AS THE BIOLOGIST SEES IT 



not mean that there is no difference 

 between the brain of man, on which seems 

 to depend a part at least of his soul, 

 and the cephalic ganglion of the ant. 

 But may not this difference be one of 

 mass and histologic differentiation and 

 organizations, rather than of fundamen 

 tal kind or quality, that is, may it 

 not be quantitative rather than qualita 

 tive? For all practical purposes, as I 

 said in the first paragraphs of my first 

 paper, this difference may be such as to 

 make two very different sorts of crea 

 tures out of men and ants but is one to be 

 assumed to be fundamentally foreign to 

 the other? So fundamentally foreign that 

 one means soul and immortality and the 

 other only carnality and clay? Perhaps 

 it is: I do not know. 



Much that means soul and human 

 attributes assumed to be peculiarly and 

 fundamentally derived from some source 

 other than one common to other forms of 

 life, has been plausibly shown by biol 

 ogists and sociologists to be a highly 

 123 



