 —amount to a distinction of kind, 236, 237, 359, 360; specific, 12, 13, 28, 37, 46, 81, 84, 86, 333, 334; varietal, 46

Differential threshold, law of, 227

Differentiation, 284

Diffusion of venom, 264, 265

Digestion, stimulates lymphatic glands, 301

Dileptus gigas, 138, 174

Diluvium, European, 345

Dinoflagellata, 118

Dinosaurs, 100, 271

Diphasic, 134

Diploid forms, 44, 45, 47

Dipnoan, 119

Diptera, 48, 49

Discernment, 240

Discina, 118

Disconformity, non-evident, 105

Discrimination, 208

Discursive analysis, 243, 244

Disease germs, 141, 169, 170, 216; invisible, identified by the pathological effects, 216; submicroscopic, 141, 169, 170

Disintegration, atomic, 163

Dispersing medium, 168

Dissociation, 235, 242

Distributed nucleus, 138

Distribution, 92, 99, 100, 112, 113, 115; chronological, 92; geographical, hard to distinguish from chronological, 99, 100; of plants and animals, 115; spatial, anomalies of, 112, 113

Disuse, 286, 288, 290, 305, 306; effects, alleged of, 288

Divergence, 9, 36, 39, 57

Divine action, vivifying matter, not a miracle, 187, 188

Dog, 248, 255, 287

Dogmatism, evolutionary, 360

Dolphins, 80

Domination of intellect and will over organic powers, 235

Doubt, “scientific,” 198

Dragonflies, 115

Drone, 158

Drosophila, 17, 18, 19, 27, 85, 86; melanogaster, 85, 86 —gradations in eye-color, wing-length and pigmentation of, 85, 86

Dryopithecus, 270, 310, 311, 323, 345; dentition of, 311, rhenanus, teeth, human-like, 323

Dualism, 174, 198, 199, 231, 233, 234, 351; conscious and unconscious, of Descartes, 198; hylomorphic, 174, 198, 231; of emergence and resistance, 233, 234 note; of potency and act, 199; psychic and physical, of Descartes, 198; psychophysical, 198, 231

Duckbill, 287

Duplication, 44, 45, 305; chromosomal, 44, 45; of organs, 305

Dynamic, 206

Ear, 302, 304; helix of, 304

Earth columns, 113

Earthworm, 250, 280

East Indies, 118

Echinodermata, 119, 121, 122

Education, 245, 256, 360; responsible, 360

Educator, modern, 360

Effect, 176, 177

Eggs, 134, 156, 158, 159, 160, 255, 259, 278, 283; of sea urchin, 159, 160; unfertilized, 158; reduced, 158; unreduced, 158

Ego, 209, 210, 224; the, 209, 210; the thinking, 224

Egoism, 256

Egypt, 115, 337, 340

Electrolytes, 168

Electronic theory, 56

Electrons, 163, 174

Elements, radioactive, 180

Elephants, 111, 115, 315; brain of, 315; Siberian, sudden extinction of, 111

Elephas: antiquus, 317; primigenius, 326

Embryologists, 136

Embryology, 141, 275, 276, 308; comparative, 276; experimental, 141

Embryonic additions, 276

Embryos, 276, 278, 279, 280, 281; alleged fish-like stage of, 279, 280; human, 278, 280, 283; mammalian, 281, 283; vertebrate, 281

Emergents, 233 note, 234 note

Energy-content, 174

Emotion, 214, 231, 246, 247; functions of sensual appetite, 247; a psycho-organic function, 214; organic function, 231

Emperor moth, 267

Emulsifier, 169

Emulsion, 139, 168

Encasement, 3, 4

Encystment, 162

End, 254, 259

Endocrine glands, 292-295, 298; not functionless, 295

Endomixis, 161, 162, 163, 178

Endoskeletal, 36

Energy, 172, 174; content, 174; defined, 172; kinetic and potential, 172

Energy-environment, 168

Enlightenment, 244, 245

Entelechy, 172-175, 199, 200, 202, 210; definition of, 200; Aristotelian sense perverted by Driesch, 172; a constant in living units, a variant in inorganic units, 175, 200, 202, 210; common to inorganic units and living organisms, 173, 174; consubstantial with matter, 202; entitive, not dynamic, 172, 201; equivalent to static affinity or structural valence, 173; inorganic, 174; not an agent but a specifying type, 201

Entitive, 206

Environment, 6-9, 12-15, 42, 46, 152, 153, 174, 180-182, 261, 307; cosmic, of life, 180, 181; internal, 14, 15; not a mechanism for molding organisms, 152, 153

Environmental conditions, 15, 16, 68, 123, 284

Environmental stimulus, 255

Enzymes, 143

Eoanthropus, 320, 322, 323, 342; a combination of simian and human remains, 342; Dawsoni, 320-323, 342; jaw older than cranium, 322

Eocene, 115, 309, 313, 317; Lower, 313; Middle, 115

Eoliths, 154, 321

Eosin, a sensitizer, 147

Epeira, 248, 249

Epicyclic subterfuges, 110

Epigenesis, 3, 4

Epiphysis, 292

Equus, 5, 95, 113; American and European, 113; asinus, 5; caballus, 5

Erosion, 105, 109

Eskimo, 330, 338; language more complex than English, 338

Euphemisms, 351

Europe, 112, 113, 335

Eurypterids, 117

Events, 208

Evolution (active and passive) of life from inorganic matter, 132, 133

Evolution (alleged) of human soul, 194, 195, 268, 352

Evolution (alleged) of human body, 268, 309, 343

Evolution, xi-xiv, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 17, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 43, 44, 45, 63, 66, 70, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 83, 86, 90, 92, 97, 105, 116, 117, 123, 124, 125, 131, 193, 194, 267, 268, 291, 297, 304, 309, 325, 335, 339, 349-361; aspects, moral and social, of, 353-361; causes of, 2, 6; evidence for, experimental, 3, 7, 8, 17, 28 —inferential or circumstantial, 3, 8, 125 —genetical, 8, 18, 28, 29 —zoological, 8, 34, 66, 76 —palæontological, 3, 8, 66, 74-76, 78, 79, 80, 83, 92, 97, 105, 126; fact of, 2, 86, 124, 126; heliocentric theory not on a par with, xii, xiii, law of, 1, 123; monistic basis of, 349-353; necessary as hypothesis, not as dogma, xi; senses of, 2, 74, 75, 131; spirit not a product of, 193, 194, 268; systems of, 1, 29, 31, 349; Augustinian, 32, 74, 75; Batesonian, 18-21, 43, 44, 79; monophyletic, 69, 70, 116, 117; polyphyletic, 70; progressive, 44, 45, 116

Evolutionary thought, crisis in, 3, 29

Evolutionists, 279

Exoskeletal, 36

Expediency, 291

Experience, 238, 241, 253, 256; learning by, 241; sensory, 238, 253

Experimentation, 197

Eye, 60, 205, 217, 283, 298; a corporal element intrinsic to the visual sense, 217; an example of convergence, 60; constituent part of agent and subject of vision, 217; human, defective, 298; not replaced by telescope, 205; vertebrate type of, 283

Factorial, complex, 45

Factors, germinal (genetic, hereditary), 5, 6, 15, 17, 18, 19, 41, 42, 44, 45, 68, 122, 151, 152, 174, 207, 291 —diagnosis of, 122 —fractionation of, 19 —positive and inhibitive, 19; environmental, 6, 41, 42, 68, 151, 152, 174, 207, 291 —blind, 151, 152 —of disuse and selection, 207

Facts, 205; former cannot be formulated except with reference to ego, 205; in terms denoting or connoting ego, 205; intramental and extramental, 205

“Falsifications” of ancestral records, 276

Families, 37, 58; chemical, 58

Family-tree, evolutionary, 58

Fats, 145

Faulting, 107, 108; horizontal and vertical, 108; “Low angle,” 107, 108; normal, 108

Fayûm, the, 115

Feldhofer Grotte, 323, 324, 326

Felis leo fossilis, 319

Femur, 313, 316, 317, 324, 327, 330, 341; not curved as in Neanderthal type, 341; shows curvature, 327, 330

Ferns, 118

Fertilization, 42, 157, 159, 160

Filiation, 75

Finality, immanent law of, 174

First causes, 52, 71, 249

Fishes, 61, 270, 276, 279, 283, 296; adult, 279, 283; embryo of, 279

Fish-kidney, 302

Fission, binary, 156, 161; unequal, 156; multiple, 156

Fixism, 4, 32, 52, 69, 70, 72, 75, 119, 124, 268; unable to furnish “natural” explanation of homology, 52; uniformitarian, 69

Flat worms, 278

Flies, 134

Fluctuants, 87

Fluctuations, 10, 16, 29, 302, 333; cause of, 10, 16; instance of, 16; non-inheritable, 10, 16

Fœtal life, special conditions of, 299

Fœtus, 301

Fonte de Gaume, 339

Foot-and-mouth disease, germ of, 183 note

Foramnifera, 118

Force, 172, 176; defined, 172; no special vital, 176

Forehead, 328, 330, 341; higher, 328; low, 341; retreating, 330

Formaldehyde, 145-148; not first step in origin of life nor in photosynthesis, 145-147

