dence is indeed overwhelmingly against minute and gradual 

 modification." "The Darwinian theory," declared Pro- 

 fessor Fleischmann of Erlangen, recently, "has not a single 

 fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the 

 result of scientific research, but purely the product of the 

 imagination." 



On one occasion Huxley expressed his conviction that 

 the pedigree of the horse as revealed in the geological record 

 furnished demonstrative evidence for the theory of evolu- 

 tion. The question has been entered into in detail by Pro- 

 fessor Fleischmann in his work, Die Descendenztheorie. 

 In this book the Erlangen professor makes great capital 

 out of the "trot-horse" (Paradepferd) of Huxley and 

 Haeckel; and as regards the evolutionary theory, easily 

 claims a verdict of "not proven." In this connection the 

 moderate statement of Professor Morgan is noteworthy: 

 "When he (Fleischmann) says there is no absolute proof 

 that the common plan of structure must be the result of 

 blood relationship, he is not bringing a fatal argument 

 against the theory of descent, for no one but an enthusiast 

 sees anything more in the explanation than a very probable 

 theory that appears to account for the facts. To demand 

 an absolute proof is to ask for more than any reasonable 

 advocate of the descent theory claims for it." (Professor 

 Morgan, as we have already seen, rejects Darwinism, and 

 inclines to the mutation theory of De Vries.) The vast ma- 

 jority of Darwinians must, therefore, be classed as en- 

 thusiasts" who are not "reasonable advocates of the descent 

 theory." For has not Professor Marsh told his readers 



21 



