58 BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON. 



taken up a number of such in his essays, stated them with 

 sufficient fairness, and then proceeded to show that they are 

 also capable of another interpretation. In some cases this is 

 doubtless true, but in most cases his explanations seem strained 

 and unnatural. In many they amount to an admission that 

 the quality transmitted was functionally acquired and that the 

 changed environment has actually influenced the germ. But 

 he always insists that this does not constitute an acquired 

 character. I do not see why it does not. For example, he 

 says : " It is difficult to say whether the changed climate may 

 not have first changed the germ, and if this were 'the case the 

 accumulation of effects through the action of heredity would 

 present no difficulty" (p. 98). I cannot see why this is not 

 conceding the whole issue. Of course all modifications must 

 first affect the germ, otherwise there could be no hereditary 

 transmission. The only question is : Can the climate or the 

 environment impress changes upon the germ ? If yes, the 

 Neo-L,amarckian asks no more. All that he contends for is 

 conceded. 



The quotation just made is from one of his earlier essays 

 and he has objected to its being urged against him on the 

 ground that it does not represent his latest conclusions. But 

 what has he to say to the following from his eighth and last 

 essay originally delivered in September, 1888 ? 



" It is therefore possible to imagine that the modifying effects 

 of external influences upon the germ-plasm may be gradual 

 and may increase in the course of generations, so that visible 

 changes in the body (sonia) are not produced until the effects 

 have reached a certain intensity" (p. 433). 



It matters nothing to the Neo-L,amarckian whether the effects 

 of external influences become visible in the first or the hun 

 dredth generation. The whole question is : Are they the 



