recting our investigation in the direction of Descent,
and I do not consider such investigation so utterly hopeless as
Fleischmann represents it. However, I entirely concur with him in the
opinion that we are here concerned (and shall be for a long time to
come) with a mere hypothesis which belongs not in the market-place, nor
among the world views of the multitude, but in the study of the man of
science.

Above all it must not be mixed up with religious questions. Whether the
hypothesis will ever emerge from the study of the man of science as a
well-attested law, is still an open question, incapable of immediate
solution.

* * * * * * *

It is of interest for us to inquire what reception Fleischmann's
protest against the theory of Descent has been accorded by his
associates.

Fleischmann was formerly an advocate of the theory of Descent. He was a
pupil and assistant of Selenka, who was then at Erlangen (died in
Muenster 1902). He had previously written a number of scientific works
from the standpoint of the Descent theory. In the year 1891,
investigations regarding rodents led him to oppose that theory. During
the winter term of 1891-92 he gave evidence of this change in a public
lecture. Not until 1895 was there question of his appointment to the
chair of zoology in Erlangen. In 1898 he published a Manual of Zoology
based on principles radically opposed to the doctrine of Descent. This
manual irritated Haeckel so much that he issued one of his well-known
articles, _Ascending and Descending Zoology_, in which, after his
usual manner, he casts suspicion on Fleischmann of having received his
appointment to the chair at Erlangen by becoming an anti-Darwinian in
accordance with a desire expressed at the diet of Bavaria. I am not
aware that Haeckel has paid any attention to the work of Fleischmann
which we have just reviewed.

By its publication, however, the author disturbed a hornet's nest.
Dispassionate, but still entirely adverse is Professor Plate's review
in the "Biologisches Zentralblatt," while the "Umschau" publishes two
criticisms, one by Professor von Wagner, the other by Dr. Reh, which
for want of sense could not well be equalled. It was the former who
furnished material for our sixth chapter and who there displayed such
utter confusion of thought regarding the inductive method. The same
confusion is apparent in his recent utterance in which he observes that
F