Our comparative investigation of the anatomy and ontogeny of the Amphioxus and Ascidia has given us invaluable assistance. We have, in the first place, bridged the wide gulf that has existed up to the present between the Vertebrates and Invertebrates; and, in the second place, we have discovered in the embryology of the Amphioxus a number of ancient evolutionary stages that have long since disappeared from human embryology, and have been lost, in virtue of the law of curtailed heredity. The chief of these stages are the spherical blastula (in its simplest primary form), and the succeeding archigastrula, the pure, original form of the gastrula which the Amphioxus has preserved to this day, and which we find in the same form in a number of Invertebrates of various classes. Not less important are the later embryonic forms of the cœlomula, the chordula, etc.

Thus the embryology of the Amphioxus and the Ascidia has so much increased our knowledge of man’s stem-history that, although our empirical information is still very incomplete, there is now no defect of any great consequence in it. We may now, therefore, approach our proper task, and reconstruct the phylogeny of man in its chief lines with the aid of this evidence of comparative anatomy and ontogeny. In this the reader will soon see the immense importance of the direct application of the biogenetic law. But before we enter upon the work it will be useful to make a few general observations that are necessary to understand the processes aright.

We must say a few words with regard to the period in which the human race was evolved from the animal kingdom. The first thought that occurs to one in this connection is the vast difference between the duration of man’s ontogeny and phylogeny. The individual man needs only nine months for his complete development, from the fecundation of the ovum to the moment when he leaves the maternal womb. The human embryo runs its whole course in the brief space of forty weeks (as a rule, 280 days). In many other mammals the time of the embryonic development is much the same as in man—for instance, in the cow. In the horse and ass it takes a little longer, forty-three to forty-five weeks; in the camel, thirteen months. In the largest mammals, the embryo needs a much longer period for its development in the womb—a year and a half in the rhinoceros, and ninety weeks in the elephant. In these cases pregnancy lasts twice as long as in the case of man, or one and three-quarter years. In the smaller mammals the embryonic period is much shorter. The smallest mammals, the dwarf-mice, develop in three weeks; hares in four weeks, rats and marmots in five weeks, the dog in nine, the pig in seventeen, the sheep in twenty-one and the goat in thirty-six. Birds develop still more quickly. The chick only needs, in normal circumstances, three weeks for its full development. The duck needs twenty-five days, the turkey twenty-seven, the peacock thirty-one, the swan forty-two, and the cassowary sixty-five. The smallest bird, the humming-bird, leaves the egg after twelve days. Hence the duration of individual development within the fœtal membranes is, in the mammals and birds, clearly related to the absolute size of the body of the animal in question. But this is not the only determining feature. There are a number of other circumstances that have an influence on the period of embryonic development. In the Amphioxus the earliest and most important embryonic processes take place so rapidly that the blastula is formed in four hours, the gastrula in six, and the typical vertebrate form in twenty-four.

In every case the duration of ontogeny shrinks into insignificance when we compare it with the enormous period that has been necessary for phylogeny, or the gradual development of the ancestral series. This period is not measured by years or centuries, but by thousands and millions of years. Many millions of years had to pass before the most advanced

[ 200 ]

vertebrate, man, was evolved, step by step, from his ancient unicellular ancestors. The opponents of evolution, who declare that this gradual development of the human form from lower animal forms, and ultimately from a unicellular organism, is an incredible miracle, forget that the same miracle takes place within the space of mine months in the embryonic development of every human being. Each of us has, in the forty weeks—properly speaking, in the first four weeks—of his development in the womb, passed through the same series of transformations that our animal ancestors underwent in the course of millions of years.

It is impossible to determine even approximately, in hundreds or even thousands of years, the real and absolute duration of the phylogenetic period. But for some time now we have, through the research of geologists, been in a position to assign the relative length of the various sections of the organic history of the earth. The immediate data for determining this relative length of the geological periods are found in the thickness of the sedimentary strata—the strata that have been formed at the bottom of the sea or in fresh water from the mud or slime deposited there. These successive layers of limestone, sandstone, slate, marl, etc., which make up the greater part of the rocks, and are often several thousand feet thick, give us a standard for computing the relative length of the various periods.