Formaldehyde-hypothesis, 145-148

Formaldoxime, 148

Formations, fossiliferous, 105

Formations, geological, 75, 84, 93, 95, 99, 100, 103, 105, 108, 118, 119, 126; time-value of, 84

Formed bodies of cell, self-perpetuating, 168

Formose, 145

Forms, 246, 275, 276, 312; fossil, sequence of, 276 —intermediate, 312; grammatical, 246; intermediate, none between man and apes, 275

Fortuitous result, 249

Fossil bones, 319

Fossil facts, 311

Fossiliferous stratification, universality of, 102

Fossil remains, human, 213

Fossils, 3, 81, 87, 88, 94, 95, 96, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 107, 110, 111, 112, 118, 309, 317, 334, 335; dated by theory of descent, 334; evade experimental breeding tests, 87, 88, 334; no invariable sequence of, 99, 102; reconstructed, 88; still “medals of Creation,” 94; time-value problematic, 98, 100, 101, 107, 110, 111, 112, 335

Foxhall Man, 309, 341, 342; alleged to be Tertiary, 309, 341, 342; flint implements prove intelligence of, 342; no fossils of, 342

Freedom, human, 232; of will, 232

Free will, a myth, 360, 361

Frescoes, 339, 340; polychrome, 340; primeval, 339, 340

Frog, 64, 281; tadpole, 281

Fruit-flies, eyeless, 306; vestigial, 306; wingless, 306

Functions, 215, 216, 241, 276; extrinsically dependent on organism, 215, 216; sensitivo-nervous, 241; superorganic, 215

Fundulus, 62

Future life, 354, 361; a myth, 361; of retribution, 354

Gametes, 13, 14, 25, 156, 157, 158, 159; production of, 25; specialization of, for kinetic and trophic functions, 157, 158

Ganoids, 119, 120

Gar pike, 119

Gastrula, 159

Gelation, 168

Gemmation, 156

Geneology, 95, 113, 348; hypothetical, 113; of horse, 95; of man, 348

Geneological tree of man, 348

Genera, 3, 4, 37, 78, 80, 81, 86, 92, 119, 312, 313; fossil, 3, 4, 78, 80, 81, 86, 312, 313

Generalization, power of, 261

Generation, univocal and equivocal, 68, 69

Genes, 17, 18, 19, 25, 27, 42, 43, 44, 45, 79, 141, 162; inhibitive, 18, 19, 42, 79, 162

Genetic cellular continuity, law of, no exception to, 163, 164

Genetic continuity, 142, 160, 165, 311; fivefold law of, 142; law of, 136, 160 —may not prevail in submicroscopic world, 165

Geneticists, 89, 334

Genetics, 2, 3, 24, 36, 46 note, 56, 82, 88, 89, 121, 126, 141, 302, 305, 334

Genital distrophy, 294

Genotype, 5, 41, 43, 123

Geodesists, 114

Geological column, 106, 117, 125, 126

Geological record, 72, 80-84, 92, 106, 111, 120, 125, 126, 127, 297; damaged, 92; enigmatic, 126, 127; incomplete, 72, 80, 106; incompleteness assumed to explain absence of intermediates, 83; time-value presupposes its completeness, 82, 83, 111

Geologists, 100, 102, 113, 114, 117, 125, 181

Geology, xiv, 98, 107, 111, 117; can only prove local order of succession, 111

Germ, 13, 155, 156, 182; multicellular and unicellular, 155, 156

Germ cells, 13, 14, 16, 156, 157, 163

Germ plasm, 14, 25, 26, 41, 42, 45, 265, 303

Germ tract, 14

Germinal constitution, 87, 123

Gerrymandering, geological, 116

Giantism, 44, 294

Gibbon, 271, 274, 310, 314, 316

Gibraltar skull, 322

Gill arches and clefts, 278, 279

Gills, 70, 279; permanent, 279

Glacial, 104 note, 289, 320, 327, 329, 330, 331, 332, 334; deposits, 104 note; epoch, 320, 332, 334 —middle of, 332 —close of, 332; period, 289, 327, 329, 330, 331 —fourth or last, 327, 329 —close of, 331

Glaciation, 290

Glacier, continental, 287, 289

Glacier National Park, 108

Glaciologists, 289

Glands, 296, 304; muciparous, 296; supernumerary mammary, 304

Glaurus overthrust, 107

Globigerina, 118

Glucose, 145

Gluteal region, 273

Glyceraldehyde, 145

God, 180, 351; admitted as hypothetical, 351; Author of Life, 180; impossible to prove existence of, 351

Golgi bodies, 140

Gonads, interstitial cells of, 292

Gondwana Land, 114, 115

Gorilla, 51, 270, 271, 272, 273, 314; face of, 271; skull of, 271

Gradation, 82, 87, 315; morphological, 82; of forms, 87; series, 315; temporal succession, 82

Gradual approximation, dogma of, 110

Grammar, “scientific” revision of, 205

Graptolites, 78, 100

Great Peacock Moth, 260

Grey Worm, 246

Grignard reaction, 209

Groups, 335

Gryphaea, 79

Guest, 49, 53

Habit, 8, 265, 266, 267, 291, 328, 333, 334; automatisms of, alleged to be source of instinct, 267; body-modifying, 333 —of squatting, 328; modern, 334

Habitat, 99, 112, 182

Hæmoglobin, 148

Hallucinations, 235

Hallux, human, 50; simian, 50

Halogens, 58

Haptophores, 57

Heidelberg Man, 318, 319, 320; jaw anomalous, 319, 320

Hen, 259, 260

Heredity, 5, 39, 54, 88; alleged cause of homology, 39; biparental, 5

Heterogametes, 158

Hererogamy, 158

Hererozygous, 25, 26, 27

Histogenesis, 59

History, 337, 338, 339; contradicts evolutionary assumption, 337, 338; dawn of, 337; proves primitive man to have been civilized, not barbaric, 339

Homœomorphy, heterogenetic, 79

Homology, 8, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 46, 47, 48, 51, 54, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 77, 268, 276, 277, 278, 279, 284, 287, 292, 298, 308; definition of, 35; anatomical, 276, 279, 284, 308; application to man, 34, 51, 268; disguised by external diversity, 48; embryological, 48, 278, 279, 284, 308; evolutionary argument from, 34, 47 note, 48, 54, 63, 64, 65, 268, 292; genetic explanation of, 39, 40, 47

Homologous organs, 35, 61

Homo neanderthalensis, 333

Homo primigenius, 323, 330, 333, 334, 341, 342; a variety, not a distinct species, 342; same as Homo Mousteriensis, 330; type, fluctional nature of, 341

Homo sapiens, 325, 330, 332, 333, 340, 342, 345; only human species, 342

Homozygous, 25, 27

Horizon, 93, 94, 125, 310, 335; level, 335; stratigraphical, 93, 94; stratigraphic, 125, 310, 335

Hormones 14, 292, 294, 295

Horse, 5, 78, 81, 82, 304, 332

Host, 49, 53

Hottentots, 325

Human, 224, 227, 256, 335, 341, 342, 345, 352; fossils all belong to the species, Homo sapiens, 345; mind —alleged to be of animal extraction, 352 —reflects, 224 —spiritual, 227; reason, 256; remains more ancient than formations in which they are found, 335

Human body, 267, 304, 345; evolution of, 267; ignorance and uncertainty regarding origin, 345; not a mosaic of heterogenetic organs, 304; origin of, 345

Humanization of brute, subjective, 238

Humanizers of brute, Darwinian, 263

Human language attests reality of ego, 205

Human nature, 360; Darwinian conception of, 360 —evils of popularizing it, 360

Human Soul, 193, 194, 202, 203, 210, 213, 214, 215, 216, 225, 231, 232, 233, 267, 268; could only originate by creation, 267; creation of, 193, 267; discarnate, 202, 214 —not a complete person or nature, 202; exists for its own sake, 215; immortal, 193; intrinsically independent of organism, 202, 215, 225; not an emergent of matter, 194 —alone active in superorganic functions, 202, 214, 216; same as mind, 203; simplicity of, 210 —not to be confounded with spirituality of, 210; spirituality of, 193, 203, 214, 215, 216, 231, 232, 233, 233 note, 268 —proofs of, 214, 215, 216, 231 —from rational thought and volition, 231, 232, 233, 233 note; substantiality of, 210; underivable from matter, 268

Hunter, life of, 328, 330

Hyaloplasm, 139, 141

Hybridism, constant, 25

Hybridization, 16, 26, 88; interspecific and intervarietal, 26

Hybrids, 4, 5, 17, 25, 26, 27, 28, 84, 85, 87; interspecific, sterile, 4, 5, 26, 27; invarietal, 19, 20, 27, 28; as intermediates, 84, 85

