THE GENEALOGY OF SHIPS. 311 



This was a pungent and capital rejoiner (I am not writ- 

 ing ironically now, an explanation intended for Boeotians), 

 and at first view seems to expose a weakness in the rea- 

 soning of my article. Here, he says, in effect, are two 

 parallel graduated series: 1. A structural gradation in 

 aquatic vehicles ; 2. A structural gradation in successive 

 equine types. Now, the author of " The Genealogy of 

 Ships," turning his irony into direct speech, tells us 

 that because there is no Gfenealoc^ical relation in the first 

 series it may be there is none in the second series. " Di- 

 rect Creationist,"' however, takes the other alternative, 

 and maintains (ironically, with the first writer) that be- 

 cause there is no o-enetic relation either in the first series 

 or the second, there is no such thing as genetic relation 

 anywhere. Or, converting his irony to direct speech, it 

 means that inasmuch as we are certain that cfenetic rela- 

 tions exist in the actual world, we must admit that in 

 the horse series, where family resemblances exist similar 

 to those in the actual world, they imply similarly some 

 real i^enetic relation. This is the arsjument of the re- 

 joinder reduced to its simplest terms. But now, this is 

 the very same old pretense whose validity I had chal- 

 lenged. " Direct Creationist " had simply masked the old 

 non-sequiUir and presented us a view a posteriori. The 

 family resemblance in the succession of water vehicles is 

 fully as exact and real as in the equine succession ; and 

 therefore, so far as the fact of succession is concerned, 

 proves just as conclusively a genetic relationship. So af- 

 ter the two writers had grappled and completely rolled 

 over once, it appears that the author of the " Genealogy 

 of Ships " must be recognized as the upper layer in the 

 scrimmage. 