To make the point quite clear, I must say a word about the evolution of the earth in general, and point out briefly the chief features of the story. In the first place, we encounter the principle that on our planet organic life began to exist at a definite period. That statement is no longer disputed by any competent geologist or biologist. The organic history of the earth could not commence until it was possible for water to settle on our planet in fluid condition. Every organism, without exception, needs fluid water as a condition of existence, and contains a considerable quantity of it. Our own body, when fully formed, contains sixty to seventy per cent of water in its tissues, and only thirty to forty per cent of solid matter. There is even more water in the body of the child, and still more in the embryo. In the earlier stages of development the human fœtus contains more than ninety per cent of water, and not ten per cent of solids. In the lower marine animals, especially certain medusæ, the body consists to the extent of more than ninety-nine per cent of sea-water, and has not one per cent of solid matter. No organism can exist or discharge its functions without water. No water, no life!

But fluid water, on which the existence of life primarily depends, could not exist on our planet until the temperature of the surface of the incandescent sphere had sunk to a certain point. Up to that time it remained in the form of steam. But as soon as the first fluid water could be condensed from the envelope of steam, it began its geological action, and has continued down to the present day to modify the solid crust of the earth. The final outcome of this incessant action of the water—wearing down and dissolving the rocks in the form of rain, hail, snow, and ice, as running stream or boiling surge—is the formation of mud. As Huxley says in his admirable Lectures on the Causes of Phenomena in Organic Nature, the chief document as to the past history of our earth is mud; the question of the history of past ages resolves itself into a question about the formation of mud.

As I have said, it is possible to form an approximate idea of the relative age of the various strata by comparing them at different parts of the earth’s surface. Geologists have long been agreed that there is a definite historical succession of the different strata. The various superimposed layers correspond to successive periods in the organic history of the earth, in which they were deposited in the form of mud at the bottom of the sea. The mud was gradually converted into stone. This was lifted out of the water owing to variations in the earth’s surface, and formed the mountains. As a rule, four or five great divisions are distinguished in the organic history of the earth, corresponding to the larger and smaller groups of the sedimentary strata. The larger periods are then sub-divided into a series of smaller ones, which usually number from twelve to fifteen. The comparative thickness of the groups of strata enables us to make an approximate calculation of the relative length of these various periods of time. We cannot say, it is true, “In a century a stratum of a certain thickness (about two feet) is formed on the average; therefore, a layer 1000 feet thick must be 500,000 years old.” Different strata of the same thickness may need very different periods for their formation. But from

[ 201 ]

the thickness or size of the stratum we can draw some conclusion as to the relative length of the period.

The first and oldest of the four or five chief divisions of the organic history of the earth is called the primordial, archaic, or archeozoic period. If we compute the total average thickness of the sedimentary strata at about 130,000 feet, this first period comprises 70,000 feet, or the greater part of the whole. For this and other reasons we may at once conclude that the corresponding primordial or archeolithic period must have been in itself much longer than the whole of the remaining periods together, from its close to the present day. It was probably much longer than the figures I have quoted (7:6) indicate—possibly 9:6. Of late years the thickness of the archaic rocks has been put at 90,000 feet.

The primordial period falls into three subordinate sections—the Laurentian, Huronian, and Cambrian, corresponding to the three chief groups of rocks that comprise the archaic formation. The immense period during which these rocks were forming in the primitive ocean probably comprises more than 50,000,000 years. At the commencement of it the oldest and simplest organisms were formed by spontaneous generation—the Monera, with which the history of life on our planet opened. From these were first developed unicellular organisms of the simplest character, the Protophyta

[ 202 ]

and Protozoa (paulotomea, amœbæ, rhizopods, infusoria, and other Protists). During this period the whole of the invertebrate ancestors of the human race were evolved from the unicellular organisms. We can deduce this from the fact that we already find remains of fossilised fishes (Selachii and Ganoids) towards the close of the following Silurian period. These are much more advanced and much younger than the lowest vertebrate, the Amphioxus, and the numerous skull-less vertebrates, related to the Amphioxus, that must have lived at that time. The whole of the invertebrate ancestors of the human race must have preceded these.

