Natural Selection and Lamarckism. 
R. HERBERT SPENCER still believes in the Lamarckian 
factor in evolution as strongly asever. Inthe pages of the 
Contemporary Review he claims such an ‘‘Inadequacy of Natural 
Selection ” as necessitates the introduction of the inheritance of the 
effects of use and disuse as the only means of accounting for the facts 
he brings forward. I propose to examine his latest arguments, and 
to show that they are too weak to bear the superstructure which he 
erects upon them. 
The first proof of use-inheritance' that Mr. Spencer advances is 
the fact of the striking differences in the acuteness of the sense of 
touch in various parts of the body as estimated by the varying 
distances at which the points of a pair of compassescan be distinguished 
as yielding separate and distinct sensations. He urges that these 
differences could not be brought about by Natural Selection, or survival 
of the fittest, and, therefore, must be due to the cumulative inheri- 
tance of the functional modifications produced by use and disuse in 
the individual. It is admitted, however, that a widely-diffused sense 
of touch would be evolved by Natural Selection, as being absolutely 
necessary for safety and continued existence; and it should be 
equally obvious that Natural Selection cannot act in an indiscrimi- 
nately unvarying degree in all parts alike, but would evolve local 
sensibilities solely in proportion to the varying degrees of the use- 
fulness which causes its action. Mr. Spencer himself admits that the 
high perceptive power possessed by the end of the forefinger ‘‘ may ” 
have arisen by survival of the fittest; and there ought to be no 
difficulty in extending the concession to the other finger-tips, and to 
other joints of the fingers and parts of the hand where it would prove 
useful, and where its partial diffusion would be aided by the general 
principle of correlation. The general distribution of the sense of 
touch is in accordance with the requirements of Natural Selection. 
1 T employ this term to signify ‘‘ the inheritance of the effects of use and disuse.” 
Besides being brief and convenient, it also has the advantage of not necessarily 
including the inheritance of such acquired characters as mutilations—a subject on 
which the more prudent Lamarckians appear to be rather sceptical. One of them, 
indeed, has distinctly denied the inheritance of mutilations and injuries. 
Z 
