c 
7 
a 
| 
iy 
$ 
1877.] Zoölogy. 369 
Mr. Balfour * also cites Haeckel as having refigured one of his sections, 
employing a coloration to distinguish the layers, not founded upon Bal- 
four’s statements, but on the contrary in direct opposition to them. 
Professor Hensen in his article on the Development of the Rabbit, in 
His and Braune’s Zeitschrift fiir Anatomie und Entwickelungsgeschichte, 
volume i., calls attention to Haeckel’s picture of spermatozoa within the 
yolk of a mammalian egg, a thing which no man had ever seen up to 
that time. 
Professor Semper has openly attacked Haeckel, first in a lecture en- 
titled Der Haeckelismus in der Zoölogie, published in Hamburg, in 1876, 
and again in Offener Brief an Herrn Professor Haeckel in Jena, which 
has just come out. In the latter especially, numerous points are noted, 
all telling against Haeckel: thus on page 20 he says that Haeckel’s fig- 
ure of a section through an annelid’s head is incorrect, because it con- 
tains a cardinal vein, genital glands, liver sacks, and segmental organs, 
and none of these organs exist in the head ; the sexual glands are drawn, 
too, on the dorsal side of the body, whereas they always lie on the ven- 
tral side. 5 
Professor Haeckel further makes statements of fact: one of these is 
that Goethe was an evolutionist. Kossmann, in a pamphlet which I 
have not at hand, has reviewed the citations from Goethe, and concludes 
that Haeckel’s assertion is false. Oscar Schmidt? draws the same con- 
clusion. 
Semper in his Offener Brief, page 11, affirms that Haeckel’s view that 
the Echinoderms are formed by worm colonies is belied by the facts of 
anatomy and embryology. 
Mecznikow, F. E. Schulze, Oscar Schmidt, and Barrois in their re- 
cent investigations on the sponges have questioned the accuracy of 
Haeckel’s observations on the embryology of these animals. But this 
subject is not thoroughly worked up yet, and Haeckel may be right 
r all ; but we pass to other criticisms. 
Mr. Alexander Agassiz condemns the “startling hypothesis of the 
genetic connection between the Geryonide and Aginide, . . . called b; 
Haeckel allzogenesis,” and propounded in his memoir on the Riisselqual- 
en. Agassiz adds that two short papers, recently published by Schulze 
and Ulianin, prove conclusively that “ Haeckel’s theory, like so many - 
other of his vagaries, had no foundation in truth. It was based not 
merely on an incorrect interpretation of facts, but the facts themselves — 
existed only in his imagination. As perhaps, with the exception of his 
moñograph of the Radiòlaria, no other memoir has contributed more 
_ than the one above quoted to give Haeckel the position he holds among 
zoölogists, we may be allowed to remind the Haeckelian school of nat- 
1 Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, vol. x , page 521, note, 
2 Deutsche Kundschau. O. Schmidt. April, 1876, page 95. 
8 Silliman’s Journal. May, 1876, page 420. 
VOL. XI.— No. 6. 24 