The primordial age is followed by a much shorter division, the paleozoic or Primary age. It is divided into four long periods, the Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, and Permian. The Silurian strata are particularly interesting because they contain the first fossil traces of vertebrates—teeth and scales of Selachii (Palæodus) in the lower, and Ganoids (Pteraspis) in the upper Silurian. During the Devonian period the “old red sandstone” was formed; during the Carboniferous period were deposited the vast coal-measures that yield us our chief combustive material; in the Permian (or the Dyas), in fine, the new red sandstone, the Zechstein (magnesian limestone), and the Kupferschiefer (marl-slate) were formed. The collective depth of these strata is put at 40,000 to 45,000 feet. In any case, the paleozoic age, taken as a whole, was much shorter than the preceding and much longer than the subsequent periods. The strata that were deposited during this primary epoch contain a large number of fossils; besides the invertebrate species there are a good many vertebrates, and the fishes preponderate. There were so many fishes, especially primitive fishes (of the shark type) and plated fishes, during the Devonian, and also during the Carboniferous and Permian periods, that we may describe the whole paleozoic period as “the age of fishes.” Among the paleozoic plated fishes or Ganoids the Crossopterygii and the Ctenodipterina (dipneusts) are of great importance.

During this period some of the fishes began to adapt themselves to living on land, and so gave rise to the class of the amphibia. We find in the Carboniferous period fossilised remains of five-toed amphibia, the oldest terrestrial, air-breathing vertebrates. These amphibia increase in variety in the Permian epoch. Towards the close of it we find the first Amniotes, the ancestors of the three higher classes of Vertebrates. These are lizard-like animals; the first to be discovered was the Proterosaurus, from the marl at Eisenach. The rise of the earliest Amniotes, among which must have been the common ancestor of the reptiles, birds, and mammals, is put back towards the close of the paleozoic age by the discovery of these reptile remains. The ancestors of our race during this period were at first represented by true fishes, then by dipneusts and amphibia, and finally by the earliest Amniotes, or the Protamniotes.

The third chief section of the organic history of the earth is the Mesozoic or Secondary period. This again is subdivided into three divisions Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous. The thickness of the strata that were deposited in this period, from the beginning of the Triassic to the end of the Cretaceous period, is altogether about 15,000 feet, or not half as much as the paleozoic deposits. During this period there was a very brisk and manifold development in all branches of the animal kingdom. There were especially a number of new and interesting forms evolved in the vertebrate stem. Bony fishes (Teleostei) make their first appearance. Reptiles are found in extraordinary variety and number; the extinct giant-serpents (dinosauria), the sea-serpents (halisauria), and the flying lizards (pterosauria) are the most remarkable and best known of these. On account of this predominance of the reptile-class, the period is called “the age of reptiles.” But the bird-class was also evolved during this period; they certainly originated from some division of the lizard-like reptiles. This is proved by the embryological identity of the birds and reptiles and their comparative anatomy, and, among other features, from the circumstance that in this period there were birds with teeth in their jaws and with tails like lizards (Archeopteryx, Odontornis).

Finally, the most advanced and (for us) the most important class of the vertebrates, the mammals, made their appearance during the mesozoic period. The earliest fossil remains of them were found in the latest Triassic strata—lower jaws of small ungulates and marsupials. More numerous remains are found a little later

[ 203 ]

in the Jurassic, and some in the Cretaceous. All the mammal remains that we have from this section belong to the lower promammals and marsupials; among these were most certainly the ancestors of the human race. On the other hand, we have not found a single indisputable fossil of any higher mammal (a placental) in the whole of this period. This division of the mammals, which includes man, was not developed until later, towards the close of this or in the following period.

