2. In its formation struggle for existence and natural 

 selection are entirely excluded, neither can find any appli- 

 cation whatever even according to the newer exposition of 

 Weismann. Haberlandt himself draws this conclusion. 



3. If this phenomenon of a suddenly appearing 

 change can take place in the course of the development 

 of the individual, there can be no obvious reason why it 

 should not take place in the same manner (without natural 

 selection or struggle for existence) in the course of the 

 phylogenetic development. 



It is manifestly of the greatest importance that in this 

 case a direct, experimental proof has been given that an 

 organ has originated suddenly and without the aid of Dar- 

 winian principles. Haberlandt's article is nothing less than 

 a complete renunciation of Darwinism on the part of 

 Haberlandt, a renunciation which we greet with great sat- 

 isfaction. 



In fact one such observation would really sufiSce to 

 set aside Darwinism and prove the utter insufifiiciency of its 

 principles to give explanation of the origin of natural spe- 

 cies. On the other hand, this observation plainly proves 

 two things: first, that the above mentioned doctrine of 

 Koelliker, now held by Korschinsky is a move in the right 

 direction for the discovery of the causes of descent; and 

 secondly, that the principal cause of the evolution is not to 

 be sought in environment and blind forces but in the sys- 

 tematically working, internal vital principle in plants and 

 animals. With that, however, an important part of the 

 foundation of the mechanical-materialistic view of the 

 world is demolished. ■^■K" Aov • 



59 



