The True Interpretation of Lamarck's Theories : 

 A Plea for their Reconsideration. 



By E. F. Licoeish, M.D. 



That Lamarck has been misinterpreted and misunderstood from his 

 day to this, appears to me to be due to two causes chiefly, first, the 

 lack of true biological and physiological knowledge in his day, which 

 led not only to the rejection of his theories by his contemporaries, but 

 also gave origin to the second cause of misinterpretation, viz. the 

 obscurity and ambiguity of his language. 



Having succeeded, as I believe, in developing his true meaning, I 

 now desire to bring my views to the notice of evolutionists, believing 

 that this interpretation will make clear many obscure organic pheno- 

 mena, as well as enable us to do full justice to that great philosopher. 

 In summing up the opinions of biologists on Lamarck Mr. G. 

 Sandeman thus writes ("Problems of Biology," p. 153) : " It is certain 

 that this biologist has been, on the whole, misinterpreted, but, on the 

 other hand, it is not easy to be sure that one understands him. And 

 the confusion has taken place chiefly over that key-word of his system 

 — besoin, or need." Again he states : " It- — lesoin — probably appeared to 

 Lamarck to have a quite definite meaning requiring no further analysis." 

 Mr. Sandeman is quite right in the above statement, for, as I shall 

 show, the whole misinterpretation of Lamarck is due to the non- 

 perception by biologists of the true meaning of this need or desire. 

 Moreover, it will be pointed out that Lamarck himself failed to see 

 the true interpretation in some respects, and hence the full significance 

 of his important conclusions and laws. 



Mr. Clodd has well said ("Story of Creation," p. 93): "The 

 functions of living things are threefold — nutrition, reproduction, and 

 relation, in other words to feed, to multiply, to respond to the outer 

 world." There is, however, one special relation which, although in- 

 cluded in the last of those, yet requires more attention than Mr. Clodd 

 has bestowed on it, viz. the relations which living things have with 

 other living things, especially as regards protection. 



At this stage, it is well to consider carefully the nature of 

 functions, because we cannot understand Lamarck unless we keep in 



290 



