WEISMANN'S THEORY OF THE GERMPLASM 29 



CRITICISM OF THE GERMPLASM THEORY. 1 



At first sight, much of Weisrnann's fabric of 

 hypotheses gives the impression of being a closed 

 system, thought out as a whole, and it has been 

 treated as such in most of the notices and criticisms 

 which I have seen. As a matter of fact, Weismann 

 has spared no pains in the elaboration of his 

 system, and has attempted to bring under his 

 theory the many different phenomena of heredity 

 and development, as well as alternation of genera- 

 tions, regeneration, atavism, and so forth. But, on 

 the other hand, he has been careless in testing the 

 stability and security of the foundations upon 

 which he has built. It is on solid foundations that 

 lie deep in the earth, and that avoid all reproach 

 of being scamped or superficial work, that the 

 durability of a structure depends. In this criticism 

 the details of the superstructure will be disregarded, 

 but the foundation will be tested thoroughly. 



Cells and cell-properties are essential parts of 

 Weismann's theory ; while Naegeli has attempted 

 to make his theory of the idioplasm independent of 

 the whole conception of cells. In this matter I 

 agree with Weismann, as, indeed, with De Yries 

 and others, and I consider that the course taken by 

 Naegeli has made his position untenable. 



Naegeli would make his theory of the idioplasm 



1 The following treatises contain criticisms of Weismann's 

 theories: W. Haacke, Gestaltung und Vererbung ; Leipzig, 1893; 

 Herbert Spencer, articles in Contemporary Review (1893-94) ; 

 Romanes, An Examination of Wcismannism ; Longmans, 1893. 



