Returning to Wagner's discovery, Baer mainly emphasized 

 the distrust with which it was first viewed, "This circum- 

 stance," he stated, "shows to what extent the aforesaid 

 discovery was unexpected and how little prepared we were for 

 it. Subsequently, its importance lay in its proof, and 

 credit was given to him" (pp. 22-23) . In connection with 

 this he mentioned the words of Humboldt: "A book which, 

 upon its appearance, immediately meets with general approval 

 cannot be worth the publishing, because it can only conclude 

 what already completely predominates in everyone's convictions." 

 Illustrating this, Baer noted the discovery made by Peyssonel 

 in 1723 that corals are animals, which "the great Reaumur 

 rejected as an absurdity," so that Peyssonel could only 

 publish it thirty years later. Further, Baer noted the fate 

 of Harvey's discovery of blood circulation, which was sub- 

 jected to doubt because "they did not know where air goes, 

 it was assumed to exist in the arteries. The correctness of 

 his discovery was recognized twenty years later, that is 

 to say after Harvey's death. More time elapsed before the 

 general recognition of Copernicus' discovery. The earth 

 made its orbit around the sun many times before popes could 

 speak of this publicly" (p. 24). 



Baer remarked later that he did not mean to compare 

 the discovery of asexual reproduction of larvae with the 

 basis of the heliocentric theory; he wanted only to call 

 attention to the frequently repeated historical relation 

 of new ideas. He cited Agassi z, that each newly appearing 

 study must pass through three phases: first they will say 

 that it is incorrect, then that it is against religion, and 

 finally that it had been known for a long time. "Wagner's 

 discovery," Baer stated, "without doubt, does not need proof 

 that it is not contrary to religion, or rather, dogma, for 

 no dogma is concerned with fly larvae" (p. 25) . This dis- 

 covery had already reached the stage of general recognition, 

 the stage of coordinating it with previous opinions, for 

 which it was necessary to change them somewhat. The idea 

 must be rejected that the reproduction of posterity by means 

 of fertilization, which is characteristic of man and other 

 vertebrates, is a rule, and that all other forms of repro- 

 duction are exceptions. This idea is the source of the 

 usual anthropomorphism, "man always standing at the center 

 of his mental as well as his physical horizon" (p. 26). 



475 



