575.1 247 



575.2 



III 



The Relation of Acquired Modifications to Heredity 



TO most evolutionists it must be evident that a distinct change 

 is coming over the controversy on use-inheritance. Not only 

 are the views expressed less positive, but there also seems some 

 likelihood of a compromise. A letter to Nature, last April, by 

 Professor Baldwin, was, I think, expressive of the feelings of 

 evolutionists generally. 



Bateson has remarked l that " The study of variation thus offers 

 a means whereby we may hope to see the process of evolution." 

 This position does not seem to have received the attention which, I 

 think, it deserves ; and it is with the hope of helping to turn atten- 

 tion to these points that I offer two suggestions on this subject. 



Ever since Galton put forward his "Theory of Heredity," the 

 problem of use-inheritance has been coming more and more to the 

 front, and became almost the main point at issue after the publica- 

 tion of Weismann's Essays ; so that we have now the curious 

 anomaly of evolutionists of the highest eminence occupying all 

 grades between the extremes of Professor Henslow, who denies the 

 action of natural selection altogether in the formation of species, 

 and Professor Weismann, who nearly as emphatically denies the 

 action of use-inheritance. 



This is the more extraordinary when it is remembered that the 

 intermediate position, occupied by Eomanes and Lloyd Morgan, has 

 practically disappeared, owing to the death of Romanes and the 

 secession of Lloyd Morgan to the Neo-Darwinian position. 



The difficult if not impossible task of finding any really satis- 

 factory test case that is capable of only one explanation is no doubt 

 largely responsible for the divergence of opinion. But I believe 

 there is also another cause for this divergence, namely, that the 

 vast field which the subject covers compels all but the most 

 powerful minds to limit themselves to a portion only of the 

 subject. It will be seen on reflection that most of the Lamarckians 

 have mainly studied either the lower forms of life generally, 

 have been more or less exclusive botanists or palaeontologists, 

 or have devoted their attention to less important structures 

 or easily variable species ; while on the other hand the Neo-Dar- 

 winians have studied large living groups of animals or the more 

 1 " Materials for the Study of Variation. " 



