IS REGENERATION A REPETITION OF THE 

 ONTOGENETIC AND PHYLOGENETIC 

 PROCESSES? 



SERGIUS MORGULIS, A.M. 



Facts are as unaffected and permanent as the universe. 

 They are always present, whether we know them or not. 

 Theories, on the contrary, are transitory conceptions, 

 products of the intellect striving to comprehend the 

 outer world. As a verbal expression of the unity under- 

 lying the overt diversity of phenomena and things, and 

 as a mental picture of the connection between things, 

 theories may be either perceived or imagined, a step 

 towards absolute truth or a profound fallacy. Its fate 

 depends wholly upon compliance with the facts, and it 

 can not, therefore, be used as a criterion of value of the 

 facts. Theories may ultimately be revised or discarded 

 —facts remain forever. 



With this commonplace in mind, we can clearly see 

 that the question before us — namely, is regeneration a 

 repetition of the processes of ontogeny and phylogeny?— 

 is a matter of theory. As such, it is a much-debated sub- 

 ject which has been so often and so ably discussed in the 

 past by several writers, that I should, perhaps, refrain 

 from adding my quota to the dispute. But it has lately 

 been called to my attention by an admirable monograph, 

 by K. N. DavydofT. 1 As Davydoff writes in Russian, his 

 work is practically inaccessible to American readers. 



Considered from a purely technical standpoint, the 

 monograph leaves little more to be desired. It is sup- 

 plied with a large number of well -finished figures, and 

 the text is lucid and concise. I should use only terms of 

 praise if I were to speak on that score. I shall, however, 



