REPRODUCTION. 249 



account of their minuteness, we cannot speak of a selection and a 

 *• struggle." Furthermore, crossing would con timiallj tend to re- 

 move the incipient variation. 



4. Nutritive influences do not produce hereditary changes. 



5. x\ccording to Darwin's theory of selection, the more useful 

 a property of an organism is the more constant it must show itself 

 in the process of selection ; structures winch do not prove advan- 

 tageous must be variable. It has been observed, however, that in 

 the plant kingdom the laws of cell-division and other morphological 

 characters are the ones which prove to be exceedingly constant ; 

 these certainly have nothing to do with selection. Here ISTageli 

 also includes phyllotaxy (to be discussed later). 



Space will not permit us to enter into a fuller discussion of 

 Darwin's theory and Niigeli's objections thereto. 



Although N^iigeli calls his theory the '" theory of direct cause," it 

 does not assist in elucidating matters when he assumes that it is 

 the iiriknown structure and inechanism of the idioplasm which causes 

 the evolution of the organic world. With sncli total obscurity in 

 regard to our knowledge of idioplasmic mechanism we certainly 

 cannot rationally speak of a "direct cause." Therefore we cannot 

 recognize a theory of direct cause for the existence of and descent of 

 plants in the sense that this existence is a natural result, and not a 

 special creation. The micellar constitution of idioplasm, which gives 

 rise to the processes of life, must be designated as a special gift of the 

 Creator. Niigeli admits that the primordial plasm is converted into 

 idioplasm by the given (inherent) molecular forces. As Niigeli 

 states that there are causes inherent " by nature" in the idioplasm, 

 so we likewise, from the idealistic point of view, state that this or 

 that happens according to nature. We, however, wish to imply 

 that the natural laws as well as matter itself are derived from 

 God, and therefore we speak of the existence of a special creation, 

 and not of a natural necessity, which controls all. We will even go 

 so far in the use of language, in so far as we are dealing only with 

 the natural laws of creation, that we will not speak of '' miracle," 

 although we believe in the miraculous creation and preservation of 

 the universe by the Creator. We leave the pale of science only 

 when the sum-total of scientific investigations fails us. 



Although Nageli has clearly shown the fallacies of Darwin's 

 theory, he has allowed himself to fall into gross errors in regard to 

 his own theory (for example, in regard to the influence of external 



