CHAPTER V.

CHARACTERS AS HEREDITARY AND ACQUIRED (_continued_).

(A. and B.)

_Direct and Indirect Evidence in favour of the Non-inheritance of Acquired Characters_[81].

[81] [_See_ note appended to Preface. C. LI. M.]

The strongest argument in favour of "continuity" is that based upon the immense difference between congenital and acquired characters in respect of heritability. For that there is a great difference in this respect is a matter of undeniable fact. And it is obvious that this difference, the importance of which must be allowed its full weight, is just what we should expect on the theory of the continuity of the germ-plasm, as opposed to that of pangenesis. Indeed it may be said that the difference in question, while it const.i.tutes important _evidence_ in favour of the former theory, is a _difficulty_ in the way of the latter. But here two or three considerations must be borne in mind.

In the first place, this fact has long been one which has met with wide recognition and now const.i.tutes the main ground on which the theory of continuity stands. That is to say, it was the previous knowledge of this contrast between congenital and acquired characters which led to the formulation of a theory of continuity by Mr. Galton, and to its subsequent development by Prof Weismann.

But, in the second place, there is a wide difference between the certainty of this fact and that of the theory based upon it. The certain fact is, that a great distinction in respect of heritability is observable between congenital and acquired characters. The theory, as formulated by Weismann, is that the distinction is not only great but absolute, or, in other words, that in no case and in no degree can any acquired character be ever inherited. This hypothesis, it will be observed, goes far beyond the observed fact, for it is obviously possible that, notwithstanding this great difference in regard to heritability between congenital and acquired characters, the latter may nevertheless, sometimes and in some degree, be inherited, however much difficulty we may experience in observing these lesser phenomena in presence of the greater. The Weismannian hypothesis of _absolute_ continuity is one thing, while the observed fact of at least a _high relative degree_ of continuity is quite another thing. And it is necessary to be emphatic on this point, since some of the reviewers of my _Examination of Weismannism_ confound these two things. Being apparently under the impression that it was reserved for Weismann to perceive the fact of there being a great difference between the heritability of congenital and acquired characters, they deem it inconsistent in me to acknowledge this fact while at the same time questioning the hypothetical basis of his fundamental postulate touching the absolute continuity of germ-plasm. It is one merit of Galton's theory, as against Weismann's, that it does not dogmatically exclude the possible interruption of continuity on some occasions and in some degree. Herein, indeed, would seem to lie the central core of the whole question in dispute. For it is certain and has long been known that individually acquired characters are at all events much less heritable than are long-inherited or congenital ones. But Lamarckian theory supposes that congenital characters were in some cases originally acquired, and that what are now blastogenetic characters were in some cases at first somatogenetic and have become blastogenetic only in virtue of sufficiently long inheritance. Since Darwin's time, however, evolutionists (even of the so-called Lamarckian type) have supposed that natural selection greatly a.s.sists this process of determining which somatogenetic characters shall become congenital or blastogenetic. Hence all schools of evolutionists are, and have long been, agreed in regarding the continuity principle as true in the main. No evolutionist would at any time have propounded the view that one generation depends for _all_ its characters on those acquired by its _immediate_ ancestors, for this would merely be to unsay the theory of Evolution itself, as well as to deny the patent facts of heredity as shown, for example, in atavism. At most only some fraction of a _per cent._ could be supposed to do so. But Weismann's contention is that this principle is not only true in the main, but _absolutely_ true; so that natural selection becomes all in all or not at all. Unless Weismannism be regarded as this doctrine of absolutism it permits no basis for his attempted theory of evolution.

And, whatever may be said to the contrary by the more enthusiastic followers of Prof. Weismann, I must insist that there is the widest possible difference between the truly scientific question of fact which is a.s.sumed by Weismann as answered (the base-line of the diagram on p.