The fourth section of the organic history of the earth, the Tertiary or Cenozoic age, was much shorter than the preceding. The strata that were deposited during this period have a collective thickness of only about 3,000 feet. It is subdivided into four sections—the Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene. During these periods there was a very varied development of higher plant and animal forms; the fauna and flora of our planet approached nearer and nearer to the character that they bear to-day. In particular, the most advanced class, the mammals, began to preponderate. Hence the Tertiary period may be called “the age of mammals.” The highest section of this class, the placentals, now made their appearance; to this group the human race belongs. The first appearance of man, or, to be more precise, the development of man from some closely-related group of apes, probably falls in either the miocene or the pliocene period, the middle or the last section of the Tertiary period. Others believe that man properly so-called—man endowed with speech—was not evolved from the non-speaking ape-man (Pithecanthropus) until the following, the anthropozoic, age.

In this fifth and last section of the organic history of the earth we have the full development and dispersion of the various races of men, and so it is called the Anthropozoic as well as the Quaternary period. In the imperfect condition of paleontological and ethnographical science we cannot as yet give a confident answer to the question whether the evolution of the human race from some extinct ape or lemur took place at the beginning of this or towards the middle or the end of the Tertiary period. However, this much is certain: the development of civilisation falls in the anthropozoic age, and this is merely an insignificant fraction of the vast period of the whole history of life. When we remember this, it seems ridiculous to restrict the word “history” to the civilised period. If we divide into a hundred equal parts the whole period of the history of life, from the spontaneous generation of the first Monera to the present day, and if we then represent the relative duration of the five chief sections or ages, as calculated from the average thickness of the strata they contain, as percentages of this, we get something like the following relation:—

In any case, the “historical period” is an insignificant quantity compared with the vast length of the preceding ages, in which there was no question of human existence on our planet. Even the important Cenozoic or Tertiary period, in which the first placentals or higher mammals appear, probably amounts to little over two per cent of the whole organic age.

Before we approach our proper task, and, with the aid of our ontogenetic acquirements and the biogenetic law, follow step by step the paleontological development of our animal ancestors, let us glance for a moment at another, and apparently quite remote, branch of science, a general consideration of which will help us in the solving of a difficult problem. I mean the science of comparative philology. Since Darwin gave new life to biology by his theory of selection, and raised the question of evolution on all sides, it has often been pointed out that there is a remarkable analogy between the development of languages and the evolution of species. The comparison is perfectly just and very instructive. We could hardly find a better analogy when we are dealing with some of the difficult and obscure features of the evolution of species. In both cases we find the action of the same natural laws.

All philologists of any competence in their science now agree that all human languages have been gradually evolved from very rudimentary beginnings. The

[ 204 ]

idea that speech is a gift of the gods—an idea held by distinguished authorities only fifty years ago—is now generally abandoned, and only supported by theologians and others who admit no natural development whatever. Speech has been developed simultaneously with its organs, the larynx and tongue, and with the functions of the brain. Hence it will be quite natural to find in the evolution and classification of languages the same features as in the evolution and classification of organic species. The various groups of languages that are distinguished in philology as primitive, fundamental, parent, and daughter languages, dialects, etc., correspond entirely in their development to the different categories which we classify in zoology and botany as stems, classes, orders, families, genera, species, and varieties. The relation of these groups, partly co-ordinate and partly subordinate, in the general scheme is just the same in both cases; and the evolution follows the same lines in both.

