Mav, 1893) Lie hECAPILULATION 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. A// who have 
accepted this, have adopted it as acveed. 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 asa 
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 NaruraL ScIENCE with a very much 
fuller account, both of all the stages of Antedon and of all its supposed 
ancestors, with figures of every one of them, that we may all more clearly 
