BARR ON ASEXUAL DIMORPHISM. H 



ASEXTAL DLMOKIMIISM AND THE OKKJIN OF SEX. 



i'iiAi:ij:s i:. r.AUi;, aliuon. 



For a nmiibcr of years the j)rol»l('iii of sex has cii^a^cd my attention 

 and from the clash of opinion ('iijiciuU^red in chiss-i-ooni discussion, a 

 theory has arisen that. thou<j;h as yet inconiph-te. seems worthy of 

 iecoi-<l. I believe that it otlcM-s a more ralionni, as il certainly assumes 

 a more fumhimental conception of sexual diilVrent iat ion than has yet 

 been prctmuljiatcd. 



To those who may feel tliat it ^oes too far, that it reaches into the 

 too remote jjast, I can only say that tlie failure of those wlio have before 

 attacked the i)roblem seems to me due to this very thing-, that their 

 search has not been ])ushed far enough. Surface truths must be rigor- 

 ously investigated and the clues that they attord traced to their limit 

 before we may be satistied. 



The far reaching assum]»tions of the first section may seem to some 

 too bold, to others foolhardy, to others destructiA'e of what they have 

 considered the highest and best. For them no apology will be offered. 

 They have been pondered well and, if they be carefully followed out, 

 will be found thoroughly consistent with the s])irit of modern scientific 

 research as well as with those truths that are so firmly established 

 that no shock of impact can ever shake them. I refer to the ideas of God 

 as creator and as imminent in all his works. 



That there are profound dittereuces between the female and the 

 male organisms, apart from mere morphology, cannot be doubted. 

 Just what these differences are and just what their significance, ha? 

 been the subject of much dispute. It may well be said that no hard and 

 fast line can be drawn, that they so intergrade in their manifestations 

 that each often presents characteristics typical of the other. A large 

 body of evidence has been accumulated upon which a general contrast 

 may be established; but, so far as I am aware, no satisfactory basis for 

 this fundamental difference has been suggested. Such a basis I hope 

 to establish. 



The contrast referred to is, in brief, this — the male is, on the whole, 

 predominatingly active or katabolic, the female preponderatingiy 

 jtassive or anabolic. 



The same phenomenon may be observed in that which essentially 

 establishes the sex of .uiimal or plant, the reproductive elements: — on 

 the one hand the active, motile spermatozoon or spermatozoid, on the 

 other the passive or sluggish ovum or ovule. In the light of these 

 facts we may well Ix'lieve that the evolutionary origin of sex elements 

 affords a (piestion fundamental to the consideration of later problems. 



As phenomena whose nature clearly foreshadows sexuality are ex- 

 hibited even in the protozoa, it is evident that if we wish our search 

 to V>e fundamental we must look ev(Mi beyond tlu^se for its Ix'ginnings. 



The logic of evolution, the princi[)le of continuity, demands that the 

 organic be conceived as arising from the inorganic. Through the action 



