422 M. W. Veltmann on the Descendence- Theory. 



Carnot's principle, which lies at the foundation of this theory. 

 According to this, heat cannot be converted into mechanical 

 work without at the same time heat passing somewhere from 

 a warmer to a colder body. But such a transfer has in this 

 case nowhere taken place. We miglit, indeed, say that the 

 heat of the sun has passed in the form of light from the hotter 

 sun into the colder plant. But the quantity in question can 

 be only a very small fraction of the heat which has become 

 latent in the hydrates of carbon ; at any rate, it is much less 

 than that converted into work during combustion. The 

 amount of heat represented by the absorbed light is therefore 

 included in that converted into work, and therefore has not, 

 as Carnot's principle requires, been ^j>erwa?ien<Zy transferred to 

 a colder body. 



No one has yet succeeded in devising any process in inor- 

 ganic nature in which Carnot's principle does not apply, 

 although many physicists and technicists {e.g. Hirn) have 

 tested their acumen upon this point. If, now, we detect such 

 processes in organic nature, this indicates that special forces 

 are active in tlie latter. In fact, the above departure from 

 Carnot's principle may be simply explained by the assump- 

 tion that in the plant a force is at work capable of ruling in a 

 definite manner the irregularly interwhirling heat-movements. 

 In order that we may not thus come into contradiction with 

 the principles of the vital forces, we must assume that this 

 force always forms a right angle with the path of an atom 

 upon which it acts, and therefore, in the mechanical sense, 

 performs no work. 



The Darwinists often claim for themselves the privilege of 

 being the only " thinking " naturalists. In order to attribute 

 this superiority to themselves with greater justice, one might 

 advise them to make themselves a little better acquainted 

 with the doctrines of mathematics. From the upholders of 

 the exclusively mechanical conception of nature we must 

 necessarily require that they should be thoroughly versed in 

 mathematics and mechanics. Natural history and mathema- 

 tics are, indeed, two departments which lie rather far apart ; 

 but just as the union of the dissimilar has led to many new 

 results in cattle-breeding and horticulture, it may also be pos- 

 sible that a hybridization of the sciences might lead to new 

 and peculiar results. It is true that the union must be such 

 that bastard productions in the bad sense may not proceed 

 from it. Of many of the views put forward in Hackel's 

 '■ Morphologic ' and other Darwinistic writings it may be 

 affirmed that they would have received an essentially different 

 form by " adaptation " to the laws of mathematical thought. 



