May, i893. THE RECAPITULATION THEORY. 365 



minds of those who accepted it incautiously. It was not the theory 

 which was wrong, but the mental attitude of those who accepted it. 

 It was not accepted as a theory, but adopted as a creed. Fortunately, 

 those who did so adopt it were comparatively few. 



With the Recapitulation Theory it is otherwise. All who have 

 accepted this, have adopted it as a creed. Few of them can even see 

 that it is not an explanation of anything whatever. They believe that 

 it explains the series of events constituting ontogeny. In reality, it is 

 only a dogmatic assertion that this series of events is controlled by 

 some mystical " dead hand of the past " in such way as to serve as a 

 record of events long passed. If the dogmatic assertion as to the 

 course of events constituting the ontogeny had proved to be true, then 

 it would be difficult to imagine any more interesting problem than 

 that involved in the explanation of so remarkable a phenomenon. 



The truth of the assertion has been put to the test, not of direct 

 comparison of the ontogeny with the phylogeny in a large number of 

 cases, for that has hitherto proved impossible {pace Bather), but by 

 comparison of the supposed " records " with each other, and by other 

 indirect means. The mere fact that of all the conclusions drawn as 

 to the origin of the vertebrates every one contradicts every other, is 

 one disproof of the theory. The fact that von Baer's law is in exact 

 accordance with observed facts in a large number of cases is another 

 and a more definite disproof. The two views — von Baer's and the 

 Recapitulation Theory — are irreconcilable. Von Baer's is applicable 

 only to certain animals, but its applicability to these disproves 

 "recapitulation " in these. These animals are such as pass through 

 a considerable portion of their development as embryos, or foetuses, 

 before entering upon the struggle for existence amidst untoward 

 circumstances. The remaining animals, that is, those which have to 

 fight for a living from very early stages indeed, are, by virtue of that 

 early struggle, exposed to the modifying influence of Natural Selec- 

 tion ; and, hence, if any " record " had existed in the ontogeny of 

 such species, it must of necessity be very soon obliterated by this 

 action of Natural Selection. The obliteration need not be complete. 

 Some traces of the ancestral ontogeny [not phylogeny) may remain, 

 and, so far as these traces have been made out, they also are in con- 

 formity with von Baer's law, and, therefore, inconsistent with the 

 theory of recapitulation. 



It by no means follows that no ontogeny is such as to present 

 even a startling resemblance to the phylogeny of the same species. 

 Mr. Bather's too brief accounts of the truly remarkable correspon- 

 dence between what is known to be the ontogeny and what is 

 supposed to be the phylogeny of Antedon, will sufficiently impress my 

 readers with this fact, and it is " greatly to be hoped " that he will 

 shortly enrich the pages of Natural Scienxe with a very much 

 fuller account, both of all the stages of Antedon and of all its supposed 

 ancestors, ivith figures of every one of tJieni, that we may all more clearly 



