126 LOUIS AGASSIZ. [CHAP. xvm. 



others, the bold assertions of Haeckel, 1 the natural 

 selection of Darwin and Wallace, are hypotheses insuf- 

 ficient to prove the reality of the origin and descent 

 of species. 



De Candolle insists that transformism is no longer 

 an hypothesis, but a proved fact, and that the only 

 hypothesis lies in the explanation of the process of 

 variation of species and their propagation. Herein 

 is the whole difficulty. Agassiz has proved that each 

 individual, in his embryologic development, passes 

 through forms analogous to those of species which 

 have existed in geological times. If the Darwinists 

 can replace their hypothesis of process of variations 



1 Haeckel's attacks upon Agassiz's character, calling him an " hypo- 

 crite and a charlatan," are happily unusual in natural history. At all 

 events, they do not prevent him from making use of Agassiz's discoveries, 

 as it is proved by Alpheus Hyatt, who says: "Therefore, while the law of 

 correlation of the stages of development and those of the evolution of the 

 phylum may, if one chooses, be called a law of biogenesis, it is more 

 accurate to consider it a law of correlation in bioplantology; or, better 

 still, the law of palingenesis, or regular repetition of ancestral characters, 

 which very nearly expresses what the discoverer, Louis Agassiz, saw and 

 described. The fact that Agassiz was wrong in his theory, not believing 

 in evolution and not recognizing the meaning of his laws in this sense, 

 does not absolve those who profit by his labours from recognizing his 

 discovery of the facts, and his obviously full acquaintance with the law 

 and its applications to the explanation of the relations of organisms. It 

 is Agassiz's law, not Haeckel's" (" Philogeny of an Acquired Character- 

 istic," by Alpheus Hyatt; " Proceed. Amer. Philosophical Society," Vol. 

 XXXIL, p. 390; Philadelphia, 1894). 



Ernst Haeckel is trying to play in the origin of species the role of 

 a Mahomet, and like him is very intolerant against all those who do not 

 accept his " creed " and use his method of doubt on the problem of life, as 

 his last work, " Monism. The Confession of Faith of a Man of Science," 

 London, 1894, sufficiently proves. His preconceptions on matters which fall 

 within the provinces of research and discovery are anything but scientiiic. 



