REVIEWS 555 



deserves a somewhat warmer acknowledgment, and Lamarck's claim to fame 

 might well have been even more decisively maintained than Mr. Elliot's words 

 convey. 



Thus without disagreeing with the ultimate logical conclusions Mr. Elliot 

 arrives at, there is still some room for regret that, while he properly concerns 

 himself fully with the refutation of the author's theories in the light of modern 

 scientific thought and methods, he grants but little room for expression of his 

 great gifts and the use he made of them in dealing with the facts he had at 

 disposal. We feel bound to conclude, therefore, that this introduction, written as 

 it is with scrupulous care, and important as it is as a contribution to the history 

 of the subject, in which Lamarck himself is dealt with more fully than in any 

 other book with which we are acquainted, would, we think, have been of still 

 greater value if the benefits conferred on Biological Science by the author had 

 been more generously set forth. 



The book will probably be read mainly for knowledge, at first hand, of the 

 theory of the inheritance of acquired characters, as Lamarck conceived it ; not, 

 indeed, because the author himself thought so highly of its value, but because it 

 has occupied such a prominent position in the eyes of younger generations of 

 zoologists, and has played such an important part in the foundation of various 

 theories of heredity which have subsequently been evolved. 



In this connection section 5 of the introduction will be found of great value, 

 though here and there, again, we find reason to differ from Mr. Elliot. As an 

 example, the following quotation from p. xlv may be given : " Lamarck committed 

 the error, eminently excusable in the age in which he lived, of assuming that when 

 he has formed a theory which will fit the facts, and when he can think of no 

 other theory which will also fit the facts, then that theory must be true." 



Now it would seem very doubtful if Lamarck ever did suppose that his theory 

 "must be true." The character of the man is entirely opposed to that view. The 

 theory was evolved to explain, as best he could, certain facts which he had 

 observed, but there is no evidence whatever that he declined to consider any 

 other theory, and none that he considered his judgment final. As a matter of 

 fact it was the best theory of his day and a remarkable advance on any other. 



If an apology for Lamarck be required it is not difficult to find one which is 

 perhaps more in accord with facts than Mr. Elliot is prepared to admit. But 

 is an apology required ? Of the many attacks which have been directed against 

 the theory that acquired characters can be inherited, that of Weismann is the 

 most famous, and the essential part of that theory is the base on which is founded 

 all other attacks which now hold the field. According to Weismann, the germ- 

 plasm must be "totally separate and cut off from the body-material or soma- 

 plasm," Mr. Elliot tells us. But, as a matter of fact, it is not so "cut off." The 

 germ-cells grow by virtue of the material supplied to them by the somatic cells 

 which surround them. The protoplasm of the ovum in the ovary is in direct 

 continuity with the protoplasm of certain of the follicular cells amongst which it is 

 embedded ; it is thus that the ovum acquires the nutriment which enables it to 

 grow and to develop into a ripe ovum. If then it is true, as there is surely sufficient 

 reason to believe, that changes in the environment induce changes in the somatic 

 tissues, who is bold enough to assert that these changes do not tend to exert 

 modifying influence on the " soma-plasm " ; and, if so, on what ground is it denied 

 that a variation so induced does not in any way affect the germ-plasm ? 



It must be borne in mind that the term " influence of the environment," as here 

 used, includes not only the influence of external conditions on the superficial 



