HARDWICKE'S SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



27 



Yet he goes on to say that in all cases but that of 

 Ihe Dipteia,* " generative cells arise from some of the 

 later embryonic cells, and as these belong to a more 

 advanced ontogenetic stage in the development of 

 •the idioplasm,! we can only conclude that continuity 

 is maintained by assuming, as I do, that a small part 

 of the germ-plasm remains unchanged during the 

 division of the first segmentation nucleus, and remains 

 mixed with the idioplasm of a certain series of cells, 

 and that the formation of true germ-cells is brought 

 about at a certain point in the series by the appear- 

 ance of cells in which the germ-plasm becomes 

 predominant. But if we accept this hypothesis, it 

 does not matter theoretically " [the italics are mine] 

 *' whether the germ-plasm becomes predominant in 

 the third, tenth, hundredth or millionth generation 

 of cells." In the same way, when we are dealing 

 Avith imaginary fortunes, it does not matter whether 

 we endow our hero with a thousand pounds a year or 

 a million. We seem landed in the happy old days 

 when one philosopher derived everything from fire, 

 and another derived everything from water, and one 

 hypothesis did just as well as another theoretically. 

 The germ-plasm, which governs heredity, may exist 

 or it may not ; nobody has seen it, nor is likely to 

 see it unless the laws of optics change. Something 

 con^veys hereditary tendencies in a mannor as extra- 

 ordinary as it is mysterious. The hermaphrodite 

 worm, which, if ontogeny does not deceive us, was 

 the ancestor of the vertebrata, has impressed his nature 

 upon all of us in the form of innumerable embryonic 

 and rudimentary structures. J 



Prof. Weismann may be perfectly correct so far as 

 he maintains that heredity is the work of his germ- 

 plasm, and the manner in which he works out this 

 part of his theory is delightful. It is when he claims 

 that variability is also the characteristic of his 

 imaginary substance, to the exclusion of any influence 

 exerted by the somatic cells, that one refuses to 

 accept theory in place of facts. He will look only at 

 his own side of the medal, though he appears sincerely 

 to wish to look at the other as well. Eyes do not 

 atrophy through disuse ; short sight is not inherited ; 

 a pointer doesn't point because his ancestors have 

 been trained to point, but through a predisposition 

 on the part of the germ.§ A predisposition to 

 point on the part of a germ ! He denies even the 

 heredity of instinct, and says there is no transmission 

 of acquired skill even in insects ! Where facts are so 

 overwhelmingly strong that it is impossible to meet 

 them, he always says "our knowledge on the subject 

 is still very defective." Let us only know more, and 

 the germ will be proved all-potent. In the meantime 

 he complacently says : " The inheritance of acquired 



* " Biological Memoirs," p. 197. 



+ Called \isiially germ-plasm. 



I " Introduction to Lectures on Pathology," by J. Bland 

 Sutton. 



5 "Myopia may be attributed to the transmission of an 

 accidental disposition on the part of the germ." Pp. 86, 89, 

 •93. 95- 



characters has never been proved either by means of 

 direct observation or by experiment " ! Such an 

 assertion takes one's breath away, and makes one 

 wonder how far a very eminent man can be blinded 

 bj^ a theory. 



This fatal tendency to adapt all facts to a foregone 

 conclusion or a pet theory, and to minimise or ignore 

 those that militate against it, the inability or the 

 unwillingness to look at both sides of the medal, is 

 seen in every department of science. The greatest 

 minds have been keenly alive to this danger, and nc 

 more illustrious example can be found of devotion to 

 truth at all costs than that of Newton.* His early 

 theories on the law of gravitation were given up by 

 him as untenable, because of difficulties in reconcihng 

 this law with the motions of the moon in her orbit. 

 Ilis study of the subject was only resumed after a 

 lapse of eleven years. Yet Newton's original calcu- 

 lations and his theory were perfectly correct, only the 

 original calculations were founded on an erroneous 

 estimate of the length of a degree of latitude on the 

 earth's surface, which had to be corrected before 

 theory and facts could agree. INIany of the theories 

 of this illustrious Englishman "were left in an im- 

 perfect state, for it is not in matters of science that it 

 is given to the same individual to invent and to bring 

 to perfection. Their complete development required 

 that several subsidiary sciences should be farther 

 advanced." Fortunately no zealous friend was found 

 to treat the conclusions of Newton as final, and dub 

 them ' Newtonism ' ! The words of Mr. Proctor, 

 just quoted, may most fitly be employed in speaking 

 of the theories of one not less illustrious than Newton ; 

 of one not less scrupulously anxious that his theories 

 should be confirmed at all points by facts ; yet of one 

 who could not see his grand hypothesis of evolution 

 attain to its full development, because this required 

 that " several subsidiary sciences should be farther 

 advanced." We do not hear of a ' School of Newton,' 

 priding itself on firmly making a stand at the point to 

 which the great philosopher, with the imperfect data 

 at his command, had attained; why in the name of 

 science, or rather of simple common sense, should we 

 hear of anything so absurd as a " Darwinian school." 

 How earnestly would the great master himself have 

 deprecated such an absurdity. His own mind was 

 constantly open to the reception of new ideas. 

 What mattered it to him that some of these ideas 

 threatened to conflict with the brilliant hypothesis, on 

 which much of his fame rested, ie., the development 

 of species through natural selection. All that he 

 cared for — all that he had ever cared for in science, 

 was to ascertain the truth ; and again and again in 

 his works he deplores the imperfect data he had to 

 work from. Especially does he deplore the extreme 

 imperfection of the geological record, and it is on 



* "Encyclopaedia Britannica," articles 'Newton,' p. 441, 

 and ' Astronomy,' p. 75G. 



C 2 