When, with the assistance of this tree, we follow the formation of the various languages that have been developed from the common root of the ancient Indo-Germanic tongue, we get a very clear idea of their phylogeny. We shall see at the same time how analogous this is to the development of the various groups of vertebrates that have arisen from the common stem-form of the primitive vertebrate. The ancient Indo-Germanic root-language divided first into two principal stems—the Slavo-Germanic and the Aryo-Romanic. The Slavo-Germanic stem then branches into the ancient Germanic and the ancient Slavo-Lettic tongues; the Aryo-Romanic into the ancient Aryan and the ancient Greco-Roman. If we still follow the genealogical tree of these four Indo-Germanic tongues, we find that the ancient Germanic divides into three branches—the Scandinavian, the Gothic, and the German. From the ancient German came the High German and Low German; to the latter belong the Frisian, Saxon, and modern Low-German dialects. The ancient Slavo-Lettic divided first into a Baltic and a Slav language. The Baltic gave rise to the Lett, Lithuanian, and old-Prussian varieties; the Slav to the Russian and South-Slav in the south-east, and to the Polish and Czech in the west.

We find an equally prolific branching of its two chief stems when we turn to the other division of the Indo-Germanic languages. The Greco-Roman divided into the Thracian (Albano-Greek) and the Italo-Celtic. From the latter came the divergent branches of the Italic (Roman and Latin) in the south, and the Celtic in the north: from the latter have been developed all the British (ancient British, ancient Scotch, and Irish) and Gallic varieties. The ancient Aryan gave rise to the numerous Iranian and Indian languages.

This “comparative anatomy” and evolution of languages admirably illustrates the phylogeny of species. It is clear that in structure and development the primitive languages, mother and daughter languages, and varieties, correspond exactly to the classes, orders, genera, and species of the animal world. In both cases the “natural” system is phylogenetic. As we have been convinced from comparative anatomy and ontogeny, and from paleontology, that all past and living vertebrates descend from a common ancestor, so the comparative study of dead and living Indo-Germanic tongues proves beyond question that they are all modifications of one primitive language. This view of their origin is now accepted by all the chief philologists who have worked in this branch and are unprejudiced.

But the point to which I desire particularly to draw the reader’s attention in this comparison of the Indo-Germanic languages with the branches of the vertebrate stem is, that one must never confuse direct descendants with collateral branches, nor extinct forms with living. This confusion is very common, and our opponents often make use of the erroneous ideas it gives rise to for the purpose of attacking evolution generally. When, for instance, we say that man descends from the ape, this from the lemur, and the lemur from the marsupial, many people imagine that we are speaking of the living species of these orders of mammals that they find stuffed in our museums. Our opponents then foist this idea on us, and say, with more astuteness than intelligence, that it is quite impossible; or they ask us, by way of physiological experiment, to turn a kangaroo into a lemur, a lemur into a gorilla, and a gorilla into a man! The demand is childish, and the idea it rests on erroneous. All these living forms have diverged more or less from the ancestral form; none of them could engender the

[ 205 ]

same posterity that the stem-form really produced thousands of years ago.

It is certain that man has descended from some extinct mammal; and we should just as certainly class this in the order of apes if we had it before us. It is equally certain that this primitive ape descended in turn from an unknown lemur, and this from an extinct marsupial. But it is just as clear that all these extinct ancestral forms can only be claimed as belonging to the living order of mammals in virtue of their essential internal structure and their resemblance in the decisive anatomic characteristics of each order. In external appearance, in the characteristics of the genus or species, they would differ more or less, perhaps very considerably, from all living representatives of those orders. It is a universal and natural procedure in phylogenetic development that the stem-forms themselves, with their specific peculiarities, have been extinct for some time. The forms that approach nearest to them among the living species are more or less—perhaps very substantially—different from them. Hence in our phylogenetic inquiry and in the comparative study of the living, divergent descendants, there can only be a question of determining the greater or less remoteness of the latter from the ancestral form. Not a single one of the older stem-forms has continued unchanged down to our time.

