100 Heredity. 



for the proper time to present the proof of the opposite 

 (Vie\v, tliat the two sexual elements plaj different parts 

 in heredity. 



If tlie authority of great names counted for auything 

 whatever in science, the case against me would be very 

 strong, but where an appeal to nature is possible, au- 

 thority counts for nothing. 



Darwin's place among the students of heredity is cer- 

 tainly the highest, and he takes very strong ground in- 

 deed upon this subject. 



Thus he says [Variation of Animals and Plants, 

 Vol. ii. p. 88): "I am aware that such cases (of pre- 

 l")otency) have been ascribed by various authors to such 

 rules as that the father influences the external charac- 

 ters, and the mother the internal characters. 



^' But the great diversity of the rules given by various 

 authors almost proves their falseness. Dr. Prosper 

 Lucas has fully discussed this point, and has shown 

 that none of the rules (and I could add others to those 

 quoted by him) apply to all animals. Similar rules 

 have been announced for plants and have been proved 

 by Gartner to be all erroneous.'' 



In the Anatomy of Invertebrated Animals, p. 30, 

 Huxley states that **no structural modification is so 

 slight, and no functional peculiarity is so insignificant 

 in either parent, that it may not make its appearance in 

 the offspring.'' 



Darwin, in many parts of his writings, is still more 

 explicit. Thus he says ( Variation of Animals and 

 Plants, Vol. ii. p. 431): ''Ovules and the male ele- 

 ment, before they become united, have, like buds, an in- 

 dependent existence. Both have the power of tnnismit- 

 ting every single character possessed by the parent form. 

 We see this clearly when hybrids are jiaired inter se, for 



