matter of the "History of the three cliches." To begin 

 with, it is at the very least dishonest on the part of Schmidt 

 to say that, "in default of scientific arguments, theological 

 adversaries have for the last thirty years been using it as 

 the basis of their attacks." That is untrue, the "theological 

 adversaries" have not had knowledge of it for that length 

 of time. On the contrary Haeckel's own scientific colleagues 

 were the first to discover and publish the matter some time 

 in the seventies, and in consequence excluded Haeckel 

 from their circle. Why does Schmidt not mention here the 

 names of Ruetimeyer, His, and Semper? Furthermore 

 Schmidt writes as if Haeckel had satisfied his colleagues 

 in the matter of his forgery by declaring soon after 

 (1870) that he had been "guilty of a very ill-considered act 

 of folly." Why does Schmidt not mention the fact that the 

 weighty attacks of His (Our Bodily Form and the Physio- 

 logical Problem of its Origin, Leipzig, 1875) dates from the 

 year 1875, five years after Haeckel's forced, palliative ex- 

 planation? Besides, this incident of the three cliches is 

 only one instance; the other examples of Haeckel's sense 

 of truthfulness are for the most part entirely unknown to 

 his "theological adversaries," who have nowhere to my 

 knowledge made use of them; but all of them have been 

 brought to Ught and held up before Haeckel by natural- 

 ists, namely, by Bastian (1874), Semper and Kossmann 

 (1876 and 1877), Hensen and Brandt (1891), and Hamann 

 (1893). Does this in any way tend to establish Schmidt's 

 honesty? (Dr. Dennert has entered into a more searching 



116 



