PROFS. WEISMANN, Haeckel, and Karl Pearson will probably have something to say in reply to a paper which Dr. St. George Mivart contributes to the Fortnightly. The paper deals with what is described as “Denominational Science,” in which dogma takes the place of facts, and persuasions are given out as if they were demonstrated truths. Dr. Weismann comes under Dr. St. George Mivart's displeasure in this regard; and a note-worthy characteristic of his is said to be “the confidence with which he propounds hypotheses which are either purely imaginary, or are only supported by an infinitesimal basis of fact, and the readiness with which he comes forward with a fresh gratuitous hypothesis, to replace others which have been refuted by newly-discovered truths.” Prof. Haeckel is taken to task for the opinions expressed in his book on “Monism,” lately translated into English. The bearing of Dr. St. George Mivart towards the book is indicated by the remark which opens the attack upon some of the points in it. We read: “It is difficult to say whether this small volume is more remarkable for the self-conceit and empty dogmatism, or for the ignorance it displays—ignorance concerning the most fundamental questions of which its treats.” To assess these remarks at their proper value, it is necessary to read the article containing them, and the work to which they refer. Prof. Karl Pearson completes the trio upon whose viewrs Dr. St. George Mivart outpours the vials of his wrath. His “Grammar of Science,” and his remarks, in the Fortnightly, on Lord Salisbury's Oxford address, are given as evidence that “we have in England a denominational writer only second in self-confident dogmatism to Haeckel.” All the members of the trio are held up as awful examples of “an unconscious slavery of the intellect to the mere faculty of the imaginaltion, and the consequent presentation of shallow and illogical imaginary phantasms as deep and far-reaching intellectual truths in the form of baseless dogmas of denominational science.” Huxley and Karl Vogt are compared by Prof. Haeckel in the Fortnightly, the former being given a higher place than the latter, both as regards his philosophical reasonings, and because he showed a much deeper insight into the essence and import of scientific things. Two pages of the six, which form Prof. Haeckel's notice, are taken up with a denunciation of Prof. Virchow's antagonism to Darwinism, and the theory of descent, especially with reference to the most important deduction from the theory—the descent of man from the ape. Virchow's dissent in this matter is used as one of the sticks with which Mr. F. H. Hill belabours agnosticism, and Huxley's support of it, in the National, under the title, “Gaps in Agnostic Evolution.”