372 THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
combined with geratologous characteristics; secondly, the earlier development of
geratologous characteristics and their fusion with larval characteristics, which
occasions the complete replacement of progressive characters, and occurs only in
the extreme forms of retrogressive series."
Hyatt applied his old-age theory with abandon to all spheres of life and
culture. I find no usage more curious than his invocation of phylogerontism to
argue against voting for women (1897b). Hyatt claims that "in the early history of
mankind the women and men led lives more nearly alike and were consequently
more alike physically and mentally, than they have become subsequently in the
history of highly civilized peoples. This divergence of the sexes is a marked
characteristic of progression among highly civilized races." Ontogenetic old age
tends to blur sexual differences as men become less hirsute and develops larger
breasts, while sexual activity declines equally (or so Hyatt claimed) in both sexes.
Since phyletic sequences mirror ontogeny (and since the human race has become
dangerously phylogerontic already), we must beware any culturally enhanced
blurring of distinctions between the sexes—for androgyny of any form (physical,
cultural or conceptual) denotes racial senescence. Giving the vote to women will
enhance this dangerous tendency towards equalization of roles:
Such changes [women's suffrage]... might lead to what we might now
consider as intellectual advance, [but] this would not in any way alter the
facts that women would be tending to become virified and men to become
effeminized, and both would have, therefore, entered upon the retrogressive
period of their evolution... The danger to women cannot be exaggerated,
nor too carefully considered, in view of the fact that advanced women have
adopted the standard of men, and have not tried as yet to originate feminine
ideals to guide them in their new careers and thus maintain the divergence
of the sexes (1897, p. 91).This notion of an internal program for phylogeny (including the time bomb of
inherent racial senescence and extinction) ran so contrary to Darwin's convictions
about functionalism and contingency that he couldn't grasp Hyatt's conception at
all (more, I think, through disbelief at the content, than inability to comprehend the
argument). In 1872, as Darwin grappled with views of the American school in
preparing the 6th and last edition of the Origin, he engaged Hyatt in a long
correspondence about acceleration and racial life cycles (in F. Darwin, 1903, pp.
338 - 348). Darwin expressed his perplexity in the first letter: "I confess that I have
never been able to grasp fully what you [that is, Cope and Hyatt] wish to show, and
I presume that this must be owing to some dulness on my part" (in F. Darwin,
1903, p. 339).
After several exchanges of letters and diagrams (with some gain in
clarification), Darwin remained puzzled by the most anti-selectionist and non-
functionalist theme in Hyatt's system: the explanation of simplified ontogenies in
phyletic old age by intensified acceleration, with senile adult features interpreted as
nonadaptive preludes to extinction. Darwin conjectured in response: