REVIEWS 347 



Finally we should like to point out that the author has drawn upon the work 

 of the reviewer, and even quoted phrases from it, without giving any acknowledg- 

 ment thereof or indicating where it is to be found. 



C. H. O'D. 



Histoire de l'lnvolution naturelle. Par Henri Marconi. Traduitede l'ltalien 

 par Me Ida Mori-Dupont. [Pp xii + 507, with 125 text figures.] (Paris : 

 A. Maloine, 1915, prix 15 francs.) 



To attack a widely accepted idea in a science requires a great deal of courage, and 

 this the author possesses. A well-established theory like the evolution theory is not 

 to be overthrown by courage alone and it is necessary for the assailant to possess 

 a wide knowledge of the subject-matter. This the author may or may not possess, 

 but in reading through the book we have failed to find evidence of it. 



It is impossible within the limits of a review to deal with all the points in the 

 book, and it may be stated from the outset that instead of maintaining the " In- 

 volution Theory" the author in our opinion appears to have demonstrated nearly 

 all the weaknesses of his case, and few if any of its strong points. The method 

 adopted is first to show by means of quotations from authors (most frequently 

 from Haeckel) that there are certain gaps in our knowledge or differences on small 

 points, and to deduce therefore that the evolution theory is not correct and so 

 its place must be taken by the involution theory. This form of argument will 

 mislead no one save perhaps its user. 



The chapter on Palaeontology may be taken as more or less typical of the 

 whole book. The sole palaeontological authority that is quoted is Haeckel. Now 

 Haeckel, although using palaeontological data, was never a palaeontologist. There 

 is no mention of Dollo, Andrews, Broom, Smith-Woodward, Scott, Osborn, 

 Williston, to mention but a few of the leading names in the palaeontology of to-day, 

 nor is there any indication of any knowledge of their works nor of the great ad- 

 vances that have been made. The only palaeontological knowledge utilised seems 

 to be that derived from Haeckel's works. It might of course be urged by the 

 author that ignorance of the facts of palaeontology does not in any way affect his 

 argument, and so we will examine the latter. It is admitted that Amphibia 

 appeared before reptiles, reptiles before mammals, and last of all man himself. Of 

 this the author says (p. 102) : " Le coup est formidable, je 1'avoue, mais son im- 

 portance n'est qu'apparente. Les faits existent, la science les interprete mal, et 

 on subtilise la verite pour prouver l'erreur." 



Nowhere does he explain how these facts have been misinterpreted. The 

 whole matter appears to be settled by remarking that their importance is only 

 apparent. A further example of the kind of argument adduced may be judged by 

 the following (p. 104) : 



"Mais ce qu'il importe surtout de faire remarquer a partir de maintenant, c'est 

 que l'affirmation de Pexistence en masse des Acraniens dans la periode primordiale, 

 n'est pas rigoureusement scientifique. 



" Nous avons le defaut, nons y reviendrons, de toujours generalises Nous 

 n'avons explore que tres peu des sediments primordiaux et nous voulons leur 

 attribuer l'importance de documents historiques de la Vie organique du monde 

 entier. 



"Qui nous dit que dans les sediments primordiaux des regions devenues in- 

 accessibles pour nous, on retrouverait les meme fossiles et si cette exploration ne 

 reserverait pas quelques surprises ? " 



The weakness of this is quite apparent. 



It is asserted that Haeckel counted on the extension of geological researches, 



