From man to the kangaroo the distance is certainly great. Now neither living nor extinct fauna show the intermediate types which ought to serve as land-marks. This difficulty causes but slight embarrassment to Darwin. We know that he considers the want of information upon similar questions as a proof in his favour. Haeckel doubtless is just as little embarrassed. He admits the existence of an absolutely theoretical _pithecoid man,_ and it is not the only instance in which he proceeds in a similar manner in order to complete his genealogical table. Take as an instance his words upon the _sozoura_ (14th stage), an amphibious animal which is equally unknown to science. “The proof of its existence arises from the necessity of an intermediate type between the 13th and the 14th stage.” Thus, since it has been proved that, according to Darwinism itself, the origin of man must be placed beyond the 18th stage, and since it becomes, in consequence _necessary_ to fill up the gap between marsupials and man, will Haeckel admit the existence of _four unknown intermediate groups_, instead of one? Will be complete his genealogy in this manner? It is not for me to answer. V. Darwin and Haeckel will most certainly think it very strange that a representative of the old school, a man who believes in the reality of species, should have the pretension to be better acquainted with the application of the laws of Darwinism than themselves, and to point out serious lapses in the applications they have made. Let us take our stand then on the ground of _facts_. There we shall at once find proof that this genealogy is wrong throughout, and is founded on a material anatomical error. Both Darwin and Haeckel connect the simian series with a type which would now be represented by the _lemuridæ_, which the latter designates by the term _prosimiæ_. The only grounds which Darwin assigns for this opinion are certain characters taken especially from dentition. Haeckel goes back to embryogenesis.