168 SYMBIOSIS 



a larger class of Biologists, in which Dr. Larger still takes his place, 

 namely that of the " Biologistes naifs " those who are 

 commonly perplexed by the phenomena of disease and of 

 degeneration because they fail to appreciate the fundamental 

 cause of the evil, namely, non-compliance with bio-moral 

 sanctions. 



If Dr. Larger 's " Paleo-Pathologie " is to supersede the 

 spurious science of the " biologist es normaux," it must bring 

 out what it now slurs over, the fundamental difference between 

 Pathology and Physiology, and this regardless of all existing 

 bias and though it involve, as it quite indispensably does, 

 incursions into Bio-Economics and Bio-Sociology. The example 

 of the " Biologistes normaux " should be as a warning that the 

 complete and not the aborted view must prevail. 



Scores of investigators before Dr. Larger have shown that 

 hereditary and other diseases have in the geological past played 

 a large part in undermining species and even genera. 



Evidently the identical organismal failings and indulgences 

 have prevailed at all periods. Such blemishes, whilst appertaining 

 to the pathological, also appertain to the sociological order. 

 They are, in fact, pathological largely because they are anti- 

 social in character. Weakness has often been pleaded in depravity ; 

 but depravity, it must be owned, is also the most frequent source 

 of weakness. As regards the antiquity of disease, Dr. Larger 

 is not inclined to dwell too much on it, feeling that on so vast a 

 subject as that of Palaeo-Pathology he can only give a few general 

 indications : 



Trop heureux si ces quelques donnees peuvent servir, a de plus jeunes 

 que moi, de point de depart pour d'autres recherches analogues aux 

 miennes. 



That Dr. Larger's chief weakness is on the sociological side 

 becomes apparent from his definitions. No sooner has he 

 emphasised the frequency of pathological processes as affecting 

 not only individuals but also whole species, genera and orders, 

 than he goes off at a tangent, telling us that " la Degenerescence 

 apparait moins comme une maladie autonome proprement dite, 

 que comme un processus contraire a 1'E volution." 



When is a malady not a malady ? When we fail to understand 

 its cause. It seems a pity that Dr. Larger has chosen so grandi- 

 loquent a title as " Contre-E volution/' for it is calculated to divert 

 the attention from those matters which would naturally interest 