Hydrang, 44

Hydrogen, 175; liquid, 184 note

Hydroglissia, 248

Hydrosol, 169

Hydrosphere, 113, 181

Hydrotheca, 78

Hydroxylamine, 148

Hyrozoa erroneously classified, 122

Hylobatic, 314, 316, 317, 318; type, 318

Hylomorphic dualism, 198

Hylomorphic vitalism, does not discourage experimental analysis of life, 201

Hylomorphism, 174

Hypogamete, 158

Hypertrophy, 289, 290, 294; due to use, 289

Hypophysis, 292, 293, 294, 295; not functionless, 294

Ice Age, 98

Ichthyosaurs, 80

Igneous masses, not basal, 125

Illusions, 235

Imageless thought, sense of term, 219

Imagery, 214, 215, 218, 219, 220, 221, 228, 229, 241, 243; a function of the living cerebral cortex, 221; association of, 241; cerebral, 218; concrete, 220, 221; different in different persons, 219; distributed by abnormal state of cortex, 221; motor, 214; neurographic, 243; represents only superficial and exterior properties, 219; rigid, correlated with metabolic process at work in cerebral cortex, 228, 229; rigidly proportioned underlying neurogram, 215; sensible, presupposed by thought and volition, 221; shows corresponding degrees of integrity and intensity, 229; sporadic and fragmentary, 229; tactile, 214

Imagination, 213, 221, 222, 228, 229, 231; cerebral sense, 222, 228, 229; its normal exercise depends on physiological normality of cerebral cortex, 221; organic function, 231

Imaginative activity, 229

Immortality, considered an anodyne, 358

Immunity, 57

Immutibility, 50, 52

Impenetrability, 225; of matter, law of, 225; reflection opposed to, 225

Improvised structures, 281 note, 283

Incubation, purposeless, 259

Independent Assortment, Law of, 27

Index fossils, 93, 94, 96, 97, 100, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 335, 339; basis of stratigraphic correlation, 93, 94; an arbitrary and elastic criterion, 94, 95; final court of appeal, 93, 96, 97, 335; in conflict with physical and stratigraphic evidence, 100, 104-112

India, 114

Indian dialects, work of philosophers, 338

Indian Ocean, 114, 115

Individuation, 220, 224; concrete, 224

Indo-Europeans, 334

Industry, Mousterian, 326, 327, 329, 330, 331; Acheulean, 331; Aurignacian, 331

Inertia, defined, 174

Infusion, 193; not supernatural, 193; of spirit into matter, not a miracle, 193

Infantilism, 294

Inference, 221, 240; mediate, 221

Infundibulum, 293

Infusoria, supposed abiogenetic origin of, 134

Inheritance, 2, 8, 9, 24, 27, 38, 40, 41, 42, 45, 56, 57, 62, 63, 64, 75, 160, 294, 320; definition of, 41; biparental, 160; chemical theory of, 57; laws of, 2, 24, 27, 42; similifying process, 40, 45 —not only one, 56 —also said to diversify, 63, 64; variable, 75

Inhibition, 242, 252

Initial vivification, 133; act, 133; of matter required a formative, 133; rather than creative, 133

Inquilines, 46

Insectivora, 275

Insects, 225, 307; evolutionary diminuendo of, 116; wingless, 307

Instinct, 238, 240, 247, 249, 250, 251, 252, 254, 256, 257, 259, 263, 264, 265, 267, 291, 343, 361; defined, 255, 256; James’ definition of, 249; according to external circumstances, 250-252; according to physiological state of organism, 250; adjustment of, 250, 252; constructive, 251; effective only under normal circumstances 258; evolutionary origin of, 267 —improbable, 267; fixity of, 258; improbability of, 267; its regulatory principal sense, 254; not gradually acquired, 263, 264; not intelligence, 254; only slightly undefiable, 256; origin of, 263; psychic regulation of, 249; requires no apprenticeship, 256; teleology of, 249; telic, 259; variability of, 250

Instinctive acts, 256

Instruction, 244, 245

Instrumentation, 197

Intellect, 220, 221, 224, 226-230, 339; active, 220, 221; activity of, 221; cognitive, 220, 221; conscious of its own operations, 226, 227; indirectly dependent on physiological condition of cortex, 221; its immaterial nature, 224; objectively dependent on organic activity of imagination, 221; not bound to material organ, 226; not debilitated by intense thinking, 227, 228; not incapacitated but invigorated by intense thinking, 228; not regulated by physiological vicissitude, 229; not subject to metabolic laws, 230; rooted in a spiritual principle, 227; superorganic nature of, 227

Intellectual, 228, 229, 230; activity may reach highest points of concentration and intensity without involving commensurate fatigue on part of organism, 228

Intelligence, 239-241, 243, 245, 247, 248, 249, 254, 256, 257, 259, 262, 263, 267, 329, 330, 340, 343, 350; definition of, 239; autonomous, 259; a generalizing and abstracting power, 257; “bestial,” 245, 247, 257; conscious, 240; deceptive semblance of, 240, 241; Divine, 249; etymology of, 239; finite, 249; genuine, 240, 241; infinite, 248, 249; incapable of being evolved from matter, 267; inherent, 249, 256, 259, 267; of worker bees, 267; subjective or inherent, 248, 249; used to denote power of profiting by experience, 239, 240

Intensity, 227, 230; does not increase in same proportion as intensity of stimulus, 227; may reach maximum with involving corresponding fatigue, 230; of thought does not follow fluctuations of neural metabolism, 230

Interactionism, 206

Interaction, three types of, 175

Interglacial period, 329; last, 329

Intergradation, 87

Intergradence, 84-87; may indicate hybridism, 84, 85; no argument for common ancestry, 84-86; of mutants genetically independent, 85, 86

Intergradents, 85, 86; hybrid, 85, 86; mutational, 85, 86; specific, 85, 86

Interjections, negligible part of human language, 247

Interpretation, ontogenetic, an alternative for phylogenetic, 302

Intervals, 105; lost, unrepresented by deposition, erosion or disturbance, 105

Intravitous staining, 143

Introspection, 204, 205, 212, 225; does not create personality, 212; impossible to a material organ, 225

Intrusions, igneous, 125

Invertebrate, 293, 294; stage, 293, 294

Involution, 160

Iron, 148

Irrational man unknown either to history or prehistory, 340

Islands, 153

Islets of Langerhans, 292

Isobares, 172

Isogametes, 157

Isogamy, 157

Isomers, 173

Isostacy, 113, 114

Isostatic equilibrium, 114

Jacob’s Cavern, in Missouri, 340

Java, 313

Jaw, 331, 340; lower, 331; lower missing, 340

Jimson Weed, 21, 22

Judgment, 207, 220

Jupiter, 184

Jura, 103

Jura, European, 96, 106

Jurassic, 117

Kena Kakoe, 346-348; extinct volcano, 346

Kidney, 280-283; adult, 282; embryonic, 283; fish, 280, 282; mammalian, 280; permanent, 281, 284

Kiluea, observatory at volcano of, 346

Kingdom, animal, 249

Kleistogamy, 159

Knowledge, 190, 191, 221, 256; conceptional, 221; experimental, 256; technical, absence of, does not always disqualify, 190, 191

Krapina, 330, 332; type of, 330

Laboratory syntheses differ from those occurring in organism, 150

La Chapelle-aux-Saints remains, 232, 330-333

Lamarckism, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 24, 29, 46 note, 53, 67, 78, 79, 263, 265, 266, 291; recent revival of, 266

Lamps, 340

La Naulette remains, 326, 332; alleged to be distinct species, 332; absence of chin, 326; allied to Neanderthal type, 326

Land bridges, 112

Language, 245, 246, 247, 330, 338, 339; descriptive, conceptual and articulate, 246, 247; first step in formation of, 245; formation of, presupposes an artist as great as his works, 339; human, 246, 247; indicative, emotional and articulate, 247, 256; of animals, 245, 246, 247; of savage races point to former civilization, 330

La Quina, industry of, 331

Law, definition of, 166, 167

Law of Weber, 227

“Learning” of animals, 243

Le Moustier, 329, 332; remains, 322, 326, 329, 330

Lemuroids, 275

Lemurs, 312

Lepontine Alps, 109

Lethals, balanced, 25-28

Lias, 119

Liberalism, 257

Life, 133, 142, 144, 145, 154, 165, 176, 177, 181, 182, 186, 187, 188, 203; organic, definition of, 176, 177; active cause of extramundane, 181, 182; alleges submicroscopical units of, 165; Author of, 186, 187; conscious, 203; initiation of, not a creation, 186, 187 —not a miracle, 187, 188 —not supernatural, 187, 188; integrating and formative principle of, 144; metabolic, sentient and rational, 203; more than a chemical problem, 142; origin of, 133 chemical hypothesis, 145 —not a problem of translation, 182; spontaneous origin of, 154

Life-cycle, 69, 112, 138, 155, 156, 160

Lima, 118

Limit of microscopic vision, 140

Limulus polyphemus, 119

Lingula, 118

Linin, 139

Links, 84, 86, 312, 313, 315, 323, 341, 342; connecting, 315, 323 —between men and apes, 312; connecting, so called are (a) human, (b) simian, (c) mixed remains, 342; generic and ordinal, insufficient, 86; “missing,” 341; specific, minimum, 86; transitional, 84 —none between man and apes, 313

Linkage groups, 17

Lithosphere, 113, 114, 181

Litopterna, 78

Living beings derive their matter from inorganic world, 123

Living matter, 143, 171; its uniqueness, a simple fact, 171; maintains its specific type, 143

