MONISTIC EVOLUTION 135 



necessity of manufacturing facts does not speak well 

 for the testimony of geology to the supposed phy- 

 logeny of man. In point of fact, it cannot be disguised 

 that, though it is possible to pick out some series of 

 animal forms, like the horses already referred to, 

 which simulate a genetic order, the general testimony 

 of palaeontology is on the whole adverse to the 

 ordinary theories of evolution, whether applied to the 

 vegetable or to the animal kingdom. 1 



Thus the utmost value which can be attached to 

 Haeckel s argument from analogy would be that it 

 suggests a possibility that the processes which we see 

 carried on in the evolution of the individual may, in 

 the laws which regulate them, be connected in some 

 way more or less close with those creative processes 

 which on the wider field of geological time have been 

 concerned in the production of the multitudinous 

 forms of animal life. That Haeckel s philosophy goes 

 but a very little way toward any understanding of 

 such relations, and that our present information, even 

 within the more limited scope of biological science, is 

 too meagre to permit of safe generalisation, will 

 appear from the consideration of a few facts taken 

 here and there from the multitude employed in these 

 volumes to illustrate the monistic theory. 



When we are told that a monad or an embryo- 



1 Those who wish to understand the real bearings of paleontology 

 on evolution should study Barraude s Memoirs on the Silurian Trilo- 

 bites, Cephalopoda, and Brachiopods, 



