once clothed. And even then it remains forever doubtful 

 whether the progeny of the prehistoric creature, the scant 

 remains of which we study, has not become entirely ex- 

 tinct, so that it can in no way be regarded as the progenitor 

 of any creature living at present." I should like to know 

 wherein this differs radically from Fleischmann's conten- 

 tion in his Descendenztheorie" (p. lo.) For we find stated 

 here what Fleischmann emphasizes so much, viz., that with 

 the problem of Descent we leave the domain of experience. 

 It is worthy of special note in this connection that Hert- 

 wig likewise evidently regards as the sole really empirically 

 and inductively serviceable proof of Descent, that which is 

 drawn from palaeontology, from prehistoric animal and 

 plant remains. He makes not the least mention of the in- 

 direct proofs taken from ontogenetic development or com- 

 parative anatomy, to which the Darwinians and advocates 

 of Descent love so much to appeal, because they feel that 

 the real inductive proof is lacking and totally fails to' sus- 

 tain their position. Hertwig next points out that the prob- 

 lem of Descent stirred scientific as well as lay circles twice 

 during the past century. He then pays Lamarck and Dar- 

 win the necessary tribute, at which we cannot take offense 

 since he was reared in the Darwinian atmosphere of Jena. 

 I also willingly admit that Darwinism served science as a 

 "powerful ferment," even if I must emphasize just as de- 

 cidedly how harmful it was that this "ferment" was intro- 

 duced into lay circles at an unseasonable time by the apos- 

 tles of materialism. For while it was very well adapted to 

 bring about in educated circles a fermentation which pro- 



140 



