Creative Evolution · 13 of 50
I · Footnotes
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 3: Matière et mémoire, Paris, 1896, chaps. ii. and iii.]
[Footnote 4: Calkins, Studies on the Life History of Protozoa (Archiv f. Entwicklungsmechanik, vol. xv., 1903, pp. 139-186).]
[Footnote 5: Sedgwick Minot, On Certain Phenomena of Growing Old (Proc. Amer. Assoc. for the Advancement of Science, 39th Meeting, Salem, 1891, pp. 271-288).]
[Footnote 6: Le Dantec, L’Individualité et l’erreur individualiste, Paris, 1905, pp. 84 ff.]
[Footnote 7: Metchnikoff, La Dégénérescence sénile (Année biologique, iii., 1897, pp. 249 ff.). Cf. by the same author, La Nature humaine, Paris, 1903, pp. 312 ff.]
[Footnote 8: Roule, L’Embryologie générale, Paris, 1893, p. 319.]
[Footnote 9: The irreversibility of the series of living beings has been well set forth by Baldwin (Development and Evolution, New York, 1902; in particular p. 327).]
[Footnote 10: We have dwelt on this point and tried to make it clear in the Essai sur les données immédiates de la conscience, pp. 140-151.]
[Footnote 11: In his fine work on Genius in Art (Le Génie dans l’art), M. Séailles develops this twofold thesis, that art is a continuation of nature and that life is creation. We should willingly accept the second formula; but by creation must we understand, as the author does, a synthesis of elements? Where the elements pre-exist, the synthesis that will be made is virtually given, being only one of the possible arrangements. This arrangement a superhuman intellect could have perceived in advance among all the possible ones that surround it. We hold, on the contrary, that in the domain of life the elements have no real and separate existence. They are manifold mental views of an indivisible process. And for that reason there is radical contingency in progress, incommensurability between what goes before and what follows—in short, duration.]
[Footnote 12: Bütschli, Untersuchungen über mikroskopische Schäume und das Protoplasma, Leipzig, 1892, First Part.]
[Footnote 13: Rhumbler, Versuch einer mechanischen Erklärung der indirekten Zell-und Kernteilung (Roux’s Archiv, 1896).]
[Footnote 14: Berthold, Studien über Protoplasmamechanik, Leipzig, 1886, p. 102. Cf. the explanation proposed by Le Dantec, Théorie nouvelle de la vie, Paris, 1896, p. 60.]
[Footnote 15: Cope, The Primary Factors of Organic Evolution, Chicago, 1896, pp. 475-484.]
[Footnote 16: Maupas, “Etude des infusoires ciliés” (Arch. de zoologie expérimentale, 1883, pp. 47, 491, 518, 549, in particular). P. Vignon, Recherches de cytologie générale sur les épithéliums, Paris, 1902, p. 655. A profound study of the motions of the Infusoria and a very penetrating criticism of the idea of tropism have been made recently by Jennings (Contributions to the Study of the Behavior of Lower Organisms, Washington, 1904). The “type of behavior” of these lower organisms, as Jennings defines it (pp. 237-252), is unquestionably of the psychological order.]
[Footnote 17: E.B. Wilson, The Cell in Development and Inheritance, New York, 1897, p. 330.]
[Footnote 18: Dastre, La Vie et la mort, p. 43.]
[Footnote 19: Laplace, Introduction à la théorie analytique des probabilités (OEuvres complètes, vol. vii., Paris, 1886, p. vi.).]
[Footnote 20: Du Bois-Reymond, Über die Grenzen des Naturerkennens, Leipzig, 1892.]
[Footnote 21: There are really two lines to follow in contemporary neo-vitalism: on the one hand, the assertion that pure mechanism is insufficient, which assumes great authority when made by such scientists as Driesch or Reinke, for example; and, on the other hand, the hypotheses which this vitalism superposes on mechanism (the “entelechies” of Driesch, and the “dominants” of Reinke, etc.). Of these two parts, the former is perhaps the more interesting. See the admirable studies of Driesch—Die Lokalisation morphogenetischer Vorgänge, Leipzig, 1899; Die organischen Regulationen, Leipzig, 1901; Naturbegriffe und Natururteile, Leipzig, 1904; Der Vitalismus als Geschichte und als Lehre, Leipzig, 1905; and of Reinke—Die Welt als Tat, Berlin, 1899; Einleitung in die theoretische Biologie, Berlin, 1901; Philosophie der Botanik, Leipzig, 1905.]
[Footnote 22: P. Guérin, Les Connaissances actuelles sur la fécondation chez les phanérogames, Paris, 1904, pp. 144-148. Cf. Delage, L’Hérédité, 2nd edition, 1903, pp. 140 ff.]