43), and the elaborate structure of deductive reasoning which he has reared on this a.s.sumption (the Y-like structure). Even if the a.s.sumption should ever admit of inductive proof, the almost bewildering edifice of deductive reasoning which he has built upon it would still appear to me to present extremely little value of a scientific kind. Interesting though it may be as a monument of ingenious speculation hitherto unique in the history of science, the mere flimsiness of its material must always prevent its far-reaching conclusions from being worthy of serious attention from a biological point of view. But having already attempted to show fully in my _Examination_ this great distinction between the scientific importance of the question which lies at the base of "Weismannism," and that of the system which he has constructed on his a.s.sumed answer thereto, I need not now say anything further with regard to it.

Again, on the present occasion and in this connexion I should like to dissipate a misunderstanding into which some of the reviewers of the work just mentioned have fallen. They appear to have concluded that because I have criticized unfavourably a considerable number of Weismann's theories, I have shown myself hostile to his entire system.

Such, however, is by no means the case; and the misunderstanding can only be accounted for by supposing that the strongly partisan spirit which these critics display on the side of neo-Darwinism has rendered them incapable of appreciating any attempt at impartial--or even so much as independent--criticism. At all events, it is a matter of fact that throughout the work in question I have been particularly careful to avoid this misunderstanding as to my own position. Over and over again it is there stated that, far from having any objection to the principle of "Continuity" as represented in the base-line of the above diagram, I have been convinced of its truth ever since reading Mr. Galton's _Theory of Heredity_ in 1875. All the "hard words" which I have written against Weismann's system of theories have reference to those parts of it which go to const.i.tute the Y-like structure of the diagram.

It is, however, desirable to recur to another point, and one which I hope will be borne in mind throughout the following discussion. It has already been stated, a few pages back, that the doctrine of continuity admits of being held in two very different significations. It may be held as absolute, or as relative. In the former case we have the Weismannian doctrine of germ-plasm: the substance of heredity is taken to be a substance _per se_, which has always occupied a separate "sphere" of its own, without any contact with that of somatoplasm further than is required for its lodgement and nutrition; hence it can never have been in any degree modified as to its hereditary qualities by use-inheritance or any other kind of somatogenetic change; it has been _absolutely_ continuous "since the first origin of life." On the other hand, the doctrine of continuity may be held in the widely different sense in which it has been presented by Galton's theory of Stirp. Here the doctrine is, that while for the most part the phenomena of heredity are due to the continuity of the substance of heredity through numberless generations, this substance ("Stirp") is nevertheless not absolutely continuous, but may admit, in small though c.u.mulative degrees, of modification by use-inheritance and other factors of the Lamarckian kind. Now this all-important distinction between these two theories of continuity has been fully explained and thoroughly discussed in my _Examination_; therefore I will not here repeat myself further than to make the following remarks.

The Weismannian doctrine of continuity as absolute (base-line of the diagram) is necessary for the vast edifice of theories which he has raised upon it (the Y), first as to the minute nature and exact composition of the substance of heredity itself ("Germ-plasm"), next as to the precise mechanism of its action in producing the visible phenomena of heredity, variation, and all allied phenomena, and, lastly, the elaborate and ever-changing theory of organic evolution which is either founded on or interwoven with this vast system of hypothetic speculation. Galton's doctrine of continuity, on the other hand, is a "Theory of Heredity," and a theory of heredity alone. It does not meddle with any other matters whatsoever, and rigidly avoids all speculation further than is necessary for the bare statement and inductive support of the doctrine in question. Hence, it would appear that this, the only important respect wherein the doctrine of continuity as held by Galton differs from the doctrine as held by Weismann, arisen from the necessity under which the latter finds himself of postulating _absolute_ continuity as a logical basis for his deductive theory of the precise mechanism of heredity on the one hand, and of his similarly deductive theory of evolution on the other. So far as the doctrine of continuity is itself concerned (i.e. the question of the inheritance of acquired characters), there is certainly no more inductive reason for supposing the continuity absolute "since the first origin of life," than there is for supposing it to be more or less susceptible of interruption by the Lamarckian factors. In other words, but for the sake of constructing a speculative foundation for the support of his further theories as to "the architecture of germ-plasm" and the factors of organic evolution, there is no reason why Weismann should maintain the absolute separation of the "sphere" of germ-plasm from that of somatoplasm. On the contrary, he has no reason for concluding against even a considerable and a frequent amount of cutting, or overlapping, on the part of these two spheres.

