The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-07-05
IAN Unsafe Guide.

many is Haeckel, the author OF the .! " An
tbropogenie," a. third edition Of which ha:
Just appeared. land Of q g General History
Of Creation.v His works have been trans:
lated into English, and have been no doubt
extensively read. - -" ~, ~, :.
1t is very very natural that we should yield az
almost unquestioning assent to the state
ments Of facts made by distinguished; men
of SCIENCE with regard to matters OF which
they arre presumed to be Specially cogni-
zant. We have, however, discovered by ex-
perience that many persons are: thus led
grievously astraY.. Menof science-at least
in the present 'day-are' extremely rash in
their statements and such, statements
should be carefully sscrutinized before be-
ing blindly accepted, if one is disposed to
study the su ect. in. 80 =" !aT!Lnis.
Herscnel's biunders about the distance Of
the fixed stars il an example in point. lLy-
clips mistake about the igneous origin OF
granite (mistake, that is, if his later opinion
as to its origin was correcD is another. So
Of Lyell's mistakes about the rate. OF formna-
ton Of ,,peat. and. the, rate of formationof
the delta of the Mississippi. n .'@s - no
Haeckel, however, being both man OF
scier eel and German, IS naturally presumed
to be almost iniallible in bis. knowledge, and
however wild his theories bis facts at least
were supposed tU be beyond challenge. . =
1T turns out, however; that his: .sAnthro-
pogenie . contains not only the most ex-
trayagant speculate but errors Of fact,
aad eome of them apparently not errors OF
ignorance on his part. In the June No. of
the Americdn Naturalist we, observe a re-.
view Of this work (p, $685. by mr.. Charles
sedgwick Minot, in which we find the fol-
lowing extraordinary statements made by
Mr.. Minot: ..,..,.....,,.- ,,'.s''
Professor Haeckel's book says Mr..
Minot, "is provided, with numerous illus.
trations. Professor His. (Flis Uasere K0r-.
perform, Leipsic, 1876, s. 1851 states that
on page 242 Of the first edition OF the Schop-
tfungsgssehicte there are three igures-one
Of the egg Of man, the egg Of anape, and
the egg OF Che dog which are referred to
in the, text as, showing The, identity OF the
primordial egg in mammals, but Professor
His calls attention to the fact that they are
eleetrotypes Of one and the same iwood-cut..
On page ITO Professor His calls attention
to the fact that ,Haeckel gives figures OF
an embryo dog and human fGtus-the for;
mer Of which is-suppesed to present copy
from Bischoff, the latter from Ecker. The
forehead in the dog is three and one-ha II
MN. longer than in Bischof 'slfgnre, while
that of the human embryo isTtwo'% MN.
shorter than the original, and made ,stiil
smaller by the eyeubeing drawn. five inm.
while the tail is twice as
long as in,the original. Professor H e
figures present the closest similarity with
,eanother. tst3g: iiiiaiird ,s1a:"n sl2t y ':'
5raPFofessor Biscbof directly contradicts
Haeckeps assertion that we cannot dis,
cover, esen with the aid OF the best micro
seopewnh the highest power! any essential
difference between the egg Of man AM and those
Of most Of the higher mammals, and states
that the pictures showing the identity of
mammalian embryos in. Plate Y: Of Haec-
kePs Anthropog genie differ essentially from
the reality; and fnallypthat figures of tapes
faces given by Haecksi On his tittltee;::page
show a great ,agreeneqht existing between
The features ofapes and Of the lower human
races, but that this resemblance does not
appear id the photo graphs, ,, 49,,
Mr.. Balfour journal Of Anatomy and
Physiology, vol. K, page 521---note,) also
cites Haeckel as having refgured one Of his
sections, employing. a coloration to distin-
guish the layers mot founded upon Bal
four's statements, but, on the contrary, in
direct opposition to Them -s,:s'i.- ~ !.
Professor HeIsen, In AN article on the
Development Of the rabbit, calls attention
to Haeokel's picture, Of spermatozeas within
the yolksof a mammalian egg-a thing which
no man had ever seen up to that time.
Professor Semper has openly attacked
Haeckel, declaring amongst other hings
that Haeckers figure, Of . section through
an annelid's head is incorrect, because 1t
contains q. cardinal vein, genital glands,
Iiver.saeks, and .segmsnta organs, and none
OF these orgaaaexiss la the head.
Mr.y Alexander gassiz, saliuding to
Haeckeps .sstartliHg hypothesis OF the
genetic connection between the Geryonida
and Egenida, 2 called by Haeclse1 allao-
genesis, states that two short papers recently
Published by schulze and aUhanin prove
conelutiyeIy that g Haecksr i theory like
so many other OF his yagaries, had no ionn-5
datior, an tr,Ith ~ 49, ,1-f
{, e II =. .