528 CHARLES W. HARGITT 
or respect. That ‘‘the adherence of the sexual gonophore to the 
hydroid colony has made a more rapid ripening of the germ-cells 
possible,” or that ‘‘nature has taken advantage of this possibility 
in all cases,”’ as claimed by Weismann, is but another example of 
subservience to theory; for I cannot believe he can be ignorant of 
the general fact that there is not the slightest evidence that in 
hydroids with fixed gonophores the germ-cells ripen more rapidly 
or more frequently. 
It is in vain to attempt to bolster up these speculations by 
cleverly designed diagrams; for such devices are too often mere 
products of a vivid imagination. Furthermore, it is difficult to 
account for the dogmatic persistence with which this writer seeks 
to sustain the view that the germ-cells originate exclusively in 
the ectoderm. In the earlier work, which makes up his splendid 
monograph already referred to, he has admitted again and again 
the probable origin of the cells in the entoderm (pp. 215-217). 
But in his ‘Evolution theory’ (p. 415), it is asserted, “in no 
single case is the birthplace of the germ-cells to be found in the 
entoderm, but always in the ectoderm, no matter how far back 
it may have been shunted.’”’ And in citing cases in support of 
the point he refers to Hydractinia and Podocoryne, both of which 
are known to prove the exact opposite, as shown by Bunting (’94) 
and Smallwood C 09), as well as by the writer in numerous similar 
cases. 
The alee critique by Lloyd Morgan (’91) is ene 
in this connection: 
This germ-plasm residesinthenucleusof the cell; andit wouldseem that 
by a little skillful manipulation it can be made to account for anything 
that has ever been observed or is likely to be observed. It is one of 
those convenient invisibles that will do anything you desire. The re- 
growth of a limb shows that the cells contained some of the original 
germ-plasm. A little sampled fragment of Hydra has it in abundance. 
It lurks in the body-wall of the building polyp. It is ever ready at call 
: Now, although I value highly Professor Weismann’s 
luminous researches, and read with interest his ingenious speculations, 
I cannot but regard his doctrine of the germ-plasm as a distinctly retro- 
grade step. His germ-plasm is an unknowable, invisible, hypotheti- 
cal entity. Material though it be, it is of no more practical value 
than a mythical germinal principle. By a little skillful manipulation, 