We find just the same thing in comparing the various dead and living languages that have developed from a common primitive tongue. If we examine our genealogical tree of the Indo-Germanic languages in this light, we see at once that all the older or parent tongues, of which we regard the living varieties of the stem as divergent daughter or grand-daughter languages, have been extinct for some time. The Aryo-Romanic and the Slavo-Germanic tongues have completely disappeared; so also the Aryan, the Greco-Roman, the Slavo-Lettic, and the ancient Germanic. Even their daughters and grand-daughters have been lost; all the living Indo-Germanic languages are only related in the sense that they are divergent descendants of common stem-forms. Some forms have diverged more, and some less, from the original stem-form.

This easily demonstrable fact illustrates very well the analogous case of the origin of the vertebrate species. Phylogenetic comparative philology here yields a strong support to phylogenetic comparative zoology. But the one can adduce more direct evidence than the other, as the paleontological material of philology—the old monuments of the extinct tongue—have been preserved much better than the paleontological material of zoology, the fossilised bones and imprints of vertebrates.

We may, however, trace man’s genealogical tree not only as far as the lower mammals, but much further—to the amphibia, to the shark-like primitive fishes, and, in fine, to the skull-less vertebrates that closely resembled the Amphioxus. But this must not be understood in the sense that the existing Amphioxus, or the sharks or amphibia of to-day, can give us any idea of the external appearance of these remote stem-forms. Still less must it be thought that the Amphioxus or any actual shark, or any living species of amphibia, is a real ancestral form of the higher vertebrates and man. The statement can only rationally mean that the living forms I have referred to are collateral lines that are much more closely related to the extinct stem-forms, and have retained the resemblance much better, than any other animals we know. They are still so like them in regard to their distinctive internal structure that we should put them in the same class with the extinct forms if we had these before us. But no direct descendants of these earlier forms have remained unchanged. Hence we must entirely abandon the idea of finding direct ancestors of the human race in their characteristic external form among the living species of animals. The essential and distinctive features that still connect living forms more or less closely with the extinct common stem-forms lie in the internal structure, not the external appearance. The latter has been much modified by adaptation. The former has been more or less preserved by heredity.

Comparative anatomy and ontogeny prove beyond question that man is a true vertebrate, and, therefore, man’s special genealogical tree must be connected with that of the other Vertebrates, which spring from a common root with him. But we have also many important grounds in comparative anatomy and ontogeny for assuming a common origin for all the Vertebrates. If the general theory of

[ 206 ]

evolution is correct, all the Vertebrates, including man, come from a single common ancestor, a long-extinct “Primitive Vertebrate.” Hence the genealogical tree of the Vertebrates is at the same time that of the human race.

Our task, therefore, of constructing man’s genealogy becomes the larger aim of discovering the genealogy of the entire vertebrate stem. As we now know from the comparative anatomy and ontogeny of the Amphioxus and the Ascidia, this is in turn connected with the genealogical tree of the Invertebrates (directly with that of the Vermalia), but has no direct connection with the independent stems of the Articulates, Molluscs, and Echinoderms. If we do thus follow our ancestral tree through various stages down to the lowest worms, we come inevitably to the Gastræa, that most instructive form that gives the clearest possible picture of an animal with two germinal layers. The Gastræa itself has originated from the simple multicellular vesicle, the Blastæa, and this in turn must have been evolved from the lowest circle of unicellular animals, to which we give the name of Protozoa. We have already considered the most important primitive type of these, the unicellular Amœba, which is extremely instructive when compared with the human ovum. With this we reach the lowest of the solid data to which we are to apply our biogenetic law, and by which we may deduce the extinct ancestor from the embryonic form. The amœboid nature of the young ovum and the unicellular condition in which (as stem-cell or cytula) every human being begins its existence justify us in affirming that the earliest ancestors of the human race were simple amœboid coils.

But the further question now arises: “Whence came these first amœbæ with which the history of life began at the commencement of the Laurentian epoch?” There is only one answer to this. The earliest unicellular organisms can only have been evolved from the simplest organisms we know, the Monera. These are the simplest living things that we can conceive. Their whole body is nothing but a particle of plasm, a granule of living albuminous matter, discharging of itself all the essential vital functions that form the material basis of life. Thus we come to the last, or, if you prefer, the first, question in connection with evolution—the question of the origin of the Monera. This is the real question of the origin of life, or of spontaneous generation.

