IN MODERN SCIENCE. 



77 



simple in structure as our supposed ancestor. 

 Along with this we may have on the same slide 

 another cell, which is the embryo of a worm, 

 and a third, which is the embryo of a man. All 

 these, according to the hypothesis, are similar 

 in appearance ; so that we can by no means 

 guess which is destined to continue always an 

 animalcule, or which will become a worm or 

 may develop into a poet or a philosopher. Is 

 it meant that the things are actually alike or 

 only apparently so ? If they are really alike, 

 then their destinies must depend on external 

 circumstances. Put either of them into a pond, 

 and it will remain a monad. Put either of them 

 into the ovary of a complex animal, and it will 

 develop into the likeness of that animal. But 

 such similarity is altogether improbable, and it 

 would destroy the argument of the evolution- 

 ist. In this case he would be hopelessly shut 

 up to the conclusion that "hens were before 

 ^§"gs ;" and Haeckel elsewhere informs us that 

 the exactly opposite view is necessarily that of 

 the monistic evolutionist. Thus, though it may 

 often be convenient to speak of these three 

 kinds of cells as if they were perfectly similar, 

 the method of " disappearance " has immediate- 

 ly to be resorted to, and they are shown to be, in 



7» 



