Introduction. 



17 



other hand, although more than a mere re-statement 

 of the facts, appears to me too vague to be of any- 

 explanatory service. His view is that organic evolu-~ 

 tion has everywhere depended upon an antagonism, 

 within the limits of the same organism, between the 

 processes of nutrition and those of reproduction. But 

 although he is thus able hypothetically to explain 

 certain facts — such as the shortening of a flower-spike 

 into a composite flower — the suggestion is obviously 

 inadequate to meet, even hypothetically, most of the 

 facts of organic evolution, and especially the develop- 

 ment of adaptive structures. Therefore, it seems to me, 

 we may dismiss it even as regards the comparatively 

 few facts which it might conceivably explain — seeing 

 that these same facts may be equally well explained 

 by the causes which are already known to operate 

 in other cases. For it is the business of natural 

 selection to ensure that there shall nowhere be any 

 needless expenditure of vital energy, and, conse- 

 quently, that everywhere the balance between nutrition 

 and reproduction shall be most profitably adjusted. 



Similarly with respect to the theory of the Origin 

 of Sex, I am unable to perceive even this much of 

 scientific relevancy. As stated by its authors the 

 theory is, that the female is everywhere "anabolic," 

 as compared with the male, which is " kataboHc." By 

 anabolic is meant comparative inactivity of proto- 

 plasmic change due to a nutritive winding up of 

 molecular constitution, while by katabolic is meant 

 the opposite condition of comparative activity due to 

 a dynamic running down of molecular constitution. 

 How, then, can the origin of sex be explained^ or the 

 causes which led to the differentiation of the sexes be 



II. C 



