586 
theory as a working hypothesis, regards effort as an internal energy, 
capable of responding to external stimuli. They include under 
this name both the purely mechanical or involuntary, as well as the 
voluntary reactions of organisms, whether these are simply plasmic, 
or cellular, or occur in the more highly differentiated form of nerv- 
ous action. 
The word ‘‘effort’’ has mental connections with conscious en- 
deavor, and when we enlarge the definition so as to include purely 
mechanical organic reactions, this obliges every one to make an 
effort to rid himself of old habits of associating it with psychic 
phenomena. It not only imperfectly explains what is meant, but it 
does not of itself fully convey the idea of a force capable of mold- 
ing the parts of the body into new forms, and cannot be used at all 
for the characteristics which originate through its action. 
No apology is therefore needed for the use of Entergogenism for 
the popular term effort derived from ¢y7és, meaning within, and 
Zoyov, meaning work or energy. This term does not interfere with 
the name given to the general theory by Prof. Cope—kinetogenesis, 
in allusion to its dynamical character as a theory of genesis—but is 
supplementary to this more general title. It is also quite distinct 
from his neurism or nerve force, and phrenism or thought force, 
although both of these, if we rightly understand him, are certain 
forms of entergogenism, ; 
Dr. John A. Ryder * has discussed in one of his profound essays 
the relations of the statical and dynamical phenomena of develop- 
ment and evolution, using the terms ergogeny and ergogenetic for 
all the modifications produced by organic energy, and he considers 
kinetogenesis and statogenesis as divisions of the first named. 
These instructive speculations and observations were written to 
show that the changes of form produced by motion, and those mod- 
ifications or conditions which may be properly considered as due to 
the conditions of equilibrium, are often reached, as is claimed by 
Ryder, as the result of Cope’s law of kinetogenesis and are consid- 
ered by him as statogenetic. These are interesting in connection 
with the above, and support the remarks made elsewhere with refer- 
ence to the use of terms like ‘‘avolution,’’ and are substantially in 
agreement with the general views taken in this paper, although tak- 
ing up a side of the mechanics of evolution not specifically dis- 
cussed here. 
* “ Energy asa Factor in Organic Evolution,” Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc., Phila., Xxxi, 1893. 