Lizards, 292

Loess, 326, 327

Logarithmic spiral, 248

Locomotion, mechanism of, 270

Logic, 198, 220, 245; of scepticism, 198; of thought, escapes our imagery, 220; saltatory, 245

Loss, 352, 353; of artistic taste by Darwin, 352, 353

Lucina, 118

Lumpers, 37

Lumping, 121

Lychnis diurna and vespertina, 84

Lycosa, 247, 263

Lycosids, 247, 263-265

Lymphatic glands, stimulated by digestive process, 301

Lymphatic system, adjuncts of, 300

Lymphatic vessels, 300

Lymph nodules, 300

Lymphocytes, 300, 301

Lymphoid cells, follicle, 299

Macrogamete, 157, 158

Macrosomes, 139

Madeira, 306

Magalenians, 332

Maggots, 134

Magnesium, 146, 147, 148

Mammal, 46, 59, 60, 72, 73, 100, 115, 116, 275, 280, 282, 283, 296, 304, 324, 342; age of, 342; early, 324; evolutionary “crescendo” of, 116

Mammalian stock, 82

Mammoth, 91, 115, 326

Man, 192, 193, 212, 236, 271, 290, 340, 341, 343; bestial, 340; brutalization of, 236; destitute of instincts, 343; face of, 27; indications of his physical presence always accomplished by signs of intelligence, 340; left defenceless by nature, 343; modern, 341; more than a decaying organism, 212; never found apart from evidence of his intelligence, 343; physically helpless, 343; skull of, 271; unique in his soul, not in his body, 192, 193

Mantids, 247

Marattia, 118

Mars, 184

Marsoulas, caves of, 339

Marsupial, 114, 296

Mason bee, 251, 254, 260

Mastodons, 115, 340; “prehistoric,” engraving of, 340

Material, 193, 194, 207, 214; functions, 214; organism coöperates intrinsically in organic substrate, 224; sense of term, 193, 194; substance, inaccessible to senses, 207

Materialism, 178, 199, 212, 214, 236, 352, 355, 357, 358, 361; a purely academic philosophy, 211; attempt to gloss over, 207; Darwinian, 236; evolutionary, 360, 361; its destructive effect on religion, ideals and morality, 361; parasitic, 358

Materialistic, 207, 351-356, 357; philosophy ignores active rôle of mind, 207; view of human nature unnatural and intolerable—complete and consistent application impossible, 357; view make morality unthinkable—antisocial, 351-356

Material organ cannot be effected by the supersensible, 222

Matterhorn, 109

Materialist, 230

Materialists, many evolutionists are avowed, 351

Matter, 71, 173, 174, 179, 181, 186, 194, 199, 200, 204, 210; a constant in inorganic units, 175; a source of indeterminism, 71; a variant in living organisms, 175; constant in chemical reactions, variant in metabolism, 199, 200, 210; does not coincide with sum total of reality, 186; initial vivification of, due to supermaterial agency, 179; inorganic, 181; not more real than mind, 204; notions of, 200; ponderable and imponderable, 194

Maturity, 155

Mauer, 318

Mayflies, 115

Means, 254, 259

Measles, invisible germ of, 169

Mechanics, 350

Mechanism, 153, 154, 171, 179, 250; environmental, 153; teleological but simple, 153, 154

Mechanist, 58, 200, 204, 351; many evolutionists are avowed, 351

Mechanistic universe, 350

Media, 136

Medium, vibrant, 213

Meganeura monyi Brogn, 115

Meiosis, 25, 42, 157

Melia, 261

Melocrinidae, 92

Membrana nictitans, 296, 297; not functionless, 297

Memory, 213, 238, 242, 243; associative, 238; sensitive, 242, 243; sentiment, 238, 242

Men, 318, 325, 328, 329; and apes, link between, 318 —intermediate between, 318; fossil, 325; of Krapina, 325, 328, 329

Mendelism, 3, 24, 25, 26, 28, 42, 46, note, 57, 349

Mental protuberance, 272

Mental states, 205

Merosthenic, 270

Mesonephric duct, 281, 282

Mesonephros, 280, 281, 282, 284

Mesozoic, 73, 104 note, 118, 119, 335; lowest series of, 119; middle system of, 119

Metabolism, 57, 139, 210, 211, 227, 228; destructive and constructive, 137

Metagenesis, 122

Metamorphosis, 123, 283

Metamorphism, 89, 126; of rocks, 126

Metanephros, 280, 282

Metaphysical, 351

Metaphysics, 152, 185, 231, 349, 350, 351, 352; Epicurian, 152; monistic, 349; vs. physical science, 352

Metaphytes, 136

Metazoa, 118

Metazoans, 136, 170, 284

Meteorites, 182, 183

Metista, 5, 59, 136, 156, 157, 159, 163

Microgamete, 158

Microns, 183

Microörganism, 169, 183

Microsomes, 139

Migrations, 72, 76, 112

Millennium, 358

Mimicry, 246

Mind, 195, 196, 198, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 209, 211, 222, 223, 249; active and passive, 207; apprehends material objects under dematerialized form, 223; a substance, 207; connotation of, 203; cannot utilize coöperation of material organ in abstract conceptions, 223; frame of, 211; human, 249; of man alleged to be of animal extraction, 195, 196; phenomenalistic notion of, 209; science of, 197; states of, not less real than states of matter, 204; noumenal, 198

Minimum, 238, 349, 350; an empirical rule, not an axiom, 350; principle of, 238, 349, 350

Miocene, 95, 310, 323; Upper, 95

Miracle, definition of, 187

Miraculous, 69, 351-356, 357

Mitachondria, 140

Mitosis, 59, 138, 139, 155

Modification, 7, 41, 42, 45, 46, 51, 77, 80, 123, 307, 327, 334; adaptive, 45, 46, 51, 80; environmentally-induced, 123; heritable, 42, 45, 307; non-inheritable, 334; parallel, 77, 80; product of variation, 41; of specific magnitude, 7; of varietal magnitude, 7

Moeritherium, 115

Molars, 313, 322; teeth, 322

Mole, 36, 80, 291, 305

Mole-cricket, 36, 80

Molecule, 57, 58, 143, 144, 162, 167, 170, 175, 202, 203; biophoric, 57; complex, 202; complex endothermic, 162; living and dead, 143; structure of, 58

Molluscs, 117, 118, 119, 123, 278, 283

Mongolian, 324, 325, 334; cossack, 324

Monism, 350, 351, 352, 359; destructive of culture, spirituality, morality, 350; fail to motivate Christian morality, 358; makes God immanent in world, 359; makes will law unto itself, 359; materialistic, 350, 352

Monist, 350

Monistic view vitiates artistic taste, 352

Monkey, 270, 275

Monomolecules, 165; are not units, 165

Monotremeta, 296

Montana, 107 note

Moral consequences of failure to discriminate, 360

Morality, 354, 360; evolutionary conception of, 360

Motor-verbalist, 219

Morphogenetic forces, 58, 284; Laws, uniform, 284

Morphogeny, organic, 298

Morphology, embryonic and adult, 284

Mountain columns, 113

Mountains, 113, 153

Mouse, brain of, 315

Moustier Cave, 329

Movements, 241, 242; reflex, 242; spontaneous, 241, 242.

Mule, 5

Müllerian duct, 281

Multimolecule, 58, 144, 162, 165, 166, 168, 170, 179; are not units, 165; colloidal, 166; crystalloidal, 165, 166; not a link between molecules and cells, 179; structure of, 58

Murder, as an experiment, 359

Muscles, 298

Mutants, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 87; chromosomal, 17, 21, 22, 23 —balanced and unbalanced, 21, 22 —balance, odd and even, 22 —status as “new species” not established, 23; factorial, 17, 18, 19, 20; pseudo, 17, 27

Mutation, 16, 16 note, 26, 42, 86, 88, 122, 265, 303, 305, 307, 334; changes of loss, 18, 43; chromosomal, 17, 42, 44, 45, 88; factorial, 19, 20, 42, 44, 45, 88, 305, 334 —a varietal, not a specific change; fortuitous, 265; heritable, 16, 303, 334; pseudo, 17, 42, 88

Mutation, 16, 20, 46; Theory, 16, 20

Myxœdema, 294

Nahun beds, 95

Natural explanations, 69, 70

Naturalism borrows moral standards, 358

Natural process, 69, 74

Natural science, 186

Natural Selection, 9, 11, 12, 13, 29, 30, 152, 153, 305, 306, 350; a theory of chance, 11, 350; has no positive efficacy, 153; theory has impeded progress of science, 13

Nature, 151, 185; inorganic impotent to duplicate even laboratory synthesis, not to speak of vital phenomena, 151 —lacks means of self-vivification, 185; not automatic, 151

Nautilus, 118, 283

Neanderthal, 314, 315, 317, 325, 326, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 335, 337, 342; bone, show some racial characteristics, 329; cranium, 331, 332 —capacity underestimated, 333, not ancestral to Cro-Magnon type, 335; not more ancient than modern type, 337; remains, 325, 332 —human, 325; skull, cranial capacity of, 314, 325; type of, 330, 332