But although this seems to me sufficiently obvious, as I have shown at greater length in the _Examination of Weismannism_, it must not be understood that I hold that there is room for any large amount of such overlapping. On the contrary, it appears to me as certain as anything can well be that the amount of such overlapping from one generation to another, if it ever occur at all, must be exceedingly small, so that, if we have regard to only a few sequent generations, the effects of use-inheritance, and Lamarckian factors are, at all events as a rule, demonstrably imperceptible. But this fact does not const.i.tute any evidence--as Weismann and his followers seem to suppose--against a possibly important influence being exercised by the Lamarckian factors, in the way of gradual increments through a long series of generations.

It has long been well known that acquired characters are at best far less fully and far less certainly inherited than are congenital ones.

And this fact is of itself sufficient to prove the doctrine of continuity to the extent that even the Lamarckian is rationally bound to concede. But the fact yields no proof--scarcely indeed so much as a presumption--in favour of the doctrine of continuity as absolute. For it is sufficiently obvious that the adaptive work of heredity could not be carried on at all if there had to be a discontinuity in the substance of heredity at every generation, or even after any very large number of generations.

Little more need be said concerning the arguments which fall under the headings A and B. The Indirect evidence is considered in Appendix I of the _Examination of Weismannism_; while the Direct evidence is considered in the text of that work in treating of Professor Weismann's researches on the _Hydromedusae_ (pp. 71-76).

The facts of karyokinesis are generally claimed by the school of Weismann as making exclusively in favour of continuity as absolute. But this is a partisan view to take. In any impartial survey it should be seen that while the facts are fairly interpretable on Weismann's theory, they are by no means proof thereof. For any other theory of Heredity must suppose the material of heredity to be of a kind more or less specialized, and the mechanism of heredity extremely precise and well ordered. And this is all that the facts of karyokinesis prove. Granting that they prove continuity, they cannot be held to prove that continuity to be absolute. In other words, the facts are by no means incompatible with even a large amount of commerce between germ-plasm and somato-plasm, or a frequent transmission of acquired characters.

Again, Weismann's theory, that the somatic and the germ-plasm determinants may be similarly and simultaneously modified by external conditions may be extended much further than he has used it himself, so as to exclude, or at any rate invalidate, _all_ evidence in favour of Lamarckianism, other than the inheritance of the effects of use and disuse. All evidence from apparently inherited effects produced by change of external conditions is thus virtually put out of court, leaving only evidence from the apparently inherited effects of functionally produced modifications. And this line of evidence is invalidated by Panmixia. Hence there remain only the arguments from selective value and co-adaptation. Weismann meets these by adducing the case of neuter insects, which have been already considered at sufficient length.

(C.) _Experimental Evidence as to the Non-inheritance of Acquired Characters._

Let us now proceed to the experimental evidence which has been adduced on the side of Weismannism.

Taking this evidence in order of date, we have first to mention that on which the school of Weismann has. .h.i.therto been satisfied almost exclusively to rely. This is the line of negative evidence, or the seeming absence of any experimental demonstration of the inheritance of acquired characters. This kind of evidence, however, presents much less cogency than is usually supposed. And it has been shown in the last chapter that the amount of experimental evidence in favour of the transmission of acquired characters is more considerable than the school of Weismann seems to be aware--especially in the vegetable kingdom. I do not think that this negative line of evidence presents much weight; and, to show that I am not bia.s.sed in forming this judgement, I may here state that few have more reason than myself for appreciating the weight of such evidence. For, as already stated, when first led to doubt the Lamarckian factors, now more than twenty years ago, I undertook a research upon the whole question--only a part of which was devoted to testing the particular case of Brown-Sequard's statements, with the result recorded in the preceding chapter. As this research yielded negative results in all its divisions--and, not only in the matter of Brown-Sequard's statements--I have not hitherto published a word upon the subject. But it now seems worth while to do so, and for the following reasons.

