Hyatt.] 84 [Aprils, 
those, ncconling to tlie law of tacliygenesis. Kveiytliiiio- is inher- 
ited or is inlieritable, so far as can be judged by the behavior of 
cliaracteristics. Cope has ably sustained this opinion in all his 
writings and has called it the theory of "diplogenesis" in allusion 
to the essentiall}^ double nature of the characteristics first ctetic 
and then genie. 
It is i)robable that what has l>een called effort is the principal 
internal agent of organic changes as first stated by Lamarck, and 
subsequently rediscovered and first maintained by Cope and sub- 
sequently by others in this country. The modern school of 
dynamical evolution, oi' the Neolamarckian school, which lias 
adopted this theory as a working hypothesis, regards effort as an 
internal energy, capable of responding to external stimuli. They 
include under this name botli the purely mechanical or involun- 
tary, as well as the voluntary reactions of organisms, whether 
these are simply plasmic, or cellular, or occur in the more highly 
differentiated form of nervous action. 
The word ''effort" has mental connections with conscious 
endeavor, and when we enlarge the definition so as to include 
purely mechanical organic reactions, this obliges every one to 
make an effort to rid himself of old habits of associating it with 
psychic phenomena. It not only imperfectly explains what is 
meant, but it does not of itself fidly convej^ the idea of a force 
capable of moulding the ])arts of the body into new forms, and 
cannot be used at all for the characteristics which originate 
through its action. 
No apology is therefore needed for the use of Entergokenism for 
the popular term effort derived from evrds, meaning within, and 
e'p-yov, meaning work or energy. This term does not inter- 
fere with the name given to the general theory by Professor 
Cope, kinetogenesis, in allusion to its dynamical character as a 
theory of genesis, but is sup])lementary to this more general 
title. It is also quite distinct from his neurism or nerve force, 
and ))hrenism or thought force, although both of these, if we 
rightly understand him, are certain forms of entergogenism. 
The part entergogenic energy or entergogenism has jdayed in the 
production of normal reactions, hypertrophy, etc., is well known, 
and the fact that an organism cannot move oi- respond to external 
stimuli without its aid, needs no illustration. It seems equally 
plain that modifications of structure and form follow as the results 
