10 BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON. 



and convincing in their establishment of the theory than those 

 which have been taken as ' ' proof ' ' of the survival of the 

 fittest. 



NOTE. Since this paper was delivered before the society the 

 discussion of the subject has been continued in the pages of 

 Nature. I have been interested to note that Prof.' L,ankester 

 (in the issue for Mar. 6, 1890, page 414) like the skilled tacti 

 cian he is; has begun building bridges in his rear which may 

 serve as a means of retreat from his present untenable posi 

 tion. He now explains that by the " transmission of acquired 

 characters ' ' he means the obsolete theory of L/amarck in its 

 purity, which, so far as I have followed the discussion, nobody 

 has proposed to uphold. Why he has continued to oppose the 

 Dynamical theory by arguments intended to demolish a totally 

 different hypothesis, he does not explain. 



Mr. Romanes has also pointed out that recent admissions of 

 Dr. Weismann are fatal to the ingenious hypothesis and as 

 sumptions with which that gentleman's name has been chiefly 

 connected {Nature, Mar. 13, 1890, p. 429.) 



In fact these and other signs indicate that the most able of 

 those who have through haste or conservatism been disposed 

 to ignore dynamical influences in evolution, will before long 

 join in the procession, and lend their undoubted abilities to the 

 perfection and elaboration of the only theory yet propounded 

 which fully and efficiently supplements that of Natural Selec 

 tion and closes the too obvious gaps which have hitherto 

 existed in the intellectual structure of the modern theory of 

 organic evolution. 



