182 Universitjj of CaUfornin Puhlicotions in Zoology. l^^h. 4 



formation of the doctrine of the Entelechy, possibly they are nlti- 

 mately the real basis for it. Bnt this kind of Entelechy, far from 

 helpino' us to understand organic phenomena, would be an addi- 

 tional fact to be explained, — one far more difficult than that 

 which the objective phenomena present. The Entelechy would be 

 a problem, not a solution. 



The reason for the lack of general acceptance by men of sci- 

 ence of any such doctrine as that of the Entelechy is thus in most 

 cases not on account of an obstinate prejudice in favor of physics 

 and chemistry, but merely because they perceive that the Entel- 

 echy does not help in the least in the solution of the problems 

 with which they are confronted. Conversation with investigators 

 leads me to believe that a large proportion of them would welcome 

 a distinctively "vital" explanation as readily as any other, if 

 they could see that it helped them in understanding and con- 

 trolling the activities of organisms. But such a view as that of 

 Driesch merely transfers the problems to the Entelechy, where 

 they are less attackable than before. To use a most expressive 

 characterization applied by Driesch to the Weismannian theory, 

 it only gives us a photograph of the problems. Surely it makes 

 the problems no more intelligible to enclose them in an Entelechy 

 than to do them up in a chromosome ! 



The Prohleni One Whose Solufio)i is to be Completed in the 

 Future. — Investigators may hold with Driesch, as the present 

 writer does, that most of the simple chemical and physical expla- 

 nations that have recently been given are superficial and quite 

 inadequate to account for the regulatory activities of organisms, 

 and may believe that Driesch has done a great service in empha- 

 sizing this. But, at the same time, they hold it etiually evident 

 that such a doctrine as that of the Entelechy does not help us: 

 such I believe to be the views of a majority of those engaged in 

 research. We are not forced to hold either that the regulatory 

 activities of organisms have been explained by chemistry and 

 physics or that they are brought about by an Entelechy. We can 

 hold, in preference to either of these views, that our present 

 analysis is incomplete, and that there will be something for in- 

 vestigators to work out in these fields during the next ten thou- 

 sand years or so. Both the rash assertion that we have already 



