368 NATURAL SCIENCE. May, 
mentions them. (P. 196.) It begins with the words ‘“ Another kind 
of variation is illustrated .... ” By reading to the bottom of the 
same page it may be seen how I “ made capital out of them.” 
(14.) ‘* Another mistake’ of mine (as Mr. Bather calls it) is like 
my ‘“‘main fallacy”! Not only did I mot refuse to admit more than 
one kind of variation, I actually insisted on the necessity of recog- 
nising at least two kinds. (P. 196.) I am fully aware that each 
‘kind ”’ includes many varieties. 
(14.) The remainder of this paragraph is unintelligible to me. 
“The very same ‘change in the constitution of successive generations of a 
species leading to the production of a new species’ does take place in the 
life-history of a single generation.” And again :—‘ All these well-known 
instances of variation (and I use the term precisely in Mr. Hurst’s 
own sense) ‘occur in a way utterly unlike the way in which it does 
actually occur,’ 7.¢., within Mr. Hurst’s horizon.” What can this 
mean ? 
(15.) By making myself acquainted with certain brilliant re- 
searches ‘‘inspired by the Recapitulation Theory” to which Mr. 
Bather directs my attention, I have no doubt whatever that I may 
learn much. ‘That the brilliant researches should have been inspired 
by that theory will certainly xot make me reconsider my condemnation. 
The whole science of chemistry has arisen out of brilliant researches 
inspired by the theory of the transmutability of the baser metals 
into gold. Shall we therefore accept that theory? Mr. Bather is 
hopelessly at fault in his assumption that my attack on the theory is 
due to my ignorance of the many brilliant discoveries which have 
been made under its inspiration. 
The ‘‘ amended” statement of the method of variation given on 
p. 277 errs in the precise way in which Mr. Bather says that my 
paper did. It refuses to admit more than one kind of variation! 
Moreover, it speaks of events being ‘‘ pushed back” in time by other 
events which have not yet happened. This is, no doubt, figurative, 
but whether any such erroneous conception exists in Mr. Bather’s. 
mind or not, the acceptance of the statement in that form by recapitu- 
lationists would certainly produce in the minds of the ‘‘profanum 
vulgus’”’ an impression that this was a case in which the effect is pro- 
duced before the cause has arisen. 
To prevent any further misrepresentation as to what I have 
denied and what I have not denied, I wiil conclude with a summary 
statement of my position :— 
I do not deny that a vough parallelism exists in some cases between ontogeny 
and phylogeny. I do deny that the phylogeny can so control the ontogeny as 
to make the latter into a record of the formey—even into an imperfect record 
of it. 
I assert that those very characters of the adult which vary most 
in the adult are precisely the same as those which vary most in the 
late stages of development also. 
