170 SYMBIOSIS 



If Dr. Larger had not contemptuously brushed aside autonomy 

 and regeneration and instead made a kind of entity of " Contre- 

 E volution," he might have seen that there is no inherent 

 necessity of degeneration or of loss of plasticity, be the organism 

 never so high in the scale of evolution. Instead of which we get 

 the ludicrous statement on p. 26 with regard to man, that 



De meme que tous les animaux superieurs, il a perdu toute plasticite 

 et ne peut plus des lors que degenerer et disparaitre. 



and, further, p. 27 that : 



Plus I'animal est eleve dans la hierarchic zoologique, moins il est plastique 

 et plus les regressions deviennent degeneratives. 



The author's reasoning with regard to degeneration seems to 

 be this : these things are, therefore they must be. But, as there 

 is no inherent necessity for a highly evolved animal to be divorced 

 from Symbiosis, so there is no reason why it should lose the 

 plasticity requisite for further progress. Inasmuch as man 

 remains a symbiotic cross-feeder, he has infinite chances of 

 survival. 



It seems never to have occurred to Dr. Larger that plasticity 

 and progress on the one hand, and stagnancy and pathology on 

 the other, are dependent upon sociological factors. Although 

 he is not an adherent of Natural Selection, his own theory has 

 this in common with it, that it tends by a facile generalisation to 

 force sociological factors into the background until they are nearly 

 lost to vision, with results altogether deplorable. 



I agree with the author when he states that there is 



Degenerescence, c'est-a-dire, maladie, des Tinstant ou la defense de 

 1'organisme se trouve affaiblie par une cause quelconque. 



He is getting, however, somewhat mixed when he continues : 



Peu lui (to the Pathologist) importe qu'il y ait perte ou gain des parties,, 

 c'est-a-dire, regression ou progression. 



If the defence of the organism is enfeebled, there is sure to 

 arise a loss, and such loss is serious. More especially must this 

 follow where there is an abiding cause, such as in-feeding, behind 

 the enfeeblement. On no account must we allow ourselves to 

 be deceived into conceiving of dubious pathological additions 

 transformations conforming to the existing pitch of diathesis^ 

 as progressive features. I read Dr. Larger 's statement, therefore,, 

 as a counsel of despair, his diagnosis being still too incomplete 

 to distinguish in many cases between " regression " and " pro- 

 gression," between pathological and physiological additions.. 