Neanderthal Man, 314, 315, 317, 323, 326, 341, 342; distinctly human, 342; a dwarf, 314; No. 1, 323, 326; divided opinion on, 324; No. 2, skeleton, 326 —skull missing, 326

Neanderthal type, 326, 330, 332, 333, 334, 336; alleged to be distinct species, 332; alleged to be more ancient, 334; degenerate, 336; differences, 334; race, 334; no longer considered oldest type, 336

Neanderthaloid, 328, 333, 341, 343; characteristics occur in modern skulls, 333; race, 343; skulls, modern features occur in, 333

Nebular, hypothesis, 181

Negroes, 334

Neo-Darwinism, 10

Neo-Kantian, 203, 219; phenomenalist, 203

Neo-Lamarkism, 10, 12, 15

Neolithic, 332

Neontologists, 76

Neotoma, 307

Neo-vitalism, 171, 201, 202; postulates a unique force, an agent “sui generis,” 171

Neo-vitalists, 58, 200, 201; regard vital principle as force “sui generis,” a unique agent, 200, 201

Nephridia, 280

Neptune, 184

Nerve plasm, 265

Neurograms, 213, 214, 222; extended, 222; imprinted on neurons, 213, 214; objects capable of stimulating an extended organ, 222; objects of, endowed with concrete properties, 222; proportioned to stimuli, 222; physical basis of imagery, 214, 222

Neurons, 213, 222, 350; sensory and central, 213; utility of sensory, 222

New names for fossil duplicates of modern species, 119, 120

New Stone Age, prehistoric, 337

Nihilism, philosophical, 350

Nitrogen snow, 183 note; reddish light of, 184 note

Non-cosmopolitan species, 283

Non-enents, 309

Non-opposability of human hallux, 50

Non-phenomenon or substance, 209

Non-specialist, when disqualified and when not, 189-191

Non-viable, 25

Novelty, emergent, 350

Nuclear components, self-perpetuating, 139

Nuclear reorganization, 155, 160, 161, 162; a restorative process, 155, 161; means of rejuvenation, 161; none in somatogenic reproduction, 160; periodic, 162; primitive, 162

Nuclear sap, 139

Nucleus, 137, 138, 161; cellular, 138; daughter, 161; distributed, 138; germinal, 161; parent, 161

Nucula, 118

Nutrition, a reflexive activity, 175

Object, 217, 223, 224; concurrence of, extrinsic, 217; indicated spiritual nature of mind, 224; (material) abstract, made of representation, 224; of abstract thought, incapable of making impressions or leaving records on material receptors, 223

Occipital foramen, 272

Occiput, broad, 332

Ocean beds, elevation of, 114, 115

Ocean bottoms, 113-115

Ocean floor, 115

Octopus, 64

Œnothera, 16, 17, 27, 28; gigas, 17; Lamarkiana, 27, 28

Œsophagus, invertebrate, 293

Old Stone Age, 332, 337, 339, 340; class of, 332; prehistoric, 337

Oligocene, 309, 317

Onion-coat, 99, 102, 103, 109; a convenient device, 109; Alpine, 109; hypothesis of, 102, 103 —“transcendental form of,” 102; lithological and biological, 102; mineral envelopes, 102; theory, 99

Ontogeny, 39, 79, 275, 285

Oölites, 79

Opisthonephros, 280, 282

Opposability of simian hallux, 50

Opposition, 218, 219, 234, 235; between imagery and thought, 218, 219; between psycho-organic and spiritual activity, 234, 235; entails distinction, 235

Orang-utan, 33, 271

Orders, 37

Organ, 222, 226, 276, 286, 287, 288, 292, 298, 300, 303; embryonic, 276; functionless, 286, 287, 292; incapable of reflection, 226; material, cannot be effected by the supersensible, 222; nascent and rudimentary, 287, 288; distinction, arbitrary, 288; reduced, 286, 287; vestigial, 292, 300, 303; useless, 286

Organelles, 139

Organic activity, rigidly regulated by metabolism, 228

Organic functions, 203, 213, 215; agent and subject of, not soul alone, 203; not only functions in man, 215

Organic substances, 149, 150; laboratory synthesis of, 149, 150; not to confounded with living or organized substances, 150

Organisms, 154, 155, 163, 201, 202, 203, 246; a product of the law of Complexity, 167; multicellular, 155; none subcellular, 154; of some species, syntonic, 246; participates as coefficient factor in physiological and sensory functions, 203; soul-informed, 203; unicellular, 154, 163

Organization, 143, 150; elude art of chemist, 150

Order, 209; ideal, phenomenalists confuse it with real order of things, 209; real, of things, 209

Ordivician, 111

Orientation of forces, centrifugal and centripetal, 179

Origins, 71, 83, 161, 220, 221, 360; biparental, 161; common, 81 —of man and brute, 360; organic, need not be unified in space but should be in time, 71; of concepts, 220, 221

Orneau, river, 326; valley, 327

Ornithorhynchus, 59, 287

Ornithosaurs, 80

Orthogenesis, 6, 7, 46 note, 53; cannot explain adaptation, 53

Osmia, 252

Outcrop, 93

Overthrust, 98, 107, 110; a triumph of modern research, 107

Ovists, 160

Oximes, 148

Oxychromatin, 139

Oysters, 79

Palæobotany, 117

Palæolithic, 327, 328, 330, 333, 343; artists, 343; human remains, 330; man, 328, 333

Palæontological argument, 66-127; defects in, 75, 124; in abstract, 66-75; in concrete, 75-127; a theoretical construction, 126

Palæontological evidence, 3, 8, 66, 74-80, 83, 89, 97, 105, 107, 124, 311, 312; imperfection of, 89; rated as outweighing physical evidence, 97, 107

Palæontological pedigrees, 3, 76, 78, 81, 82, 84, 126; definition of, 81; of horse, 76, 78, 81, 82, 126; camel, 126, and elephant, 126

Palæontologists, 76, 86, 87, 88, 91, 119, 190, 310, 313, 321, 334, 344; incompetent to decide questions of specific origin or distinction, 87, 88, 89, 334

Palæontology, 3, 82, 83, 88, 92, 95, 96, 114, 119, 126, 195, 311, 312, 313, 344; facts of, 83, 195; ignorant concerning origin of man, 344; orthodox, 95, 96, 119

Palæotherium, 76

Palæozoic, 73, 108, 117, 118, 124 note, 125, 335

Palingenesis, 277, 288

Pan-Pacific Conferences, 344, 346

Panspermia, 182

Parallelism, 57, 58; vs. divergence, 57

Paramœcium, 138, 161, 178; aurelia, 138

Parasites, 46, 53

Parasitism, 52

Parathyroids, 292

Parent cell, 156

Parthenogenesis, 158, 159, 160, 162; artificial, 159, 160 —not violation of law of genetic continuity, 159, 160

Pathology, 141

Patient, 176, 177

Pear-tree, 6, 88

Pebrine, 44

Pecking instinct of chicks, 256

Pecten, 118

Pedigrees, of genera, 84

Pelopæus, 260

Penguin, wings of, 287

Pentacrinus, 119

Perception, 208, 212, 253; an act of, 208; of personality, not personality, 212; sensory, 253

Percepts, objective, 235; sensory, 219

Periodicity, 56; of elements, 56; families of elements, 56

Peri Psyches, Aristotle’s, 196, 197, 215

Perissodactyla, 78

Permian, 104, 118

Persistence, 116, 119, 123; cannot be subsumed under same principles as transmutations, 123; its significance intensified by current theories, 123; of types, 119; of unchanged types, 116

Persistent types, generic and specific, 123

Personal identity, sense of, 212

Personality, 205, 211, 212, 238; a unitary and uniform reality, 212; alternating, 211; based on unchanging principle, 212; perception of, 212

Pessimism, 355, 357

Petit-Puymoyen, industry of, 331

Phæophytin, 147

Pharyngeal arches and clefts, 278, 279

Phase, reversal of, 168, 169

Phenomena, 208, 209; phenomenalists’ substantialization of, 209

Phenomenalism, 207, 208, 211, 212; a purely academic philosophy, 211; identifies mind with “thought stream,” 212

Phenomenalistic school, 206

Phenomenalists, 203, 205, 206, 207; inconsistently admit of physical phenomena while denying subject of psychic phenomena, 206, 207

Phenotype, 5, 19, 25, 27, 41, 43, 68, 123

Philology, 339; proves primitive man to have been civilized, not barbaric, 339

Philosophers, 220

Philosophy, 189, 190, 195; in rôle of critic, 189; in rôle of sycophant, 190; materialistic, 195; relation to science, 189

Phonetic elements, 246

Photosynthesis, 146

Phycocyanin, 149

Phylogeny, 39, 80, 122, 275, 276, 284, 285, 308; human, 285, 308; palæontological, 115

Phylum, 37, 38, 69, 116

Physical impressions, 213

Physical science, 352, 354

Physicochemical action, reducible to interaction between unequally energized masses and particles, 175

