HEREDITY AND VARIATION 211 



that " too much has been made of the curious 

 observations of J. Loeb and others," and goes 

 on to state that when we consider "the pro- 

 pagation of the animal races by the sexual 

 process . . . there can be no fear of contradic- 

 tion in the statement that in the whole range 

 of physical and chemical phenomena there is 

 no ground for even a suggestion of an explana- 

 tion." Coming from so weighty an authority 

 these words must be taken as final so far as 

 our present knowledge goes. But the matter 

 must be further considered, and I venture here 

 to repeat what I have written upon it else- 

 where, as I have seen no reason to change my 

 opinion since the article in question appeared. 

 Referring to Loeb and his views I have said : 

 " We find the task of unravelling the writer's 

 meaning rendered more difficult by a certain 

 confusion in his use of terms, since fertilisation, 

 i.e., syngamy the union of the different sex 

 products seems to be confused with segmenta- 

 tion, i.e., germination; and this confusion is 

 accentuated by the claim that ' the main effect 

 of the spermatozoon in inducing the develop- 

 ment of the egg consists in an alteration in the 

 surface of the latter which is apparently of the 

 nature of a cytolysis of the cortical layer. Any- 

 thing that causes this alteration without en- 

 dangering the rest of the egg may induce its 



