22 S BIOLOGICAL LECTURES. 



fully noted, as I suspect that some writers have taken his words 

 in a sense that somewhat betters the instruction. 



After pointing out that the hypothesis of emboitement is to 

 be carefully distinguished from the hypothesis of evolution of 

 a germ containing in miniature all the organs of the adult, 

 Huxley makes the following statements : " While holding 

 firmly by the former, Bonnet more or less modified the latter 

 in his later writings, and, at length he admits that a 'germ ' 

 need not be an actual miniature of the organism ; but that it may 

 be merely an ( original preformation ' capable of producing the 

 latter. 



" But, thus defined, the germ is neither more nor less than 

 the ' particula genitalis ' of Aristotle, or the * primordium vege- 

 tale ' or ' ovum ' of Harvey ; and the * evolution ' of such a 

 germ would not be distinguishable from ' epigenesis.' " 1 



Observe that Huxley does not here authorize the opinion 

 that evolutionists are reviving the objectionable features 

 of Bonnet's system. There is no suggestion of a retrograde 

 movement on the part of embryologists. Indeed, it is very 

 clear that Huxley saw in modern embryology the verification 

 of the main contention of epigenesis, and the repudiation of 

 both of Bonnet's hypotheses. But while claiming for epigen- 

 esis a complete victory over the doctrine of evolution as 

 understood in the eighteenth century, Huxley takes care not 

 to sanction the idea that epigenesis contains the whole truth. 

 In fact, he makes a suggestion that, to my mind, outshines 

 "the divination of genius" ascribed to Harvey. The words 

 already "proved a prophecy" are the following : 



" It is not impossible tJiat, when the analysis of tJie process of 

 development is carried still further, and the origin of the molec- 

 ular components of the physically gross, though sensibly minute, 

 bodies which we term germs is traced, the theory of development 

 will approach more nearly to metamorphosis than to epigenesis!' 

 (Ibid., p. 283.) 



The movement here anticipated is not in the direction of 

 the old evolution, but towards a view which represents the 

 residual truth of both "epigenesis" and "metamorphosis." 



1 Article Evolution, Encycl. Brit., p. 745 ; Darwiniana Essays, 1893, p. 193. 



