An Introduction to a Biology 



was branded with the word anthropomorphic, and 

 flung into the ash-bin of exploded superstitions. It 

 was not argument which effected the temporary 

 expulsion of this belief ; it was abuse. It was the 

 very essence of abuse — which is calling a thing 

 names. Happily, it had all of its ineffectualness 

 too. Another abusive biological epithet is the 

 adjectival form of the name of the great French 

 naturalist, Lamarck. Lamarck's theories may have 

 been farther from or nearer to the truth than sub- 

 sequent theories of evolution, but the prevalent 

 custom of thinking that any theory or idea can be 

 placed once and for all on the Index of Science by 

 merely calling it Lamarckian is founded upon the 

 theory of abuse, and results in the confusion of 

 the mind. The source of the trouble is inattention 

 to the problem of the relation between the word and 

 its meaning. The word itself does not change, 

 but its meaning does. And unless a sharp eye is 

 kept on the wanderings of the meaning, great con- 

 fusion may result from the undiscriminating use of 

 the word. Many people are irritated by the state- 

 ment that one does not understand the sense in 

 which they are using quite a common word ; the 

 reason is either that to them each word has its 

 meaning tightly and securely attached to it ; or, 

 if they think the meaning has a certain freedom of 

 movement, they avoid the problem of the relation 

 between the word and its meaning as a difficult one 

 (which it is) ; or the problem of this relation is not 

 present to their minds at all, they do not dissociate 

 word and meaning, and they say in a huff, " I 



suppose there is no such word as anthropomorphic." 



82 



