plete with bitter personal epithets, e. g., "reactionary," 

 "mental incompetency," "dishonest mask of hypercritical 

 exactness," which manifest the writer's inability to enter 

 upon an objective discussion of the question. 



A still more reprehensible position is assumed by Dr. 

 Reh, who censures Fleischmann for introducing to the 

 general public the question of Descent which belongs prop- 

 erly to the forum of science. He claims that Fleischmann, 

 by so doing, forfeited his right to an unbiased hearing. Dr. 

 Reh forgets that but a short time ago he had no word of 

 censure for Haeckel's Weltraetsel which was intended for a 

 far wider circle of readers. He next appropriates Haeck- 

 el's suspicion regarding Fleischmann which we noticed 

 above, and then adds the entirely untrue assertion that the 

 first half of Fleischmann's Manual, written before he took 

 possession of the chair in Erlangen, is written in the spirit 

 of Darwin, whereas the second half which appeared at a 

 later date is written in the contrary spirit. He then takes 

 individual points of Fleischmann's treatise out of their con- 

 text in order to execute a cheap and nonsensical criticism 

 of them. Haeckel has evidently been giving instructions 

 on the best manner of dealing with adversaries. And very 

 docile disciples they are who imitate his method even to the 

 extent of defaming and abusing their scientific opponents. 



But is not this another plain indication of the decay of 

 Darwinism? Of course Haeckel recognized at the very 

 beginning of his career that it was necessary to support the 

 theory by means of personal bitterness, forgeries and mis- 

 representations. But if the last surviving advocates of Dar- 



135 