Physicochemical forces, executive factors in vital operations, 201

Physiology, 350

Phytol, 147

Picotee sweet pea, 19

Piltdown skull, 320

Pineal eye, 292

Pineal gland, 292, 293, 295; not functionless, 293

Pioneer colonies, 110

Pithecanthropus, distinctly simian, 342

Pithecanthropus erectus, 309, 313-318, 342; cranial capacity of, 314; a giant ape, 315; existing casts inaccurate, 318

Pituitary body, 292, 293

Pituitrin, 294

Placenta, 276

Planarian, 278

Planetesimal, hypothesis, 181

Plantigrade, 272

Plastids, 139, 141

Platycrinidae, 92

Platyrhine monkeys, 287

Pleistocene, 78, 100, 104, 313, 319, 320, 325; Lower, 313, 320; Middle, 319

Pleurotomaria, 118

Plica, semilunaris, 297

Pliocene, 78, 95, 309, 313, 317, 323; Upper, 309, 313, 317

Pluteus, 159

Polar body, second, 159

Polariscope, 144

Polymorphism, 122

Polynesians, 325

Polynuclear condition, 138

Polyphemus, the Cyclops, 293

Pompilids, 247, 248, 263, 264

Pompilius, 247, 261

Popular trust not to be abused, 345, 346

Postauricular muscles, 304, 305

Post-glacial time, 289

Preadaptations, 46, 47, 52, 53, 63, 124, 279; adventitious appearance of, 46, 47; divergent, 279; entail modifications of specific magnitude, 47; evolution as “natural explanation” of, 53; inherited, 47

Pre-Cambrian, 100, 116, 118, 125; terranes, 125 —extension great, 125

Preformation, 3, 160

Prehension, 50, 271, 272

Prehistoric, 337

Prehuman, arboreal stage, 309, 217

Presupposition, latent in materialistic logic, 186

Pre-tertiary, 312

Primates, 308

Primitive man, 338, 342, 343; not irrational, 342, 343; not a savage, 338

Primula, 19

Principles, 171, 172; entitive and dynamic, 171, 172

Priocnemis, flavicornis, 248

Priority, 76; a “sine qua non” condition of ancestry, 76

Process, 206, 209, 225; divorced from agents, 209; of reflection entails identity of observer and observed, 225; subjectless and sourceless, of phenomenalists, 206

Prognathic face, 332

Prognathism, 325, 330, 333, 341; of upper jaw accentuated, 341

“Progress,” 355, 359; modern, 359; of science, 355

Progression, 50, 271, 272, 317; bipedal, 272; modes of, 271, 317

Prehistory, undocumented, unreliable, 340

Pronephric duct, 281

Pronephros, 280, 281 note

Prophylaxis, 356

Propliopithecus, 309, 311

Prosthenic, 271

Protein, 140, 144, 145, 147, 151; multimolecule of, 140

Proterotheres, 78

Proterotheriidæ, 78

Proterozoic, 104 note, 117

Protista, 5, 59, 136, 138, 156, 157, 163; polynuclear condition not rare among, 138

Protoplasm, 141, 143, 144, 151, 160, 161, 175, 181; dead, 143; how reinvigorated, 160, 161; invisible structure, 141; not a chemical compound but a complex system, 142, 143; persistent specificity of, 144; ultramicroscopic structure of, 143; visible, a picture of, 141

Protococcus, 151; viridis, 151

Protons, 103, 174

Protophytes, 135, 136

Protoplasmic architecture, 174

Protozoa, 117, 118, 135, 136, 170

Psyche, 179, 200

Psychic, 198, 205, 230, 233; and physical dualism of Descartes, 198; functions, 205, 233 —of organic type, 233; states, correlated with organic states, 230

Psychology, 196, 197, 198, 204, 205, 208, 211, 235, 236, 361; alone competent to pronounce origin of man, 196; as science of behavior, 198; human, 235; positive, 361; reveals psychic activities as modification of abiding ego, 205; sole science that studies man on his distinctively human side, 196; vulgar, 236; without a soul, 208, 236

Psychophysical, 198, 206, 236; dualism, 198; parallelism, 206, 236

Psychosis, 213, 235, 255, organic, 213, 235 —has for agent and recipient the psycho-organic composite, 213; psycho-organic, 255

Physiological process not reducible to mere physicochemical reaction, 199

Potency, 199

Purpose, 11, 249, 255, 258, 259, 298; Divine, 249; unconscious of, 255, 259

Purposiveness, 248, 249, 262; no intelligence, 262; objective, 248, 249; unconscious, 248

Quadrumana, 296

Qasr-el-Sagha, 115

Quaternary, 98, 319; Early, 319

Races, 334, 342

Radiation, pressure of, 183

Radioactive elements, 56

Radio-activity, 118

Radiolaria, 118

Radiometer, 183

Radius, shows curvature, 327

Ragweed, 16

Raft of Red River, 154

Random Assortment, 27, 42; of chromosomes, 27

Ratio, body-brain, 317

Rays, 119

Reactants, 209

Reaction, 243, 252; elementary, motor, 252; historical basis of 243

Reaction-systems, 26, 204

Reason, 235, 240, 244, 245, 259, 267, 343; not evolved, 267; sole means of human preservation, 343; superorganic power of, 244, 245

Reasoning, 207, 220

Recapitulation, 48, 275, 278, 279, 285; embryonic, 48, 275, 278, 279

Receptors, 57, 213, 222; extended, necessary to perceive material stimuli, 222

Recessive chin, 311

Recognition, 207

Recombination, 27, 42; chromosomal, 27; factorial, 27

Reconstructions, 89, 90, 92, 321; of fossil skulls, 321; psychological motivation of, 89, 90; scientific, 89, 90, 92

Recuperation, autonomous, 163

“Recurrent faunas,” 110

Reduction, 42, 157

Reflection, 224, 225, 226, 240, 256; a fact, 225, 226; alleged impossibility of, 225; only possible to spiritual agent, 224; undeniable fact of, 225

Reflexes, innate and conditioned, 238

Reflexion, 225

Reflexive orientation, 174, 176; of energies, no living being, 176; of forces in living organism, 174; in living being, 201

Regression of organ, 305

Regulation, 253; intelligent, 253; sensory, 253

Rejuvenation, 155, 161, 163; three kinds of, 161

Rejuvenescence, 160, 161, 162

Reign of Terror, 357; French, 357; Russian, 357

Reindeer, 332

Re-integration of atoms, impossible, 163

Relationships, 254; causal and telic, 254; supersensible, 254

Religion, 354, 361; only sanction of morality, 361

Remains, Javanese, 318

Repair-work, 251, 252

Reproduction, 5, 24, 25, 26, 56, 68, 69, 137, 141, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161; biparental (bisexual), 24, 158; cytogenic, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161; link between life-cycles, 156; nonsexual, 156—three kinds of, 156, 157; reducible to cell-division, 163; sexual, 25, 156, 157 —autosexual, 158, 159 —bisexual, 158 —unisexual, 158 somatogenic, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 —limited, 161 —no rejuvenation in, 161

Reptiles, 61, 80, 281, 282, 296, 301; flying, 80; palæozoic and modern, 296

Resemblance, 38, 54, 58, 63, 79, 80, 284, 340, 341; compatible with separate ancestry, 63, 80 —even specific, does not entail common origin, 79, 80; family, 54, 56; generic, 38, 56; heterogenetic, 80; ordinal, 56; phyletic, 56; specific, 38, 56, 79; to modern man, 340, 341

Responsibility, 232, 360, 361; harmful consequences, 360; implies mastery of will over its own actions, 232; of evolutionary propagandists, 360, 361

Resultants, 233 note, 234 note

Resurrection, natural basis of, 202

Reversion, 17, 303, 304, 305; to type, 305

Rhinoceros etruscus, 319; merckii, 329; tichorhinus, 326, 329, 332

Rhodesian Man, 340, 341; may be modern, 341

Rhynchonella, 118

Right-handedness, human, 288; duration of, 290

River drift, 327

Rocks, 66, 93, 96, 103, 104, 107, 118, 120, 181, 297, 335; composition and mineral contents disregarded in classification, 96; crystalline, 104, 181; fossiliferous, 104, 107, 118, 181, 279, 335; European classification of, 107; groups of, 120; igneous, 181; metamorphic, 104; sedimentary, 66, 93, 96, 107, 181; systems of, 103

Rubidium, isotopes of, 173

Rudiment, 293, 297, 301, 302; ontogenetic, 301, 302; phylogenetic, 301, 302

Rudimentary, 299

Rudimentary organs, 286, 291, 293, 298, 305; criticism of, 286; evolutionary argument from, 286; ontogenetic explanation of, 298; phylogenetic, 298 —explanation of, 286

Running birds, 114, 305

S-R bonds, 204

Salamander, 248

Saurians, 60

Savagery, not prior to civilization, 337

Savages, descended from civilized ancestry not vice versa, 338

Scandinavia, 110

Scepticism, 198 logic of, 198

Scholastics, 191, 225

Scholastic, theory of origin of concepts, 220

Science, 188, 304, 359; as religion, 359; gives no heed to consequences, 360; its attitude towards philosophy, 188; sham, 304

Scientists, 344, 348; many not satisfied with “evidence” for human evolution, 344; fallibility of, 348

