of our anti-Darwinian
view, and deal Darwinism another fatal blow. It is also worthy of
special note that this time the blow is dealt from the side of
palaeontology; for, even if now and again we dissent from Steinmann, in
this we fully agree with him that the historical method of considering
the evidences of bygone periods of creation is at the very least quite
as important for passing correct judgment regarding descent, as is the
investigation of contemporary living organisms. Indeed, family-trees
were constructed without regard for palaeontology, almost exclusively
from an examination of present conditions, and sometimes the author did
not even shrink from falsification. This procedure has been bitterly
revenged and will take further revenge unless at length a definite end
be put to the family-tree nuisance and the respective books instead of
being published anew, be relegated to the lumber-room of science, there
to turn yellow amid dust and cobwebs--the curious evidence of gross
folly. But only have patience, even that time will come.

The conclusions of Steinmann, that are most important for us, may be
summarized as follows:

1. The family and transition forms demanded from palaeontology by
Darwinism for its family-trees, constructed not empirically but _a
priori_, are nowhere to be found among the abundant materials which
palaeontological investigation has already produced.

2. The results of the investigation do not correspond with the family
groups drawn up according to the so-called "biogenetic principle,"
which principle has in fact led men of science into false paths.

3. At best, the biogenetic principle has a limited validity, (we add
that later it will undoubtedly follow Darwinism and its family trees
into the lumber-room).

4. The results of palaeontology, in so far, for instance, as they
testify to the sudden disappearance of the saurians and the advent of
mammals, everywhere contradict the Darwinian principle of the survival
of the fittest in the struggle for existence.

5. "The time has long passed when the Darwinian explanations were
regarded with naive confidence as the alpha and omega of the doctrine
of Descent."

6. Only the principle of Descent is universally recognized; the "how"
of it, its causes, are to-day entirely a matter of dispute.

CHAPTER V.

The strongest evidence of the decay of Darwinism is to be found in the
fact that, since Darwin first enunciated his theory, man