The Science and Philosophy of the Organism

of their history. What does that mean? What are the foundations upon which the assumption rests? What is the relation of sy

word evolution in a wider sense-indeed it is often applied nowadays to denote the fact that a something is actually "evolved" in embryology-if only our entelechy had taken the place of the machine of the mechanists. But that is the very point: there must be a real "evolving" of a something, in order that the word evolution may be justified verbally: and

g each other, in spite of their diversities.143 The question about their so-called monophyletic or p

transformism: none of these facts can be said to be conclusive, but there

n respect, and show differences also compared with the species living on the neighbouring continent, of which there is geological evidence that the islands once formed a part, whilst there is no change in the species on the continent itself for very wide areas, then, no doubt, the hypothesis that all these differing species once had a common origin, the hypothesis that there is a certain community among them all, will serve to elucidate in some way what would seem to be very abstruse with

ts about the living. That is not quite without logical importance, for it shows that not biology alone has led to the transformism hypothesis. Were it otherwise, transformism might b

relate to specific diversities, and indeed are facts of systematics; in other words, there exists something in the very nature of the system of organisms that renders transformism probable. The system of animals and plants is based upon a principle which might be called the principle of similarities and diversities by gradation; its categor

MPTION OF ALL TH

ition is made almost unconsciously to the mere statement of the hypothesis of descent as such, whenever this hypothesis is advocated in order to bring light or elucidation into any field of systematic facts. And this additional hypothesis indeed must be made from the very beginning, quite irrespective of the more detailed problems of the law of transformism, in order that any sort of so-called explanation by means of the theory of descent may be po

ransformism-only on this almost hidden assumption is it possible to speak of any sort of "explanation" which might be offered by the theory of transformism to the facts of geography, geolog

e and florae taken as a whole, as well as in the single categories of the system, the similarities exceed the diversities. The similarities now are "explained"; that is to say, they are understood as resting on but one principle: the si

inheritance is responsible for what is similar or equal. Now there can be no doubt that the diversities are the more important point in systematics; if there were only similarities there would be no problem of systematics, for there would be no

ALUE OF PUR

uch, without a real knowledge of the factors which are concerned in transformism, or of the law of transformism, in other terms, leaves th

le to you? Or suppose that some one stated the cosmogenetic theory of Kant and Laplace without there being any science of mechanics: what would the theory mean to you? Or suppose that the whol

no leading principle at present? I should not like to be misunderstood in my polemics against phylogeny. I fully grant you that it may be possible in a few cases to find out the phylogenetic history of smaller groups with some probability, if there is some palaeontological evidence in support of pure comparative anatomy; and I also do not hesitate to allow that such a statement would be of a certain value with regard to a future discovery of the "laws" of descent, especially if taken together with the few facts known about mutations. But it is quite another thing with phylogeny on the larger scale. Far more eloquent

AND SY

rational systematics, at least in some of its special fields; but the compounds it deals with at the same time may be said to have originated historically also, though not, of course, by a process of propagation. It is evident at once that the geological conditions of very early times prohibited the existence of certain chemical compounds, both organic and inorganic, which are known at present. None the less these compounds occupy their proper place in the system. And there may be many substances

ther it may be understood by a general principle, and of what kind that principle would be. As, in fact, it is most probably by history, by descent, that organic systematics is bro

e theory of transformism alone is not worth very much as a whole, unless at least a hypothetical picture can be formed of the nature of the transforming factors: it is by some such r