Scientific questions, decided by evidence, not by authority, 344

Scotland, 107

Sea-anemone, 261

Sea floor, 113

Sea-urchin, 119, 140; egg of, 140

Second causes, 52, 71; efficacy finite, 71

Sediment, 93, 103, 125; primordial, 125; universal layer of, 103

Seedlings, 161

Segregation, 25

Selection, 11, 12, 13, 65, 152, 153, 306; artificial, 152 —not on a par with natural selection, 152; intelligent and fortuitous, 152, 153; principle, 11, 12, 13, 65; values, 306

Self, 205

Self-fertilization, 159

Self-observation, 224, 225; impossible for an organ, 226; power of, cannot reside in material organ, 224, 225; requires a spiritual principle, 225

Self-regulation, 174, 176, 179

Self-sacrifice, rendered meaningless, 356

Semilunar fold, 296, 297

Senescence, 26, 157, 160, 162; an inherent tendency of living matter, 160; tendency practically if not actually universal, 162

Sensationists, 218

Sensations, 209, 227, 242; intensity of, 227

Sense, 204, 227, 228, 235, 254, 350; debilitated by powerful stimulus, 227; external, 204; organic nature of, 227; their power of reaction temporarily inhibited by process of repair, 227, 228

Sense organs, 213, 251

Sense-perception, 199, 203, 214, 219, 220, 227, 231, 235; a brain function 199; a psycho-organic function, 214; concerned with factual reality of existence, 219; involves a decomposition of neural tissue, 227; not independent of body, 227; organic function, 203

Sensibility, organic, 244, 245

Sensori-motor, 251

Sensory functions of the nervous system, 199

Sensual appetites, exhaustible, 232

Sensual emotion, organic function, 203

Sequence, 100, 107, 108; inverted or “wrong,” 107, 108; no invariable order of, 100; of fossiliferous strata, 100; “wrong,” 107, 107 note

Serum, 15

Sexual (gametic) incompatibility, 4, 5, 19, 20, 21

Sharks, 80, 119, 296

“Shell-craters,” 347

Shoots, 160

Sight, 217; intrinsic dependence on eye, 217; extrinsic dependence on object, 217

Silurian, 92, 106, 111, 118; Middle, 92, 106

Simia satyrus, 32

Simple explanations not necessarily true, 350

Siwalik beds, 95, 310

Skeleton, 60, 61, 331; human, 331

Skulls, 328, 329, 331, 333, 340, 341; fossil, 33, 341; human, 331

Skull cap, 271, 313, 314, 324, 328

Sleep, would interrupt process of relaying consciousness from thought to thought, 212, 213

Sloth, 52

Snapdragon, 88

Social inequalities, artificial laws for benefit of rich, 361

Socialism, 357, 360; Marxian, 357; Scientific, 357

Sodium, 165, 166; bromide, 165; chloride, 165, 166; iodide, 165

Solemn burial, 331, 332, 343; most ancient instances, 332

Solutreans, 333

Soma, 13, 59, 303

Somatella, 59

Somatic cells, 13, 14, 17, 136, 156, 163

Somites, 280

Sophism, Comte’s like that of Zeno, 226

Soul, 172, 179, 193, 194, 197, 198, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 209, 210, 211, 216, 268, 311, 350, 361; definition of, 200; a “formative power” and “integrating” and unifying principle, 200, 211; a vital entelechy, 210; as revealed in biology and psychology, 205; consubstantial with matter, 202; differs in kind, not merely in degree from bestial soul, 194; discarded by Descartes, 197; discarded by scientific psychology, 359; formal principle of life, 203; functional, 203, 206, 209 —cannot be primary principle of life, 206; name, not reality of, rejected, 200; not a complete entity, 201; primary ground of life, 206; rejected in dynamic, not in entitive sense, 200, 201; spiritual, not a product of evolution, 193, 216, 268 —originates by a creative act, 193, 268; subject of psychology, 197; subsistent in man, 202; substantial, 203, 209; term alleged to be meaningless, 200

Specialism, advantages and disadvantages of, 189

Species, 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 19, 26, 37, 38, 74, 75, 78, 80, 83, 84, 86, 87, 110, 111, 112, 119, 120-123, 131, 157, 256, 257, 312, 313, 320, 334, 342; definition of, 4; change of, 4, 6; differentiation and multiplication of, 131; difficulty of distinguishing, 120-123; elementary, 17; extinct and extant, 120-123, 334; extinct, precarious basis for time-scale, 334; formation as contrasted with transformation of, 74, 75, 131; fossil, 3, 4, 83, 92, 120, 122, 312, 313; intermediate, absence of, 80, 83, 84, 334; intersterility of, 4, 5, 26, 38; only one human, 342; persistent, 123; syngamy, an essential requisite of, 5

Species-by-species method, 87

Spectral analysis of constitution of sun, 216

Spectroscope, 144

Speech, bestial, 245, 246

Sperm, 156, 158, 159, 160; activation by means of, 159

Spermists, 160

Sphex gryphus (Sm), 261

Spiders, 257

Spiral cleavage, 278

Spirit, 194, 311; definition of, 194

Spiritual, 206

Spiritualism, 202, 230, 231; Aristotelian, 230, 231 —admits direct dependence of lower psychic functions on organism, 230 —admits indirect dependence of higher psychic functions upon organism, 231; Cartesian, 230; destroyed by facts of physiological psychology, 230; hylomorphic, 202; of Aristotle, 202; psychophysical of Descartes, 202, 203

Spirituality, 203, 351; excludes co-agency of organism, 203; of human soul, 351

Spiritual representations, 221

Spleen, 301

Splitters, 37

Splitting, 121

Spontaneous generation, 131, 132, 133, 136, 142, 148, 149, 167, 179, 182, 185, 186; defined, 131-133; antiquity of, 133; old and new exception of, 167; philosophical “proof” of, 185

Spontogenesis, an outlawed hypothesis, 164

Spores, 134, 136, 156, 181; bacterial, 181

Sporulation, 156, 157

Springopora, 118

Spy, 329, 330, 333; bones, 329; crania, capacity underestimated, 330

Spy remains, 319, 325, 326, 327, 329, 330, 332; skeletons of No. 1 and No. 2, 327

Squatting, a habit of savage races, 328

Squirrel, 260

Starfish, 140, 154, 382; egg of, 140; symmetry of, 154

States, 203, 208; conscious or psychic, 203, 208; mental, active and passive, 208; of matter, not more real, 203

Statistics, moral, 361

Stems, 160

Stentor, 174

Sterility, interspecific, 5, 21, 38

Sterilization, 134, 135

Stimulators, 243

Stimulus, 227, 228

Stizus ruficornis, 247

Stock, 310, 311; hylobatic and troglodyte, 310, 311; pithecoid, 311

Stone implements, 329, 331, 334, 340, 342; characteristic, unsafe basis for time-scale, 334

Stratification, 102; scheme of, universal, 102; synchronous deposition of, different in mineral content, 102

Stratigraphers, 106

Stratigraphic, 101, 102, 107; continuity, 101; facts, 107; horizons, 101; sequence, 101 —invariable order of, 102

Stratigraphy, 93

Strata, 66, 83, 87, 92-96, 102, 103,108, 109, 116, 119, 120, 125; classification of, 103; concrete sequence of, 109; dated by fossils and fossils by strata, 94; fossiliferous, 92, 96, 102, 109, 116, 119 —classification of, 119 —European classification of, 102; how characterized, 96; intervening, skipped, 120; mineral, 102; substitution of fossiliferous for lithological, 103; substitution of fossiliferous for mineral, 103; wrong order of, 108; “younger” and “older,” 108, 116

Strontium, isotopes of, 173

Structures, 122, 284; constant and adaptive, 122; distinction influenced by personal equation, 122; embryonic, undifferentiated, 284; homologous and adaptive, 122

Struggles for existence, 291

Sturgeons, 119

Sub-archæan beginnings of life impenetrable, 126

Subject, 205, 207, 208; abiding, of our thoughts, feelings and desires, 205; active, 208; of thought, active, 207

Subjective abstractions, phenomenalist objectivation of, 209

Subjectless thought, an abstraction, 209

Submicron, 140, 183 note

Submicroscopic dimensions, no obstacle to manifestation of vital phenomena, 170

Submicroscopic organisms show genetic continuity, reproductiveness and typical vital power, 169, 170

Subspecies, 334, 342

Substages, 96, 103

Substance, 209

Substantial composite of body and soul, 203

Succession, 75, 76; to be distinguished from filiation, 75; not descent, 75, 76

Sunlight, once richer in actinic rays, 148

Superciliary ridges, 272

Superorganic, 240

Superorganic functions, 214, 227; have soul as their exclusive agent and recipient, 214

Superorganic functions, soul alone active cause and receptive subject, 203

Supernatural, 186, 187; defined, 187

Supernumerary, 303, 304, 306; mammary glands, 304; organs, 303, 304

Superposition, 93, 101, 111; as a criterion of comparative antiquity, 93; criterion of, confined to local areas, 101 —not available for correlation of strata in different localities, 101; only safe means of distinguishing between spatial and chronological distribution, 101, 111; restricted to local areas, 93

