368 General Notes. [June,. 
plateau of the Altai Mountains. Within a few days we have received a 
letter from Dr. Standinger, who writes, in acknowledging the receipt of a 
copy of the monograph, “ By the excellent pictures I recognized differ- 
ent North American species as identical with some from Europe or 
North Asia, described a long time since.” 
Criticisms or HAECKEL. — There has recently appeared a third edi- 
tion of Haeckel’s Anthropogenie, in which he attempts to explain man’s 
origin in accordance with the principles of evolution. He enters into 
the subject in detail. He has also written a work on the General His- 
tory of Creation. His agreeable style and polemical skill have secured 
for these books large sales, so that Haeckel’s influence over the public 
in Germany is very great and has now extended to other countries. 
He has likewise propounded various theories which have demanded the 
attention of zodlogists. Under these circumstances it becomes a matter 
of especial interest to learn the opinions of competent critics. All the 
published criticisms by zodlogists of acknowledged high standing with 
which I am acquainted are unfavorable, while the praises, which the 
writer personally has heard, were Bestowog for the most part by young 
persons. 
Professor Haeckel’s book is AE with numerous illustrations. 
Professor His’ states that on page 242 of the first edition of the Schöp- 
fungsgeschichte there are three figures, one of the egg of man, the egg 
an ape, and the egg of the dog, which are referred to in the text as 
showing the identity of the primordial egg in mammals, but Professor 
His calls attention to the fact that they are electrotypes of one and the 
same wood-cut. On page 170 Professor His calls attention to the fact 
that Haeckel gives figures of an embryo dog and human foetus, the for- 
mer of which is supposed to present a copy from Bischoff, the latter 
from Ecker. The forehead in the dog is three and one half mm. longer 
than in Bischoff’s figure, while that of the human embryo is two mm. 
shorter than the original, and made still smaller by the eye being drawn 
five mm. further forward, while the tail is twice as long as in the orig- 
inal. Professor Haeckel’s figures present the closest similarity with one 
another. 
Professor Bischoff? directly contradicts Haeckel’s assertion that we 
cannot discover, even with the aid of the best microscope with the bigh- 
` est power, any essential difference between the egg of man and those 
most of the higher mammals, and states that the pictures showing the 
identity of mammalian embryos in Plate V. of Haeckel’s Anthropogenie 
differ essentially from the reality, and, finally, that the figures of apes’ 
faces given by Haeckel on his title-page show a great agreement existing 
between the features of apes and of the lower human races, but that this 
resemblance does not appear in photographs. 
KGrperform. Leipzie 1875. Page 1 
1 Flis 
7 aea ae math. phys Classe der k. b. Akad der wins München. 1876. Heft 