First, as just observed, a brief account of my old experiences in this field will serve to show what good reason I have for feeling the weight of such negative evidence in favour of Continuity as arises from failure to produce any good experimental evidence to the contrary. In the second place, now that the question has become one of world-wide interest, it would seem that even negative results deserve to be published for whatever they may be worth on the side of Neo-Darwinism. Lastly, in the third place, although the research yielded negative results in my hands, it is perhaps not undesirable to state the nature of it, if only to furnish suggestions to other physiologists, in whose hands the experiments--especially in these days of antiseptics--may lead to a different termination. Altogether I made thousands of experiments in graft-hydridization (comprising bines, bulbs of various kinds, buds, and tubers); but with uniformly negative results. With animals I tried a number of experiments in grafting characteristic congenital tissues from one variety on another--such as the combs of Spanish c.o.c.ks upon the heads of Hamburgs; also, in mice and rats, the grafting together of different varieties; and, in rabbits and b.i.t.c.hes, the transplantation of ovaries of newly-born individuals belonging to different well-marked breeds. This latter experiment seems to be one which, if successfully performed (so that the transplanted ovaries would form their attachment in a young b.i.t.c.h puppy and subsequently yield progeny to a dog of the same breed as herself) would furnish a crucial test as to the inheritance or non-inheritance of acquired characters. Therefore I devoted to it a large share of my attention, and tried the experiment in several different ways. But I was never able to get the foreign ovary--or even any portion thereof--to graft. Eventually the pa.s.sing of the Vivisection Act caused me to abandon the whole research as far as animals were concerned--a research, indeed, of which I had become heartily tired, since in no one instance did I obtain any adhesion.

During the last few years, however, I have returned to these experiments under a licence, and with antiseptic precautions, but with a similar want of success. Perhaps this prolonged and uniformly fruitless experience may now have the effect of saving the time of other physiologists, by warning them off the roads where there seems to be no thoroughfare. On the other hand, it may possibly lead some one else to try some variation in the method, or in the material, which has not occurred to me. In particular, I am not without hope that the transplantation of ovaries in very young animals may eventually prove to be physiologically possible; and, if so, that the whole issue as between the rival theories of heredity will be settled by the result of a single experiment. Possibly some of the invertebrata will be found to furnish the suitable material, although I have been unable to think of any of these which present sufficiently well-marked varieties for the purpose.

But, pending the successful accomplishment of this particular experiment in the grafting of any animal tissue, I think it would be clearly unjustifiable to conclude against the Lamarckian factors on the ground of any other experiments yielding negative results in but one generation or even in a large number of sequent generations.

For instance, the latter consideration applies to the negative results of Mr. Francis Galton's celebrated _Experiments in Pangenesis_.[82].

These consisted in transfusing the blood of one variety of rabbit into the veins of both s.e.xes of another, and then allowing the latter to breed together: in no case was there any appearance in the progeny of characters distinctive of the variety from which the transfused blood was derived. But, as Mr. Galton himself subsequently allowed, this negative result const.i.tutes no disproof of pangenesis, seeing that only a portion of the parents' blood was replaced; that this portion, even if charged with "gemmules," would contain but a very small number of these hypothetical bodies, compared with those contained in all the tissues of the parents; and that even this small proportional number would presumably be soon overwhelmed by those contained in blood newly-made by the parents. Nevertheless the experiment was unquestionably worth trying, on the chance of its yielding a positive result; for, in this event, the question at issue would have been closed. Accordingly I repeated these experiments (with the kind help of Professor Schafer), but with slight differences in the method, designed to give pangenesis a better chance, so to speak.

[82] _Proc. R. S. 1871._

Thus I chose wild rabbits to supply the blood, and Himalayan to receive it--the former being the ancestral type (and therefore giving reversion an opportunity of coming into play), while the latter, although a product of domestication, is a remarkably constant variety, and one which differs very much in size and colour from the parent species.

Again, instead of a single transfusion, there were several transfusions performed at different times. Moreover, we did not merely allow the blood of one rabbit to flow into the veins of the other (whereby little more than half the blood could be subst.i.tuted); but sacrificed three wild rabbits for refilling the vascular system of each tame one on each occasion. Even as thus improved, however, the experiment yielded only negative results, which, therefore, we never published.