Suppression of organs, 305

Sweden, 289

Syllogisms, of no avail against facts, 226

Symbiosis, 52, 124

Symbiotes, 46, 53

Synapsis, 17, 25

Syngamy, 5, 25, 156, 157-161; essential to biparental inheritance, 160; means of rejuvenation, 161; qualification of a true species, 5

Synthesis, chemical, spontaneous and artificial, 151, 152

Systems, 96, 101, 141, 142, 151; colloidal, 142; complete polyphasic, 142; how determined, 96; of rocks, 96; of strata, 101; polyphasic, 141; protoplasmic, 141, 142; simple, 151

Systematist, 46, 121

Tactisms, 204

Tactualist, 219

Taenia, 248

Taiga, 91

Tarantula, 247, 263

Tasmanian blacks, 325

Tautomerism, 202

Taxonomic questions, 334

Taxonomist, 128

Taxonomy, 36, 37, 38, 77, 101, 121, 122, 123, 320; fossil, 101, 122 —basis of correlation, 101 —arbitrary and unreliable, 122; homology, basis of, 36; influence of palæontology, 77; need of revision in, 121, 123

Teleological, 225

Teleology, 154, 240, 248, 249, 259, 267; a material expression of intelligence, 259; does not entail vibrant intelligence, 259; its combination with sentient consciousness, 240; of organisms, 154; of artefacts, 154; psychic implication of, 154; unconscious, 240

Teleosts, 120

Telic, 150, 249; phenomena of nature, 249

Terebratulina, striata, 118, 120; caput serpentis, 118

Termitomyia, 46

Termitoxenia Heimi, 48

Tertiary, 72, 82, 99, 100, 104, 109, 111, 112, 113, 118, 154, 270, 308, 311; ancestor, 312; Man, 154

Tertiary envelopes of eggs, 300

Tethelin, 294

Tethys, 109

Tetraploid race, 23, 45; origin of, not yet observed, 23

Tetraploidy, 22, 23, 44

Thigh, bone, 316, 317

Third eyelid, 296, 297

Third Interglacial Period, latter half of, 331

Thoatherium, 78

Thought, 218-222, 227, 229, 230, 233; and imagery, concomitant but incommensurable, 219; digs below phenomenal surface, 219; distinguished from imagery, 218, 219; intellectual, steady, lucid and continuous, 229; not function of material organism, 233; power does not always degenerate with old age, 230; presupposes imagery, 221; proceeds with complete ease after initial exertion of imagination, 229; rational, 222, 224, 231, 233 —has spiritual soul for source and subject, 233 —reflective, 224 —spiritual, 222 —superorganic function of, 231; reflective, a superorganic function, 227; requires substrate of sensible images, 220 —on which it is objectively dependent, 222; some in all individuals, 219; spiritual, 222; untranslatable into adequate imagery, 219

Thrust faults, 107

Thrust planes like bedding planes, 108

Thymus, 299, 300, 301, 302; an ontogenetic rudiment, 301, 302

Thyroid glands, 292, 294, 295, 301

Thyroxin, 294

Time-value, 75, 82, 83, 84, 95, 96, 101; of geological formations, dubious, 75; of index fossils, 95, 96 —affords no basis for scientific certainty, 101

Tissue, lymphatic, 301

Tissue cells, 13, 14, 136, 156

Tonsils, 301

Tools, use of, by animals, 261

Trachelocerca, 138

Training, 244, 245, 256

Transformism, 3, 4, 6, 16, 24, 25, 32, 40, 43, 52, 53, 55, 56, 59, 61, 67, 69-72, 75, 80, 84, 109, 117, 123, 124, 126, 127, 131, 263, 268, 343; definition of, 3; impotent to explain origin of intelligence, 216, 233 note, 263; interpretation, not corollary, of fossil facts, 126; monophyletic, 69, 70; “natural” explanation of homology, 52; proofs for, empirical, aphoristic, and aposterioristic, 55, 56; rests on personal belief rather than on facts, 127; ultra-partisans of, 343; unconcerned with origin of life, 131; unifies origins in time, but not in space, 69

Transformist, 38

Transmutation, 6, 28, 35, 40, 50, 65, 69, 70, 71, 73, 123, 193

Trial and error, 241, 243

Triassic, 118, 119

Trilobites, 100, 117

Triploidy, 21, 22

Troglodyte, 34, 50, 314, type, 314

Troglodytes niger, 33, 314

Tropisms, 204

Tubercule of Darwin, not homologous with apex of horse’s ear, 303

Tubers, 160

Tubules, nephridial or excretory, 280

Types, 54, 55, 66, 83, 84, 92, 116-120, 123, 124, 141, 328, 329, 334, 335, 336; Ancestral, 92, 117, 276; annectant, 92; approximation in, 66; common ancestral, 83; Crô-Magnon, 332, 334, 335; no evidence of its descent from Neanderthal type, 334; generalized, 54, 55, 81, 84; are abstractions, 54, 55; generic, 116, 117; persistence of, 118, 123; Grimaldi, 332; intergradent, 83; invertebrate, 117; modern, 116, 120, 334; Neanderthaloid, 329, 335; persistent, 116; persistence of, 119; phyletic, 116, 117; permanence of, 118; specific, 116, 141 —persistence of, 118, 123; fossil doctrine of their invariable sequence, 104, 312

Ultramicron, 144, 168; destitute of reproductive power, 168; may not be natural unit, 168; of colloidal solutions, 168

Ultramicroscope, 140, 144; limit of, 140

Ultraspiritualism of Descartes, 199, 202

Ultra-violet rays, 148, 184

Unchange, not explained by theory of exchange, 123

Understanding, 235

Ungulates, 78, 82; fossil, 82

Uniformitarianism, 67, 68

Uniformity of nature, 149, 186; only justification for reconstruction of the past, 149; principle of, 169

Union of soul and body, according to Descartes, 198, 199

Units, 144, 162, 163, 166, 167, 168, 170, 174-177, 199-201; difference between, 170; inorganic, 144, 163, 166, 170, 174, 175, 176, 177, 201 —and living, 170, 175-177 —incapable of other than transitive action, 174, 177; living and non-living, 199, 200; natural, 168; new, of life to be discovered, 167; of nature, non-living, 162, 163

Universe, Stone Book of, 127

Uranium, 146

Urea, 173

Ureter, 282

Uroleptus mobilis, 138, 161

Urosthenic, 270

Ursus spelaeus, 326, 329

Use, 291

Utility, 291

Valence, 165; atomic, 165; molecular (residual), 165

Variation, 9, 18, 40, 41, 42, 45, 63, 64, 88, 303; agencies of, 42; cause of modification, 41; converges and diverges, 63, 64; fluctuational, 9, 303; heritable, 42; intra-specific, 43; mutational, a change of loss, 18; non-inheritable, 42; process of diversifying, 40, 45; trans-specific, 43, 88 —no experimental evidence of, 45

Varieties, 334, 342

Vault, 329, 332

Vegetarians, 236

Versatility, 257, 258, 259; distinctive mark of intelligence, 257, 258

Vertebræ, 279

Vertebrate, 60

Vertebrata, 119, 270, 271, 279-284, 292, 297, 300, 302; amniotic, 280-282; anamniotic, 280, 282

Vestigial remnants, 299

Viability, 4, 5, 25, 26, 43, 44

Vibration, 209; pure, 209; without vibrant medium, 209

Vinegar fly, 19, 85

Violet, 25, 159

Visceral arches and clefts, 278, 279

Visualist, 219

Vital activity, 201

Vital continuity, 134, 139, 155; genetic, first article of, 134; law of, 134, 155; law of, 139; its fourth article, 139

Vital force, no special, 201

Vitality, 150; eludes art of chemist, 150

Vital principle, 172, 200, 203; as defined by Neo-Vitalists, 172; entitive, not dynamic, 172; term alleged to be meaningless, 200; term in disfavor, 200

Vivisection, 360

Volcanic bombs, 346-348

Volition, 221, 231, 233; not function of the material organism, 233; presupposes conception, 221; rational, has spiritual soul for source and subject, 233; rational, superorganic, 231

Walrus, 296

Wasp, predatory, 247, 263

Weddas, cranial capacity of, 315

Weight, 315

Whale, 35, 46, 60, 279; flipper of, 35, 60, 279

White Leghorns, 19

Wild Kirchli, industry of, 331

Will, 221, 232, 235; insatiable, 232; of man, free, 232; self-determining or reflexive, 232; superior to sensual appetite, 235

Wing venation, 49 note, 49

Wisconsin, Cambrian sediments of, 105

Wolffian duct, 281, 282

Woods Hole, 23, 42, 47

World War, 359

Worm, 249

Wormwood, 248, 255; common, 255

Würtzburg, School of, 219

X-rays, 144, 317

Yoldia Sea, 289

Yolk-sac, 276

Zamia, 118

Zebra, 81

Zones, stratigraphic, 96, 103, 106; zoögeographical, 99

Zoölogists, 66, 77

Zoölogy, 35, 37, 55, 126, 304

Zoöpsychologists, 240

Zygote, 25, 136, 156-158