Chapter XX: Afterword (1)

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