makes it obvious to unbiased critics, that it is time to rele- 

 gate it ad acta." 



******* 

 My own views agree with those of Fleischmann as pre- 

 sented above, except in regard tO' his last chapter. I must, 

 of course, admit that his criticism has discredited the doc- 

 trine of Descent as a scientifically established theory. 

 Hence, as I have always asserted, it must be excluded from 

 the realm of exact science. No doubt people will come 

 gradually to see that the theory involves a creed and there- 

 fore belongs to the domain of cosmic philosophy. All this 

 I readily admit. 



Not so, however, as regards the concept of "develop- 

 ment." It seems to me to be incorrect to regard this as a 

 logical concept only, even with reference to organisms. 

 True, the whole zoological system is in reality nothing 

 more than a logical abstraction. And in view of this fact 

 one must be on as& guard against confusing a logical 

 transformation of concepts with a genealogical develo'p- 

 ment. 



We must, however, not forget that we possess the 

 wonderful analogy of ontogeny (individual development) 

 and above all, the fact of mutation and of metagenesis. 

 And even if we wish to avoid the error of Haeckel and 

 others who find a necessary connection between ontogeny 

 and phylogeny, nevertheless the analogy will still entitle us 

 to picture to ourselves the development of the whole range 

 of living organisms. Such a representation will, of course, 

 have only a subjective value. 



131 



