94. CRITICISMS ON “ THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES ” 
may not be the expression of the common condi- 
tions to which that particular patch of nebulous 
fog, which may have been constituted by their 
atoms, and of which they may be, in the strictest — 
sense, the descendants, was subjected ? : 
It will be obvious from what has preceded, th J 
we do not agree with Professor Kolliker in think- 
ing the objections which he brings forward s¢ 
weighty as to be fatal to Darwin’s view. But eve 
if the case were otherwise, we should be unable 
accept the “ Theory of Heterogeneous Generation 
which is offered as a substitute. That theory i 
thus stated :— ; 
*‘The fundamental conception of this hypothesis is, that, — 
under the influence of a general law of development, the gérms — 
of organisms produce others different from themselves, 
This might happen (1) by the fecundated ova passing, in the 
course of their development, under particular circumstances, into — 
-higher forms ; (2) by the primitive and later organisms produe- _ 
ing other organisms without fecundation, out of germs or eggs 
(Parthenogenesis).” 
In favour of this hypothesis, Professor Kélliker 
adduces the well-known facts of Agamogenesis, or 
“alternate generation” ; the extreme dissimilarity 
of the males and females of many animals; and of — 
the males, females, and neuters of those insects 
which live in colonies: and. he defines its relations - 
to the Darwinian theory as follows -—: | 
Te Ea are TP aC rere 
7). ya) DAA enle toad, 
‘*Tt is obvious that my hypothesis is apparently very similar 
to Darwin’s, inasmuch as I also consider that the various forms — 
of animals have proceeded directly from one another. My — 
hypothesis of the creation of organisms by heterogeneous genera- — 
