235 



The zoologist in general, having as little belief in the occur- 

 rence of spore-formation in animals as in an antithetic alternation of 

 generations, and being limited by a blind acceptance of recapitulation 

 with "direct development" or by a simple negation of any such 

 theory, is hardly to be expected to admit that the botanists may have 

 obtained a deeper insight into the phenomena of plant - development 

 than he believes himself to have of those of animal-reproduction. 



Haecker speaks in his behalf with no uncertain note. An expla- 

 nation which does not fit in with the zoological facts is to Haecker's 

 mind possibly dependent on a "misinterpretation of the results obtained 

 by the botanists", and he seems to think it more fitting that these 

 investigators should set their house in order in the light of the newer 

 zoological facts. Apparently it does not occur to him that the 

 something lacking to complete agreement might lie at the door of 

 the zoologist himself. 



The fundamental laws and principles of animal reproduction are 

 practically assumed to be less open to emendation and repeal than 

 those of plant-development. But is this really the case? What we 

 are taught when we begin our zoological studies, provided it be con- 

 tained in the text-books as well as in the professor's lectures, becomes 

 almost of the nature of a superstition, and the essence of such is, as 

 Huxley has, I think , remarked , that it is accepted on faith without 

 evidence. 



In zoological research there is also a fatal tendency to look upon 

 all previous results, in so far as they are of general import and not 

 directly treating of the particular form under examination, as though 

 based on revelation and not to be impugned. Thus the facts and 

 factors pointing to heterodox conclusions are liable to be ignored, 

 and the total of new knowledge gleaned falls readily into line with 

 previous beliefs. 



So opposed to tradition does a new view seem that, when the 

 deciding fact in its favour is finally discovered, the whole thing is 

 looked upon as little short of a miracle. There are plenty of appa- 

 rently meaningless facts in the possession of zoological science; but 

 the most insignificant fact has some meaning, and it may often happen 

 that the explanation of it is not to be directly got at. Many ways 

 lead to Rome, some directly, others by circuitous paths. 



When some seven years ago I began to follow the history of a 

 tew insignificant ganglion-cells in Lepidosteus and other oviparous 

 Ichthyopsida it never seemed in the least likely that the end of the 

 chapter would be found in the processes which occur during oogenesis 