Subsequently I found that all this labour, both on Mr. Galton's part and our own, was simply thrown away--not because it yielded only negative results, but because it did not serve as a crucial experiment at all.

The material chosen was unserviceable for the purpose, inasmuch as rabbits, even when crossed in the ordinary way, never throw intermediate characters. Needless to say, had I been aware of this fact before, I should never have repeated Mr. Galton's experiments--nor, indeed, would he have originally performed them had he been aware of it. So all this work goes for nothing. The research must begin all over again with some other animals, the varieties of which when crossed do throw intermediate characters.

Therefore I have this year made arrangements for again repeating the experiments in question--only, instead of rabbits, using well-marked varieties of dogs. A renewed attack of illness, however, has necessitated the surrender of this research to other hands, with a consequent delay in its commencement.

My ignorance of the unfortunate peculiarity displayed by rabbits in not throwing intermediate characters has led to a further waste of time in another line of experiment. On finding that mammalian ovaries did not admit of being grafted, it seemed to me that the next best thing to try would be the transplantation of fertilized ova from one variety to another, for the purpose of ascertaining whether, if a parturition should take place under such circ.u.mstances, gestation by the uterine mother would affect the characters of the ovum derived from the ovarian mother--she, of course, having been fertilized by a male of her own variety. Of course it was necessary that both the mothers should be in season at about the same time, and therefore I again chose rabbits, seeing that in the breeding season they are virtually in a chronic state of "heat." I selected Himalayans and Belgian hares, because they are well-marked varieties, breed true, and in respect of colour are very different from one another. It so happened that while I was at work upon this experiment, it was also being tried, unknown to me, by Messrs.

Heape and Buckley who, curiously enough, employed exactly the same material. They were the first to obtain a successful result. Two fertilized ova of the Angora breed having been introduced into the fallopian tube of a Belgian hare, developed there in due course, and gave rise to two Angora rabbits in no way modified by their Belgian hare gestation[83].

[83] _Proc. R. S. 1890_, vol. xlviii. p. 457. It should be stated that the authors do not here concern themselves with any theory of heredity.

But, interesting and suggestive as this experiment is in other connexions, it is clearly without significance in the present one, for the reason already stated. It will have to be tried on well-marked varieties of other species of animals, which are known to throw intermediate characters. Even, however, if it should then yield a similarly negative result, the fact would not tell against the inheritance of acquired characters; seeing that an ovum by the time it is ripe is a finished product, and therefore not to be expected, on any theory of heredity, to be influenced as to its hereditary potentialities by the mere process of gestation. On the other hand, if it should prove that it does admit of being thus affected, so that against all reasonable expectation the young animal presents any of the hereditary characters of its uterine mother, the fact would terminate the question of the transmission of acquired characters--and this quite as effectually as would a similarly positive result in the case of progeny from an ingrafted ovary of a different variety. In point of fact, the only difference between the two cases would be, that in the former it _might_ prove possible to close the question on the side of Lamarckianism, in the latter it would _certainly_ close the question, either on this side or on the opposite as the event would determine.

The only additional fact that has. .h.i.therto been published by the school of Weismann is the result of Weismann's own experiment in cutting off the tails of mice through successive generations. But this experiment does not bear upon any question that is in debate; for no one who is acquainted with the literature of the subject would have expected any positive result to follow from such a line of inquiry. As shown further back in the text, Darwin had carefully considered the case of mutilations, and explained that their non-transmissibility const.i.tutes no valid objection to his theory of pangenesis. Furthermore, it may now be added, he expressly alluded in this connexion to the cutting off of tails, as practised by horse-breeders and dog-fanciers, "through a number of generations, without any inherited effect." He also alluded to the still better evidence which is furnished by the practice of circ.u.mcision. Therefore it is difficult to understand the object of Weismann's experiment. Yet, other than the result of this experiment, no new fact bearing on the question at issue has been even so much as alleged.

CHAPTER VI.

