It is an incontrovertible fact that in the organic world there exists an ascending scale from the imperfect to the perfect. Every organism is indeed perfect in its own sphere and from its own point of view. But perfection with reference to things of earth is a very relative concept; many an organism which is perfect in itself, appears very imperfect when compared with others. If, then, there is a gradation of animals and plants from the lower to the higher, it is the task of the theory of Descent to explain this gradual perfection. The crude and aimless activity of Darwinian selection, which necessarily operates through "chance," can never explain this perfection, which remains, as far as selection is concerned, one of the greatest enigmas of nature. Far from solving the enigma, selection but makes it obscurer. If, then, one refuses to recognize a directing creative Intelligence, whose direction produces this perfection, nothing remains but Naegeli's principle of perfection. The outer world with its influences can certainly not produce perfection, hence this power must lie within the organism itself. But when one has once brought himself to accept an immanent principle of development, it surely cannot be difficult to take the next step and ascribe to it the tendency towards perfection. That Eimer does not take this step, is, to my mind, a mistake, which must be attributed to his one-sidedness, which, in turn, results from the fact that he generalizes too arbitrarily his observations on butterflies and the conclusions which he draws from them. Animals and plants certainly possess many characteristics which cannot be explained by means of his theory alone. The conclusion will probably be finally arrived at, that nature is inexhaustible and many-sided, even in the lines on which it proceeds to attain this or that end. One thing, however, of primary importance is evident from the investigations of Eimer, namely the proof that the same lines of development may be entered upon from entirely different starting-points, and that the number of these lines is limited. This fact is of importance because it enjoins more caution in arguing from uniformity of development to family-relation, than has been usually employed since the days of Darwin. The method commonly employed is undoubtedly very convenient, but is somewhat liable to be misleading. Hence, if one wishes to establish the genealogical relationship of forms, nothing remains but to set out on the laborious path of studying the development of both; and even then it remains questionable whether the truth will be arrived at. However, he who concludes to relationship from a comparison of developed forms, is much less likely to arrive at the truth.