-— 
Ael. d: 3 
= IUe um i = = poe 
; Li por ea 
e 
ties of the organisms, tho nature of which is settled Uy the proteinous substan- 
ces of the Idioplasma, receive consideration (11). en 
` 15) The important difference, which the "Königsberger Stammbaum" shows when com- 
pared with all systems of the vegetable kingdom which have existed up to now ari- 
ses from the fact that all its statements, resting as they do on an experimental 
basis, are made absolutely certain and unambiguous. The great uncertainty of the 
hitherto existing phylogenetical deductions from morphological facts has disap- 
eared. . | 
16) Tho Experimental Systematical Method is based on the Law of Irreversibili- 
ty inductively deduced by DOLLO from a large collection of geological-palaeontolo- 
gical data. This Law was further based on HAECKELs biogenetical fundamental Law 
by KARNY; it was established by MEZ, who drew his conclusions deductively from 
theoretical opinions about the variation. The Law of Irreversibility states that 
no step made in the development of Ontogeny and Phylogeny is ever retraced. 
- 17) According to the Law of Irreversibility the Idioplasma, as basis and cause 
of all morphological phenomena (v. supra 11) can never return again to a conditi- ` 
on in which it has previously existed. KARNY rightly states: “If it were possible 
for ak more highly specialised form to return to an earlier phyletical stage in 
. - the course of its further development ..... every examination of the phylogeneti- 
- eal History would be made a logical impossibility". By far the most eonvincing 
evidence for tho correctness of the Law of Irreversibility is brought forward by 
the "Königsberger Stammbaum", the lines of which show, it is true, divergent deve- 
lopments everywhere in the evolutions, but on the other hand no anastomoses in 
any single place. 5 
18) According to the Law of Irreversibility, by its evidence formulated in the | 
Königsberger Stammbaum", and further by the evidence of frequent comparative se- 
 ro-diagncostic investigations of form-groups which are morphologically very strong- 
'"»"eonversont and reduced, it is fully established that the Experimental systema- 
ical M-thode is not affected by convergence and reduction which are the two great 
unsertainities in morphological research. Compared with morphology the assertati- | 
ons of sero-diagnosis have not relative but aa — EEN — 
SSS SU oT method. The results of the Experimental ystematical at 
can serve as a referential system, ZA from morphology, IE odis pires 
. zen trains of. t are correct and which are incorrect 
S, however, absolutely erroneous when opponents of | > 
us wt one sero-di - 
EN yes this new branch of knowledge neglects morphology. This is deu 
— E een, reason alone, namely because it is only thkougW the mor- 
. phological corroborations that the results of sero-diaznosi i | HE 
Sibi lity and, as it were, comprehensible form "a nud i 1 
i z orm. — On the other hand it et 
dere the Experimental Systematical Methode does not accept as a matter 5 ose 
e assertions of morphology, which are relativated by convergence and reduction 
? 
. the same book; that the morphological systems are diametr | 
. their most important points, namely in “errs views on tis steers 
. that they, as the results of abstractive trains of throught and th 
. structions of the systematical feeling, often bear a subjective character. 
2 20) In contrast to this the "Königsberger Stammbaum" with its p arfentio É er 
ise Statements has remained quite stabile from the very first, i á: t 
. Each new reaction has consistently followed these already 2 DUM 
boration is to bo compared with the reconstruction of a mosaie pict 
of the surrenderod stones, in which it is at once evident from th 
er one stone has been rightly or wrongly put in. All the d 
erer investigators using the same method agree in ev bag 
many different 
