The Recapitulation Theory in Biology 19 



this ontogenetic agreement, in the light of the biogenetic law, 

 we find that it proves clearly and necessarily the descent of 

 man, from a series of other Mammals, and proximately from 

 the Primates." 23 From ontogenetic resemblances a common 

 ancestry is argued. Clearly this is not recapitulation in the 

 strict sense. But Haeckel is applying the biogenetic law as he 

 understands it, wherefore it must be that he means by recapit- 

 ulation in this application only that an ontogeny presents in 

 its racially older features evidence of value regarding its prox- 

 imate or less remote ancestors. Haeckel's formal general- 

 izations and their actual use thus do not appear wholly in 

 agreement, and if the meaning of principles lies more espec- 

 ially in the work they do, it must be admitted that the common 

 opinion of Haeckel's conception requires some modification. 

 It should be noted that the notion of recapitulation conveyed 

 by the practice just referred to brings Haeckel close to the 

 position of some of the most radical critics of his theory. 



Whatever the case may be in these particulars, the general 

 effect of Haeckel's formal statements of the biogenetic law 

 was to imply a sequence in embryonic development such in gen- 

 eral that it was broadly descriptive of a similar sequence in 

 phylogeny. His qualifications of the law still did not have the 

 force of robbing the principal statement in the formula of 

 first-rate descriptive value. Moreover his language was such 

 as to suggest some fundamental tendency toward or necessity 

 for recapitulation, which might be obstructed partially so as 

 to "falsify" or "confuse" or "distort" this order. All this 

 is declared to be misleading in its implications. Ontogeny 

 is subject to many factors, of which those favoring recapitula- 

 tion are but of equal value, or even much less than equal value, 

 with the rest. And they are no more natural or to be expected 

 or primary than those with which they associate. 24 



» Evolution of Man, trans., 1910, p. 307. 



M Compare this statement from Miall: 



"I diverge from him [Haeckel] when he says that each animal is compelled to 

 discover its parentage in its own development. ... I admit no sort of neces- 

 sity for the recapitulation of the events of the phylogeny in the development of the 

 individual. ... I am on my guard when he talks of laws, for the term is mis- 

 leading, and ascribes to what is a mere geneial statement of observed facts the force 

 of a command. The so-called laws of nature (a phrase to be avoided) may indeed 

 enable us to predict what will happen in a few cases, but only when the conditions 

 are uniform and simple — a thing which is common in Physics, but very raie in Biol- 



