Nuclear Somatization 11g 
dition, nevertheless the complicated and characteristic 
parts of the head were developed up to the surface of 
amputation completely and in their perfect form, and 
not only entire structure but also parts of these structures.” 
“Whatever development there is going on beyond 
the stage at which amputation was performed depends 
essentially on self-differentiation of the individual parts; 
no correlative influence of the neighboring parts or of 
the entire organism can ever be recognized, either nega- 
tively or positively. Thus this development beyond the 
stage at which amputation was performed, corresponds 
entirely with Roux’s mosaic theory.” ®? 
Nevertheless, we shall see soon that another whole 
series of Born’s experiments, as also those just recorded 
if one considers them from another point of view, are 
no less opposed to evolutionary hypotheses in general 
and to hypotheses of preformation properly so called in 
particular. 
In short, the observations and experiments which we 
have thus far cited, from the half-embryos of Roux to 
the tadpole fragments of Born, all show the possibility 
that individual parts of the organism, provided they con- 
tain any part whatever of the vertebral axis, can develop 
independently of the remaining parts, and are sufficient 
by themselves alone to prove the inadmissibility of simple 
epigenesis. 
But the preformists had yet another fundamental 
objection to make to the epigenesists, who have sought 
so far in vain for a reply to it: namely that epigenesis 
requires the renunciation of nuclear somatization. For 
these two hypotheses are absolutely irreconcilable. It 
82Born: Uber Verwachsungsversuche mit Amphibienlarven. 
P. 204—205. 