CHARACTERS AS HEREDITARY AND ACQUIRED (_conclusion_[84]).

[84] _See_ note appended to Preface. C. Ll. M.

In the foregoing chapters I have endeavoured to be, before all things, impartial; and if it seems that I have been arguing chiefly in favour of the Lamarckian principles, this has been because the only way of examining the question is to consider what has to be said on the affirmative side, and then to see what the negative side can say in reply. Before we are ent.i.tled to discard the Lamarckian factors _in toto_, we must be able to destroy all evidence of their action. This, indeed, is what the ultra-Darwinians profess to have done. But is not their profession premature? Is it not evident that they have not sufficiently considered certain general facts of nature, or certain particular results of experiment, which at all events appear inexplicable by the theory of natural selection alone? In any case the present discussion has been devoted mainly to indicating such general facts and particular results. If I have fallen into errors, either of statement or of reasoning, it is for the ultra-Darwinians to correct them; but it may be well to remark beforehand, that any criticism of a merely general kind touching the comparative paucity of the facts thus adduced in favour of Lamarckian doctrine, will not stand as a valid criticism. For, as we have seen in the opening part of the discussion, even if use-inheritance and direct action of the environment have been of high importance as factors of organic evolution, it must be in almost all cases impossible to dissociate their influence from that of natural selection--at any rate where plants and animals in a state of nature are concerned. On the other hand, experiments expressly devised to test the question have not hitherto been carried out. Besides, the facts and arguments here adduced are but _comparatively_ few. For, unless it can be shown that what has been said of reflex action, instinct, so-called "self-adaptation" in plants, &c., is wrong in principle, the facts which tell in favour of Lamarckian theory are _absolutely_ very numerous. Only when considered in relation to cases where we are unable to exclude the conceivable possibility of natural selection having been at work, can it be said that the facts in question are not numerous.

Comparatively few, then, though the facts may be of which I have given some examples, in my opinion they are amply sufficient for the purpose in hand. This purpose is to show that the question which we are now considering is very far from being a closed question; and, therefore, that the school of Weismann is much too precipitate in alleging that there is neither any necessity for, nor evidence of, the so-called Lamarckian factors[85]. And this opinion, whatever it may be worth, is at all events both deliberate and impartial. As one of the first to doubt the transmission of acquired characters, and as one who has spent many years in experimental inquiries upon the subject, any bias that I may have is a.s.suredly against the Lamarckian principles--seeing that nearly all my experiments have yielded negative results. It was Darwin himself who checked this bias. But if the ultra-Darwinians of the last ten years had succeeded in showing that Darwin was mistaken, I should be extremely glad to fall into line with them. As already shown, however, they have in no way affected this question as it was left by Galton in 1875. And if it be supposed a matter of but little importance whether we agree with Galton in largely diminishing the comparative potency of the Lamarckian principles, or whether we agree with Weismann in abolishing them together, it cannot be too often repeated that such is an entirely erroneous view. No matter how faintly or how fitfully acquired characters may be transmitted, in so far as they are likewise adaptive characters, their transmission (and therefore their development) must be c.u.mulative. Hence, the only effect of attenuating our estimate of their _intensity_, is that of increasing our estimate of their _duration_--i.e. of the time over which they have to operate in order to produce important results. And, even so, it is to be remembered that the importance of such results is not to be estimated by the magnitude of modification. Far more is it to be estimated by the character of modification as adaptive. For if functionally produced changes, and changes produced in adaptive response to the environment, are ever transmitted in a c.u.mulative manner, a time must sooner or later arrive when they will reach a selective value in the struggle for existence--when, of course, they will be rapidly augmented by natural selection. Thus, if in any degree operative at all, the great function of these principles must be that of supplying to natural selection those incipient stages of adaptive modifications in all cases where, but for their agency, there would have been nothing of the kind to select.

