these lines is limited. This fact is of importance because it 

 enjoins more caution in arguing from uniformity of devel- 

 opment to family-relation, than has been usually employed 

 since the days of Darwin. The method commonly em- 

 ployed is undoubtedly very convenient, but is somewhat 

 liable to be misleading. Hence, if one wishes to estabhsh the 

 genealogical relationship of formS; nothing remains but to 

 set out on the laborious path of studying the development 

 of both; and even then it remains questionable whether 

 the truth will be arrived at. However, he who concludes 

 to relationship from a comparison of developed forms, is 

 much less likely to^ arrive at the truth. 



In one point Eimer concedes too much to Darwinism, 

 in the matter of the famous fundamental principle of bio- 

 genesis, according to which an organism is said to repeat 

 in its individual development the whole series of its pro- 

 genitors. Although he does not enter upon a discussion 

 of the principle, it is evident from one passage that he ac- 

 cepts it. One is inclined to think that his careful observa- 

 tions and experiments should have convinced him of the 

 contrary. It appears to me, at least, that the abundant ma- 

 terials of his observations bear evidence radically opposed 

 to the principle. During late years, the antagonism to it 

 has been on the increase, and the day is not very distant 

 when it shall have passed into history. It would certainly 

 be a laudable undertaking to enter upon a thorough inves- 

 tigation of the actual basis of the principle. 



89 