[Footnote 23: Möbius, Beiträge zur Lehre von der Fortpflanzung der Gewächse, Jena, 1897, pp. 203-206 in particular. Cf. Hartog, “Sur les phénomènes de reproduction” (Année biologique, 1895, pp. 707-709).]
[Footnote 24: Paul Janet, Les Causes finales, Paris, 1876, p. 83.]
[Footnote 25: Ibid. p. 80.]
[Footnote 26: Darwin, Origin of Species, chap. ii.]
[Footnote 27: Bateson, Materials for the Study of Variation, London, 1894, especially pp. 567 ff. Cf. Scott, “Variations and Mutations” (American Journal of Science, Nov. 1894).]
[Footnote 28: De Vries, Die Mutationstheorie, Leipzig, 1901-1903. Cf., by the same author, Species and Varieties, Chicago, 1905.]
[Footnote 29: Darwin, Origin of Species, chap. vi.]
[Footnote 30: Darwin, Origin of Species, chap. i.]
[Footnote 31: On this homology of hair and teeth, see Brandt, “Über … eine mutmassliche Homologie der Haare und Zahne” (Biol. Centralblatt, vol. xviii., 1898, especially pp. 262 ff.).]
[Footnote 32: It seems, from later observations, that the transformation of Artemia is a more complex phenomenon than was first supposed. See on this subject Samter and Heymons, “Die Variation bei Artemia Salina” (Anhang zu den Abhandlungen der k. preussischen Akad. der Wissenschaften, 1902).]
[Footnote 33: Eimer, Orthogenesis der Schmetterlinge, Leipzig, 1897, p. 24. Cf. Die Entstehung der Arten, p. 53.]
[Footnote 34: Eimer, Die Entstehung der Arten, Jena, 1888, p. 25.]
[Footnote 35: Ibid. pp. 165 ff.]
[Footnote 36: Salensky, “Heteroblastie” (Proc. of the Fourth International Congress of Zoology, London, 1899, pp. 111-118). Salensky has coined this word to designate the cases in which organs that are equivalent, but of different embryological origin, are formed at the same points in animals related to each other.]
[Footnote 37: Wolff, “Die Regeneration der Urodelenlinse” (Arch. f. Entwicklungsmechanik, i., 1895, pp. 380 ff.).]
[Footnote 38: Fischel, “Über die Regeneration der Linse” (Anat. Anzeiger, xiv., 1898, pp. 373-380).]
[Footnote 39: Cope, The Origin of the Fittest, 1887; The Primary Factors of Organic Evolution, 1896.]
[Footnote 40: Cuénot, “La Nouvelle Théorie transformiste” (Revue générale des sciences, 1894). Cf. Morgan, Evolution and Adaptation, London, 1903, p. 357.]
[Footnote 41: Brown-Séquard, “Nouvelles recherches sur l’épilepsie due à certaines lésions de la moelle épiniéere et des nerfs rachidiens” (Arch. de physiologie, vol. ii., 1866, pp. 211, 422, and 497).]
[Footnote 42: Weismann, Aufsätze über Vererbung, Jena, 1892, pp. 376-378, and also Vorträge über Descendenztheorie, Jena, 1902, vol. ii., p. 76.]
[Footnote 43: Brown-Séquard, “Hérédité d’une affection due à une cause accidentelle” (Arch. de physiologie, 1892, pp. 686 ff.).]
[Footnote 44: Voisin and Peron, “Recherches sur la toxicité urinaire chez les épileptiques” (Arch. de neurologie, vol. xxiv., 1892, and xxv., 1893. Cf. the work of Voisin, L’Épilepsie, Paris, 1897, pp. 125-133).]
[Footnote 45: Charrin, Delamare and Moussu, “Transmission expérimentale aux descendants de lésions développées chez les ascendants” (C.R. de l’Acad. des sciences, vol. cxxxv., 1902, p. 191). Cf. Morgan, Evolution and Adaptation, p. 257, and Delage, L’Hérédité, 2nd edition, p. 388.]
[Footnote 46: Charrin and Delamare, “Hérédité cellulaire” (C.R. de l’Acad. des sciences, vol. cxxxiii., 1901, pp. 69-71).]
[Footnote 47: Charrin, “L’Hérédité pathologique” (Revue générale des sciences, 15 janvier 1896).]
[Footnote 48: Giard, Controverses transformistes, Paris, 1904, p. 147.]
[Footnote 49: Some analogous facts, however, have been noted, all in the vegetable world. See Blaringhem, “La Notion d’espèce et la théorie de la mutation” (Année psychologique, vol. xii., 1906, pp. 95 ff.), and De Vries, Species and Varieties, p. 655.]
[Footnote 50: See, on this subject, Matière et mémoire, chap. i.]