No. 50(3] KELPS AND RECA I'll (' LA 71 OX THEORY 



93 



whole nor in part 



In these sentences Montgomery is voicing not alone his 

 individual opinion, but that of a very considerable school 

 of embryologists. 



The general tenor of these statements is scarcely open 

 to question nor is the author's conclusion as to the worth 

 lessness of the recapitulation theory. However, there is 

 one word used in both the paragraphs quoted, though not 

 in the portion of the first cited, that is unfortunate in that 

 it is open to misunderstanding. It is the w T ord exact. 

 Exact has a certain mathematical flavor, which makes its 

 application to living organisms difficult. Neither Mont 

 gomery nor any one else believes that there are anywhere 

 two individuals, who are exactly alike in any respect 

 whatever. We may fairly assume, that Montgomery 

 means to say that there is no recapitulation of the racial 

 history of the embryo sufficiently exact to aid in deter- 

 mining racial descent ; and we shall so interpret his state- 

 ments in the remainder of this paper. 



A few years ago when the recapitulation theory was al 

 most universally accepted one might have assumed that 

 the noteworthy features of the development of the kelps 

 were to be explained on that basis. But now in the face 

 of such attacks on the theory no such assumption may be 

 made. We shall therefore consider the development of 

 the kelps in relation to the theory and to the <-nl m-im.i 

 upon it in an effort to ascertain the real bearing of the 

 foregoing observations. 



It must be admitted that the juvenile forms of all the 

 kelps are closely similar in a general way: hut it does no 

 necessarily follow that they are so because of any recapit- 

 ulation of phytogeny. Such parallelism might he brought 

 about by entirely different causes. This possibility has 



