ON THE STATISTICAL VIEW OF NATURE. 611 



sary to define somewhat more clearly what those units 

 or gemmules are. This has accordingly been attempted 

 in several other hypotheses put forward about the 

 same time or somewhat later ; each thinker having 

 elaborated, when so inclined, his own fanciful picture, 

 following consciously or unconsciously in the line of 

 Spencer's physiological units. We have in Germany 

 Nageli's micellar theory, Haeckel's kinetic hypothesis, 

 Prof.'Weismann's idioplasma theory, and Prof. Pfliiger's 

 theory of the compound organic molecule. All these 

 theories attempt to bring biological phenomena into 

 closer connection with the firmly established concep- 

 tions current in physics and chemistry, where atomism 

 and kinetics have been so successfully used in analysing 

 and, to a smaller extent, in putting together the com- 

 plex processes of nature. Of this I treated in former 39. 



Lends itself 



chapters. But the hypothesis of Darwin is capable of to statistical 



treatment. 



another treatment. Wherever we have to deal with a 

 large, an immense number of single elements or units, 

 which in their totality form certain phenomena, there 



for the general facts of physical 

 and mental heredity. Not to 

 mince matters, it was his one 

 conspicuous failure, and is now 

 pretty universally admitted as 

 such. Let not the love of the 

 biographer deceive us ; Darwin 

 was here attempting a task ultra 

 vires. As already observed, his 

 mind, vast as it was, leaned rather 

 to the concrete than to the 

 abstract side : he lacked the 

 distinctively metaphysical and 

 speculative twist. Strange to say, 

 too, his abortive theory appenred 

 some years later than Herbert 

 Spencer's magnificent all-sided con- 

 ception of 'Physiological Units,' 



put forth expressly to meet the 

 self -same difficulty. But while 

 Darwin's hypothesis is rudely 

 materialistic, Herbert Spencer's 

 is built up by an acute and 

 subtle analytical perception of all 

 the analogous facts in universal 

 nature. It is a singular instance 

 of a crude and essentially un- 

 philosophic conception endeavour- 

 ing to replace a finished and 

 delicate philosophical idea " (loc. 

 cit., p. 126). See also many 

 references to the unfavourable 

 criticisms of Paugeuesis in the 

 third volume of the 'Life of 

 Charles Darwin.' 



