io NOTES AND COMMENTS [january 



it. The first part of the address is entitled " A Half-Century of Evolu- 

 tion." He says that " a reasonable and generally accepted solution 

 has been reached " of the problem " How did living beings originate ? " 

 " the evolution doctrine is based on the inductive method," though 

 " biology is not an exact science " ; " every department of intellectual 

 work and thought has been rejuvenated and rehabilitated by the em- 

 ployment of the modern scientific method," and so on. Yet after this 

 optimism, as it seems to us, he goes on to give a luminous sketch of 

 the present conflict of opinions in regard to the very fundamentals of 

 evolution doctrine, and he sums up : " With all these theories before us, 

 these currents and counter-criticisms in evolutional thought bearing us 

 rapidly along, at times perhaps carrying us somewhat out of our depth, 

 the conclusion of the whole matter is that in the present state of 

 zoology it will be wise to suspend our judgment on many theoretical 

 matters, to wait for more light and to confine our attention meanwhile 

 to the observation and registration of facts, to careful experiments, and 

 to repeated tests of mere theoretical assumptions." This may be very 

 sound advice, but it is rather a cold douche after the warmth of con- 

 gratulation in which the author elsewhere indulges. 



Prof. Packard seems to us to make a mistake in his historical 

 summary, when he says " a third school or sect has arisen under the 

 leadership of Weismann, who advocates what is in its essence ap- 

 parently a revival of the exploded preformation, encasement, or ' evolu- 

 tion ' theory of Swammerdam, Bonnet, and Haller, as opposed to the 

 epigenetic evolutionism of Harvey, Wolff, Baer, and the majority of 

 modern embryologists." Our reading of the history would lead us 

 rather to say that Weismann differs as thoroughly from Bonnet as 

 Hertwig from Harvey. The modern epigenesis differs toto coclo from 

 that of the ancients. Are Prof. Whitman's essays not read in 

 America ? 



Is Telegony a Mare's Nest? 



For some years Professor Cossar Ewart has been making experiments 

 which bear upon the vexed question of telegony, or the supposed 

 influence of a previous impregnation upon subsequent offspring. As 

 may be remembered, he started with the colt Romulus, the offspring of 

 a Bum pony mare (Mulatto) by a Burchell zebra stallion (Matopo). 

 Romulus has markings quite different from those of his sire, and rather 

 resembling the Somaliland zebra. In 1897, Mulatto had a grey colt 

 foal to a grey Arab stallion, and this foal showed at first some subtle 

 markings slightly suggestive of zebra-influence. More careful exam- 

 ination of the skin after death showed that the hints of stripes were 

 merely due to dispositions of the hair. In short, the experiment 

 furnished no evidence in support of the hypothesis of telegony. In 

 another case, a skewbald pony mare had, by the zebra, a hybrid which 

 was fairly well marked, and by a bay Shetland pony a second foal 