We have neither space nor occasion to go further in this Chapter into the question of spontaneous generation. For this I must refer the reader to the fifteenth chapter of the History of Creation, and especially to the second book of the General Morphology, or to the essay on “The Monera and Spontaneous Generation” in my Studies of the Monera and other Protists.¹ I have given there fully my own view of this important question. The famous botanist Nägeli afterwards (1884) developed the same ideas. I will only say a few words here about this obscure question of the origin of life, in so far as our main subject, organic evolution in general, is affected by it. Spontaneous generation, in the definite and restricted sense in which I maintain it, and claim that it is a necessary hypothesis in explaining the origin of life, refers solely to the evolution of the Monera from inorganic carbon-compounds. When living things made their first appearance on our planet, the very complex nitrogenous compound of carbon that we call plasson, which is the earliest material embodiment of vital action, must have been formed in a purely chemical way from inorganic carbon-compounds. The first Monera were formed in the sea by spontaneous generation, as crystals are formed in the mother-water. Our demand for a knowledge of causes compels us to assume this. If we believe that the whole inorganic history of the earth has proceeded on mechanical principles without any intervention of a Creator, and that the history of life also has been determined by the same mechanical laws; if we see that there is no need to admit creative action to explain the origin of the various groups of organisms; it is utterly irrational to assume such creative action in dealing with the first appearance of organic life on the earth.

This much-disputed question of “spontaneous generation” seems so obscure, because people have associated with the term a mass of very different, and often very absurd, ideas, and have attempted to solve the difficulty by the crudest experiments. The real doctrine of the spontaneous generation of life cannot possibly be refuted by experiments.

1. The English reader will find a luminous and up-to-date chapter on the subject in Haeckel’s recently written and translated Wonders of Life.—Translator.

[ 207 ]

Every experiment that has a negative result only proves that no organism has been formed out of inorganic matter in the conditions—highly artificial conditions—we have established. On the other hand, it would be exceedingly difficult to prove the theory by way of experiment; and even if Monera were still formed daily by spontaneous generation (which is quite possible), it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to find a solid proof of it. Those who will not admit the spontaneous generation of the first living things in our sense must have recourse to a supernatural miracle; and this is, as a matter of fact, the desperate resource to which our “exact” scientists are driven, to the complete abdication of reason.

A famous English physicist, Lord Kelvin (then Sir W. Thomson), attempted to dispense with the hypothesis of spontaneous generation by assuming that the organic inhabitants of the earth were developed from germs that came from the inhabitants of other planets, and that chanced to fall on our planet on fragments of their original home, or meteorites. This hypothesis found many supporters, among others the distinguished German physicist, Helmholtz. However, it was refuted in 1872 by the able physicist, Friedrich Zöllner, of Leipzig, in his work, On the Nature of Comets. He showed clearly how unscientific this hypothesis is; firstly in point of logic, and secondly in point of scientific content. At the same time he pointed out that our hypothesis of spontaneous generation is “a necessary condition for understanding nature according to the law of causality.”

I repeat that we must call in the aid of the hypothesis only as regards the Monera, the structureless “organisms without organs.” Every complex organism must have been evolved from some lower organism. We must not assume the spontaneous generation of even the simplest cell, for this itself consists of at least two parts—the internal, firm nuclear substance, and the external, softer cellular substance or the protoplasm of the cell-body. These two parts must have been formed by differentiation from the indifferent plasson of a moneron, or a cytode. For this reason the natural history of the Monera is of great interest; here alone can we find the means to overcome the chief difficulties of the problem of spontaneous generation. The actual living Monera are specimens of such organless or structureless organisms, as they must have boon formed by spontaneous generation at the commencement of the history of life.

Title and Contents
Vol. II Title and Contents
Glossary
Chapter XVII
Chapter XIX
Figs. 1–209
Figs. 210–408