It is apparent from Schurtz’s work that to him the necessity for an ordered sequence was self-evident. This acceptance of an ordered sequence as axiomatic was conditioned primarily by the fact that he implied at the very outset that the ordered sequence present in the evolution of biological phenomena was to be found in an essentially comparable manner in the development of civilization. In the same way Schurtz’s use of the terms “highest” and “lowest” and of “intermediate stages” is only inadequately explained when regarded as derived from the study of history. Neither can we assume that these terms were merely a reflection of the conclusion he had drawn from a comparison of the palpable differences between Europeans and “primitive” people. His whole treatment of “intermediate stages,” and of the factors he calls to his aid in explaining them,—such as divergences due to variations from a type, vestiges, functional changes,—these are all strictly biological not merely in their terminology, but likewise in their general connotation. The justification for equating the processes which have played a large part in historical and biological evolution seemed, indeed, apparent. In the cultural history of any people, we find elements splitting up and giving rise to innumerable variations. In this divergence we meet again and again with two phenomena,—first, that of the general decay of cultural elements, of their total disappearance in some cases and of their persistence as vestigial remains in others; and, secondly, that of the incessant change, of the re-adjustment and re-interpretation of cultural phenomena, so that elements often take upon themselves functions which they originally did not possess, while these original functions are either partially or totally obscured. Numerous other points, more specific in nature, could be adduced to demonstrate more fully the essential similarity of cultural and biological phenomena.