136 Daiuuin, and after Darwin. 



in all or not at all. Unless Weismannism be rec^arded 

 as this doctrine of absolutism it permits no basis for 

 his attempted theory of evolution. 



And, whatever may be said to the contrai)' by the 

 more enthusi.istic followers of Prof. Weismann. I must 

 insist that there is the widest possible difference 

 between the truly scientific question of fact which is 

 assumed by Weismann as answered (the base-line of 

 the diagram on p. 43). and the elaborate structure 

 of deductive reasoning which he has reared on this 

 assumption (the Y-like structure). Even if the 

 assumption should ever admit of inductive proof, the 

 almost bewildering edifice of deductive reasoning 

 which he has built upon it would still appear to me to 

 present extremely little value of a scientific kind. In- 

 teresting though it may be as a monument of ingenious 

 speculation hitherto unique in the history of science, 

 the mere flimsiness of its material must always pre- 

 vent its far-reaching conclusions from being worthy 

 of serious attention from a biological point of view. 

 But having already attempted to show fully in my 

 Examination this great distinction between the 

 scientific imjiortance of the question which lies at the 

 base of " Weismannism." and that of the system which 

 he has constructed on his assumed answer thereto. 

 I need not now say anything further with regard to it. 



Again, on the present occasion and in this connexion 

 I should like to dissipate a misunderstanding into 

 which some of the reviewers of the work just men- 

 tioned have fallen. They appear to have concluded 

 that because I have criticized unfavourably a con- 

 siderable number of Weismann's theories, 1 have 

 shown myself hostile to his entire syslem. Such, 



