impossible the existence of the embryo in a preformed shape 

 in the second and third generations" (I Sch la 214 (145)). 



The second scholium, "The formation of the individual 

 in relation to its surrounding," discusses two questions, 

 concerning the essence which manages the development of the 

 animal, and about the most essential result of development, 

 the progressive independence of the embryo. Desiring to 

 "clarify the essence of development," Baer stated that 

 "although each new step in development becomes possible only 

 because of the pre-existing condition, nevertheless the 

 entire development is directed towards the prevailing essence 

 of the animal" (I Sch Ila, p. 217 (147)). 



This situation is illustrated by the significantly greater 

 variability of the embryo than of the adult organisms of the 

 same species. Noticing the frequently deep differences 

 between embryos of one age, Baer wrote that "one must conclude 

 that the differences are compensated for, and each abnormality, 

 as much as possible, will return to the norm" (I Sch Ila, 

 p. 218 (148)). 



From the fact of this remarkable regularity which is 

 inherited by developing embryos, Baer concluded that "not every 

 stage is like the others with all its particularities determin- 

 ing the future stages of development, but here more general and 

 higher relationships predominate." And further: "Natural 

 science, which is readily identified in that it feeds and 

 supports materialistic ideas, can, as a result of observations, 

 disprove the strict materialistic studies and lead to the 

 evidence that not the material but the essence (the idea 

 according to the new school) of the developing life form 

 governs the development of the fetus" (I Sch Ila 148). 



Commenting on this point in the Russian version of Baer's 

 work (pp. 218 - 219 and note 43, pp. 450 - 451), B. E. Raikov 

 considered that "Baer's presentation clearly reveals the 

 idealistic character of his view about the factors of develop- 

 ment." This requires an explanation, however, in order to 

 reject the charge of the influence of Naturphilosophie and 

 followers of Schelling on Baer during the early years when 

 this science was very popular. Objecting to the "strict 

 materialistic studies" of life phenomena, Baer addressed the 



340 



