DARWIN'S PLACE IN FUTURE BIOLOGY 43 



largely aided by the inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct action 

 of the surrounding conditions. . . . Some of those who admit the principle of 

 evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget . . . that I had the above 

 two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving natural selection great 

 power, which I am far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, 

 which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in 

 aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations. 7 (Italics mine.) 



The kernel of the bias that has done so much harm is not difficult to 

 find. Pursuit of the question as to which one of several supposed causes 

 of evolution is the whole cause, has been so ardent that the extremists 

 among the upholders of the particular cause discovered by Darwin, have 

 been blinded to what he himself has declared to have been the first of 

 two objects in writing the " Origin of Species." 



The question of what " Darwinism proper " shall be is relatively 

 insignificant. If one's linguistic taste favors making Darwinism apply 

 to the particular causal principle discovered by Darwin, well and 

 good. Then Darwinism is of no great moment, relatively. On the 

 other hand, if one's taste is more catholic, he will prefer to have Dar- 

 winism apply to the really great thing that Darwin did, and the term 

 will mean organic evolution, the unfailing reign of law in the origina- 

 tion of living beings, one of the greatest truths of nature, when its es- 

 tablishment shall be complete, that the mind of man has yet possessed 

 itself of. 



While Darwin himself was not without responsibility for this nar- 

 rowing, withering view of what " Darwinism really is," by far the 

 greater responsibility rests upon two other men, namely, Alfred Eussel 

 Wallace and August Weismann. These two, each truly eminent in his 

 own right, have been looked upon by a too little-discerning biological 

 period as those upon whom the " mantle of Darwin " has fallen. Let 

 us away once and for all with this false and flimsy notion about any 

 man's mantle falling upon some other man ! Every man's mantle, be 

 he great or small, is his own alone, and goes to his grave with him, or 

 ought to be allowed to. What kind of self-esteem is that which wants 

 the distinction of wearing another's clothes? Mr. Wallace has certain 

 interesting biological ideas and so has Professor Weismann. The 

 ideas of both have much in common with ideas held by Darwin. Both 

 men have worked out their ideas as best they could, greatly influenced 

 no doubt by the methods and writings of Darwin. But Mr. Wallace's 

 ideas are his, Professor Weismann's are his and Mr. Darwin's were, and 

 shall be, his. Let us take them all and estimate them on this basis. 

 In so far as all three or any two sets are alike, let us recognize the re- 

 semblance; but in so far as they differ, let us see the differences also. 

 The relation of Weismann's doctrines to Darwin's I merely touch 

 upon here. It should be recalled that Weismann is a neo-Darwinian 



7 "Descent," I., p. 147. 



