156 THE PROBLEM OF EVOLUTION 



ism. These remarks will perhaps suffice to 

 prove that von Hansemann's views on inex- 

 pediency in human pathology are, to say the 

 least, very one-sided. 



Let us now return to the speaker who alluded to 

 my opinions on comparative Psychology. He said : 

 * On this subject, though it is less evident in his 

 lectures than in his writings, Wasmann quits the 

 firm ground of assured scientific facts, and passes 

 over to definitions, but he formulates these de- 

 finitions in such a way, that no other conclusion is 

 possible, than that the things in question are peculiar 

 to man, and are not possessed by beasts. This is 

 how he proceeds in dealing with reason as opposed 

 to instinct. He might just as well prove that man 

 alone has a brain, and beasts have none ; for, if he 

 defines the brain as the nervous organic centre, 

 not only man, but many beasts have brains ; but 

 if he says the brain is an organic centre, con- 

 tained in a skull, having definite functions, and 

 weighing so much, then man alone has a brain and 

 beasts have none. This is how he manipulates his 

 evidence to shoiv that only man has reason, and 

 beasts merely instinct.' 



I have printed the last sentence in italics in 

 order to draw more attention to it. Pro- 

 fessor von Hansemann seems not to have read 

 my writings to which he refers ; he is pro- 



