Various Opinions on Heredity. 103 



It will be found, on examination, that there is much 

 to be said in support of this view, although I believe 

 that there is a much simpler explanation of the facts 

 which seem to favor it. 



The only reason given by Huxley, in the article above 

 quoted, is the homology between the ovum and the 

 spermatozon; the fact that in all the higher animals 

 and plants the germ is formed by the union of one nu- 

 cleated cell, the ovum, with another more or less modi- 

 fied nucleated cell, the male cell, and that the structural 

 components of the body of the embryo are all derived, 

 by a process of division, from the coalesced male and fe- 

 male germs. 



In answer to this we may point out that while the 

 hypothesis requires that a wasp born from a fertilized 

 egg should differ essentially from one born from a parth- 

 enogenetic egg, the one being a dual person and the 

 other a unit, we do not find any obvious difference cor- 

 responding to the supposed molecular difference. We 

 should not expect a wasp with a dual personality to be, 

 to all appearances, exactly like one with a single person- 

 ality. 



A fatal objection to Huxley's argument, above given, 

 is that, at bottom, it is simply an assumption that the 

 homology or morphological equivalence of the ovum and 

 male cell proves their functional equivalence. The 

 fallacy of this assumption hardly needs notice, since it 

 is well known that homology is no evidence whatever of 

 functional resemblance. The quill feathers which fit a 

 bird's wing for flight are homologous with the scales 

 which cover and protect the arms and fingers of a croco- 

 dile, but we could hardly name two structures which 

 serve more different purposes. The homology between 

 them simply indicates that, at some time in their his- 