Themselves in no way dependent on adaptive modifications having already attained a selective value, these Lamarckian principles are (under the Darwinian theory) direct causes of determinate variation in adaptive lines; and variation in those lines being c.u.mulative, the result is that natural selection is in large part presented with the raw material of its manufacture--special material of the particular kinds required, as distinguished from promiscuous material of all kinds. And the more complex the manufacture the more important will be the work of this subordinate factory. We can well imagine how the sh.e.l.l of a nut, for instance, or even the protective colouring of an insect, may have been gradually built up by natural selection alone. But just in proportion as structures or organs are not merely thus of pa.s.sive _use_ (where, of course, the Lamarckian principles cannot obtain), but require to be actively _used_, in that proportion does it become difficult to understand the _incipient_ construction of them by natural selection alone. Therefore, in many such cases, if the incipient construction is not to be explained by the Lamarckian principles, it is difficult to see how it is to be explained at all.

[85] E.g. "The supposed transmission of this artificially produced disease (epilepsy) is the only definite instance which has been brought forward in support of the transmission of acquired characters."--_Essays_, p. 328.

Furthermore, since the question as to the transmission of acquired characters stands now exactly as it did after the publication of Mr.

Galton's _Theory of Heredity_ twenty years ago, it would seem that our judgement with regard to it should remain exactly what it was then.

Although we must "out-Darwin Darwin" to the extent of holding that he a.s.signed too large a measure of intensity to the Lamarckian factors, no sufficient reason has been shown for denying the existence of these factors _in toto_; while, on the other hand, there are certain general considerations, and certain particular facts, which appear to render it probable that they have played a highly important part in the process of organic evolution as a whole. At the same time, and in the present state of our information, this judgement must be deemed provisional, or liable eventually to be overturned by experimental proof of the non-inheritance of acquired characters. But, even if this should ever be finally accomplished, the question would still remain whether the principle of natural selection alone is capable of explaining all the facts of adaptation; and, for my own part, I should then be disposed to believe that there must be some other, though hitherto undiscovered, principle at work, which co-operates with natural selection, by playing the subordinate role which was a.s.signed by Darwin to the principles of Lamarck.

Finally, let it be noted that no part of the foregoing argument is to be regarded as directed against the _principle_ of what Professor Weismann calls "continuity." On the contrary, it appears to be self-evident that this principle must be accepted in some degree or another by every one, whether Darwinians, Neo-Darwinians, Lamarckians, Neo-Lamarckians, or even the advocates of special creation. Yet, to hear or to read some of the followers of Weismann, one can only conclude that, prior to his publications on the subject, they had never thought about it at all.

These naturalists appear to suppose that until then the belief of Darwinians was, that there could be no hereditary "continuity" between any one organic type and another (such, for instance, as between Ape and Man), but that the whole structure of any given generation must be due to "gemmules" or "somato-plasm," derived exclusively from the preceding generation. Nothing can show more ignorance, or more thoughtlessness, with regard to the whole subject. The very basis of the general theory of evolution is that there must always have been a continuity in the material substance of heredity since the time when the process of evolution began; and it was not reserved for our generation, or even for our century, to perceive the special nature of this material substance in the case of s.e.xual organisms. No, the real and the sole question, where Weismann's theory of heredity is concerned, is simply this--Are we to hold that this material substance has been _absolutely_ continuous "since the first origin of s.e.xual propagation," always occupying a separate "sphere" of its own, at all events to the extent of never having been modified by the body substance in which it resides (Lamarckian factors); _or_, are we to hold that this "germ-plasm,"

"stirp," or "formative-material," has been but _relatively_ continuous, so as to admit of some amount of commerce with body-substance, and therefore to admit of acquired characters, when sufficiently long continued as such, eventually becoming congenital? If this question be answered in the latter sense, of course the further question arises as to the _degree_ of such commerce, or the _time_ during which acquired characters must continue to be acquired in successive generations before they can sufficiently impress themselves on the substance of heredity to become congenital. But this is a subordinate question, and one which, in the present state of our information, it seems to me almost useless to speculate upon. My own opinion has always been the same as that of Mr.

Galton; and my belief is that eventually both Weismann and his followers will gravitate into it. It was in order to precipitate this result as far as possible that I wrote the _Examination_. If it ever should be accomplished, Professor Weismann's elaborate theory of evolution will have had its bases removed.