" CONTRE-EVOLUT10N " 171 



He is merely able to certify some rather acute cases of " regression " 

 with the aid of his anatomical stigmata. For these criteria we 

 owe him thanks ; but I think one must still apply to him the same 

 criticism which he applies to Cope, who, according to him : 



en dpit de son grand m6rite par ailleurs, n'a fait que cr6er une con- 

 fusion facheuse en detournant completement le terme de Degenerescence 

 de son sens exclusivement pathologique qui est le vrai (ce qu'il avait 

 le droit d'ignorer. Cope, en effet, n'etait pas medecin) pour ne lui 

 donner, au contraire, qu'un sens exclusivement evolutif auquel ce meme 

 terme ne saurait pretendre, la Degenerescence etant, par sa nature, destruc- 

 tive de toute evolution normale. 



This is well said ; but has not Dr. Larger fallen a victim to 

 the same temptation ? Is he not giving to a merely " destructive " 

 and chaotic agency a sense still too " evolutif," and does not this 

 involve him in difficulties similar to those of the " Biologistes 

 normaux " ? Let us see. 



On p. 33 we find him grappling with the perennial problem 

 of Parasitism, and this is what he says : 



Ces regressions, en effet, si graves soient-elles au point de vue morpho- 

 logique, ne pr6sentent aucun des caracteres de la veritable D6g6nerescence. 

 Le plus essentiel de tous leur fait defaut, celui qui, nous venons dele voir, est 

 compiis dans la definition meme de la Degenerescence, a savoir : la sterilite" 

 et 1'extinction de la descendance. Loin d'etre frappes de sterilit6, ces 

 animaux parasites sont, au contraire, d'une fecondite incomparable . . . 

 Les regressions, purement morphologiques, des parasites, se r6duisent 

 done a de simples phenomenes d 'adaptation. C'est, si Ton veut, de la 

 Degradation, mais non pas de la Degen6rescence ! C'en est meme tout 

 juste le contraire, parce que, loin de diminuer les moyens de defense de 

 l'organisme, ces regressions les augmentent. Car 1'atrophie par non usage 

 des parties, constituc une adaptation parfaite a la vie parasitaire ou de 

 fixation. C'est ce que le botaniste Korschinsky a tres justement appe!6 : 

 1'adaptation regressive, ainsi que nous 1'avons dit. 



Here then we have a medical man who cannot distinguish 

 between morbid and wholesome reproduction, who sees in excessive 

 multiplication a proof of normality, who, with the " Biologistes 

 normaux," classes parasites amongst the most genuinely successful 

 organisms. Morphologically, as he admits, the case of parasites 

 is serious ; sociologically, as he omits, their case is even worse. 

 Yet, we are asked to consider such degradation as the very 

 opposite of " Degenerescence." What monstrous aberration of 

 the human mind ! Parasitism, as the author admits, frequently 

 gives rise to Paedogenesis, i.e., precocious reproduction, but we 

 are asked not to regard this as pathological or as counteracting 



