1890.] Recent Literature. 759 
two sexes, and the intensity is much the same. That of the female, 
however, who is in other respects rather male-like in her amatory 
emotions, is more restricted. It is interesting further to notice that 
the rhythm of the light in the male is more rapid, and the flashes are 
briefer, while that of the female is longer, and the flashes more distant: 
and tremulous. This illustration may thus serve, in conclusion, as a 
literally illumined index of the contrasted physiology of the sexes. 
* We are now in a better position to criticize*Mr. Darwin’s theory. 
On his view, males are stronger, handsomer, or more emotional, 
because ancestral forms happened to become so in a slight degree. In 
other words, the reward of breeding success gradually perpetuated and 
perfected a casual advantage. According to the present view, males 
are stronger, handsomer, or more emotional, simply because they are 
males,—/. e., of more active physiological habit than their mates, In 
phraseology which will presently become more intelligible and con- 
crete, the males live at a loss, are more katabolic,—disruptive changes 
tending to predominate in the sum of changes in their living matter 
or protoplasm. The females, on the other hand, live at a profit, are 
more anabolic,—constructive processes predominating in their life, 
whence, indeed, the capacity of bearing offspring.” 
Thus it is evident that the authors of the present work hold the 
tenets of the Neo-Lamarkians in maintaining the direct influence of 
physical causes as producing variation, and jn the belief that acquired 
characters are inherited. The reasons for the adoption of these views 
are often stated, and with a good deal of force. The reasons why 
promiscuous variation and natural selection are inadequate to explain 
evolution, are also clearly set forth. 
In the last chapter the question of population raised by Malthus is 
considered. Writing in a country which is, so long as the unequal 
distribution of land continues, fulty populated, the authors admit the 
necessity for some method of restraining the increase of families. They 
consider the propositions of the Neo-Malthusians for limiting the 
increase by various artificial measures, and decide in favor of a dif- 
ferent course. They observe: ‘‘ It seems to us, however, essential to 
recognize that the ideal to be sought after is not merely a controlled 
rate of increase, but regulated married lives. Neo-Malthusianism 
might secure the former by its more or less mechanical methods, and 
there is no doubt that a limitation of the family would often increase 
the happiness of the home ; but there is danger lest, in removing its 
result, sexual intemperance become increasingly organic. We would 
urge, in fact, the necessity of an ethical rather than a mechanical 
