34 ON THE AGAMIC REPRODUCTION AND MORPHOLOGY OF APHIS 
assumes that what is intended by “portion of the germ-mass” is 
what I have termed the pseudovitellus. In that case the statement 
is erroneous ; for the pseudovitellus takes no share in the formation 
of the pseudovarium. If, on the other hand, the true rudiment of the 
pseudovarium is indicated, the statement in question is equally in- 
correct; for this is never out of the body, and hence can hardly be 
taken into it, nor can that out of which the so-called “ oviducts” are 
produced be properly said to become “connected with them,” or to 
‘aid in forming their filamentary extremities.” 
When the basis of a hypothesis is shown to be incorrect, the 
hypothesis itself is commonly considered to be disposed of; but 
possibly in the present case it may be urged that, although the con- 
tents of the pseudovarium are wholly dissimilar “to the germ-mass 
in its state of minutest subdivision,” they are nevertheless so little 
changed that my criticism of the phrase is trivial. To this I reply 
that, whether the alteration be small or great, it is as great as that 
which occurs in the terminal ceca of a gland, or in a true ovarium, 
and that the tissue of the apical pseudovarian chamber is far more 
differentiated than the indifferent tissue which constitutes the youngest 
portion of an ordinary epithelium or epidermis. 
Whatever conclusions are based upon the resemblance of the 
tissue of the pseudovarium to that of the embryo, must therefore 
apply in equal or greater force to the tissues which I have just 
named ; and, unless reason can be shown to the contrary, whatever 
powers are possessed by the one, in virtue of this similarity, must be 
possessed in equal or greater degree by the other. 
But in this case what becomes of the hypothetical explanation of 
the asexual reproduction of Apis, under discussion ? 
The condition of such reproduction is, according to the hypothesis, 
the retention of “certain of the progeny of the primary impregnated 
germ-cell unchanged,” “ with so much of the spermatic force, inherited 
by the retained germ-cells from the parent-cell or germ-vesicle, as 
suffices to set on foot and maintain the same series of formative 
actions as those which constituted the individual containing them.” 
Let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that the amount of 
histological change in the pseudovarian mass is unimportant. I am 
ready to suppose even, in accordance with the hypothesis, that its 
cells retain sufficient “spermatic force” (whatever that may be) to 
commence an independent life. But I ask, how does this explain 
agamogenesis? Why does not the epithelium of the ovarium (which 
is as little or less changed) give rise to young without impregnation ? 
Why are not the young cells of glands, which are as little changed 
