the whole animated kingdom as also a process of growth, 

 there is, strictly speaking, no room for objection. How- 

 ever, there is here a danger, which he does not seem to 

 have guarded against. To designate the whole process as 

 a growth, as Eimer does, really explains nothing, but 

 merely defines more clearly the status of the problem. 

 For, what do we know of the so-called process of growth? 

 In truth, nothing, so that very little is gained by referring 

 evolution to organic growth; the problem remains un- 

 solved. 



The most important and correct part of Elmer's con- 

 clusion seems to be the estabHshment of definite lines of 

 development. He has, in fact, permanently disposed of the 

 Darwinian assumption of universal chaos in evolution, 

 upon which good mother Nature could at will exercise her 

 choice. Fortuitously initiated development is a conditio 

 sine qua non of Darwinism and Weismannism. For any 

 one, who has studied the work of Eimer and still adheres 

 to this fundamental error of Darwinism, there is no pos- 

 sible escape from the labyrinth intO' which he has allowed 

 the hand of Darwinism to lead him. 



If, on the one hand, Eimer recognizes the immanent 

 principles of development, he, nevertheless, on the other 

 hand, also accords due consideration and ascribes great 

 efficacy to external influences; in fact, he represents them 

 as perhaps the more essential factor. Climate, nourish- 

 ment, etc., affect the inner structure, the plasm, transform 

 it and thus produce variation which is transmitted to the 



84 



