XXviii PKEFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. 



I cannot, however, refrain from defending my stand- 

 point against those naturalists, who, taking their position 

 indeed on the Theory of Descent and on Darwinism, yet 

 combat my individual conception of this, and, especially, 

 regard my application of the theory to Anthropogeny as 

 erroneous. Many of these naturalists, who were formerly 

 determined opponents of the Theory of Descent, have 

 recently passed over to Darwin's camp, merely in order 

 not to stand entirely inactive at the barren standpoint 

 offered by negation. Against two of these false Darwinists, 

 Wilhelm His and Alexander Goette, I have defended 

 myself in a special work on " The Aims and Methods of the 

 Modern History of Evolution" (" Ziele und Wege der Heuti- 

 gen Entwickelungsgeschichte." Jena, 1875). To that work 

 I now refer. On the other hand, I have been forcibly 

 attacked by naturalists who are really esteemed as well- 

 known and convinced adherents of the Theory of Evolu- 

 tion. Of these, Karl Vogt and Albert Kolliker require a few 

 words of answer. 



Vogt, whose many services in furthering Zoology I have 

 always most readily acknowledged, ranked second to Huxley 

 among those naturalists who, but a few years after the 

 appearance of Darwin's " Origin of Species," attempted to 

 apply the theory contained in that work to Man and 

 represented this as necessary. He afterwards, however, 

 made no further progress in the same direction. While, as 

 I am convinced, the mass of facts already accumulated in 

 Comparative Anatomy, Ontogeny, Paleontology, and Sys- 

 tematic Zoology, is amply sufficient to afford the most 

 general points on which to base the hypothetic human 

 pedigree, Karl Vogt now holds opposed views, and entirely 



