are all assumptions, which could never be suppyorted by 

 concrete cases found in actual experience." Some are said 

 to be well established indirectly by proofs drawn from prob- 

 abilities, while others are proved to be absolutely unten- 

 able. Among the latter Grottewitz includes "sexual se- 

 lection," which is indeed a monstrous figment of the imag- 

 ination. There was moreover really no reason for adher- 

 ing to it so long. It is eminently untrue, that the biolog- 

 ical research of the last few years proved for the ^rji time 

 the untenableness of this doctrine, as Grottewitz seems to 

 think. Clear thinkers recognized its untenableness long 

 ago, and surely Grottewitz and the whole band of Darwin- 

 ian devotees as well, could have known that as early as 

 twenty-five years ago this doctrine had been subjected to a 

 reductio ad absurdum with classic clearness in Wigand's 

 great work. 



It is certainly a very peculiar phenomenon; for decades 

 we behold a doctrine reverently re-echoed; thoughtful in- 

 vestigators expose its folly, but still the worship continues, 

 the Zeitgeist must have its idol. It appears, however, as 

 if the Zeitgeist were gradually tiring of its golden calf and 

 were on the point of casting it into the rubbish-heap. Mis- 

 givings arise on all sides; here one class of objections are 

 considered, there another. A closer examination reveals 

 that these are by no means new reasons, based on new re- 

 searches, but the very oldest, urged long ago and perhaps 

 much more clearly and forcibly. At that time, however, 

 the Zeitgeist was under the spell of the suggestion of indi- 

 vidual men: it heard and saw nothing but the captivating, 



120. 



