is also subjected to the same normalities (regulations, restrictions, laws, 

 nobis) as the preceding ones. 



Accepting the "triad of Pavlovsky" with the above-mentioned 

 reservations basically as a method of analysis of the process of the 

 formation of the biocoenotic pair "host-parasite" we must also not forget 

 the circumstance that in the process which interests us a huge role is 

 played by factors which predispose a specific organism (parasite, nobis) 

 toward the process of becoming established in the host organism and 

 which are interrelated and in certain measure interconditioned. 



Passing to further evaluation of the consideration of E. N, 

 Pavlovsky we must say that his conclusions about the role of chance seems 

 to us based on insufficient analysis of the historical moraents of the origin 

 of the biocoenotic pair , host-parasite, and hence incorrect. Actually, p. 288 



_ 



It seems to us that the incorrectly understood correlation of the chance 

 and normality (lawful measure, regulation, principle of B. B. , nobis) in 

 the given question led to completely unexpected results. Many practical 

 workers of the Health Department began to accuse E. N. Pavlovsky for 

 his noteworthy generalization about natural transmission of sicknesses in 

 the breeding grounds saying that it disorients them, not allowing them to 

 predetermine (or anticipate, nobis) what nneasures they should undertake 

 in the exploitation of new regions, for "by chance" unexpected diseases can 

 occur in the latter. But this is completely incorrect! It is precisely the 

 correctly understood teaching of E. N. Pavlovsky which will allow us to 

 regularly foretell the possibility of a specific disease in a specific region 

 after the establishment of common norms of distribution in the natural 

 breeding ground, because as we attempted to show above, the fortuitous 

 in the given case are not "the predisposing" factors but only the "determining. " 



if one is to evaluate the results of the experiments of E. N. Pavlovsky and 

 E. G. Gnezdilov on infection of the secondary intermediary hosts by broad 

 tapeworm pleurocercoids not peculiar to them E. N. Pavlovsky is fully 

 correct when he speaks about "predisposition of these toward infection 

 by parasites with which they hardly had any encounters in the process of 

 its phylogenesis, " We believe, however, that here takes place not chance 

 but a fully natural or normal phenomenon- -the manifestation of the 

 peculiarities of the diapason of adaptations of pleurocercoids. Plainly 

 speaking, this is the manifestation of the nature of the "demands" of the parasite 

 toward the conditions of the medium conditioned by their historical trans- 

 formation (or translating into the language of the preceding considerations -- 

 the manifestation of specificity). The chance in a given example is expressed 

 only in the fact of encounter of the new pair, host-parasite, (for instance 

 pleurocercoid--lizard or gecko) and not in the presence of "chance" 



331 



