44 NATURAL SCIENCE. January. 



be that the environment, which ex hypothesi is favourable to individuals 

 with harsher wool, selects such individuals from among the numerous 

 lambs, some of which may of course vary in the direction of harsher 

 wool, while others vary away from it. But now comes the final step 

 in the Lamarckian's argument, which establishes him so firmly that 

 it is hard to see how the Neo-Darwinian can dislodge him from his 

 position. It is this : so far from environment having any selective 

 action, the selection is all the other way, since the breeders do all 

 they can to lessen the evil by selecting the lambs that vary least in 

 the direction of harsher wool. Now, if these facts are really so (and 

 we have them presented to us with others of similar nature under the 

 highest authority), then the only conclusions I am able to draw are, 

 first, that environment can modify individuals; second, that variation 

 can be so influenced by environment as to be definite in direction ; 

 third, that modification can be transmitted from parent to oflspring ; 

 fourth, that not merely individuals but the whole line of descent may 

 respond to the direct action of environment in the face of equally 

 direct and opposing action on the part of selection. In the case of 

 these sheep, it is not definitely stated, doubtless because it is a well- 

 recognised fact in this as in other cases cited, that the offspring of 

 such animals, though born and reared in favourable localities, do not, 

 in the first generation at all events, throw off their unfavourable 

 characters. This is further proof that a definite effect has been 

 produced, not merely on the individual but on the race, by the direct 

 action of environment. 



Professor Cope has been a long time in giving us this proof. It 

 seems as though palaeontological evidence alone will never be 

 enough to furnish any of equal value, and that we must in the end 

 look to the experimenter. One cannot have proof unless one has 

 control of the conditions of experiment ; mere historical results are 

 capable of so many interpretations. To apportion guilt and innocence 

 justly between Queen Elizabeth and Mary Queen of Scots is child's 

 play compared with the task of deciding how much of the structure 

 of an ammonite is due to congenital variation selected by environment, 

 and how much is due to modification irnpressed by environment. 



Yet let not Professor Cope lay to his soul the flattering unction 

 that this case of the sheep, or any other that he quotes, will satisfy the 

 Neo-Darwinians. Every Neo-Darwinian must be his own ex- 

 perimenter, and as few of them have the capital to invest in sheep- 

 runs in Ohio and Texas, they will probably prefer the easy laziness of 

 scepticism. And even should one of them verify this instance to his 

 own satisfaction, he will at the same time have invented some new 

 explanation, or some sweet arrangement in iddities, that will leave him 

 as unconvinced as ever. 



Let us, however, who are neither Neo-Darwinians nor Neo- 

 Lamarckians, admit that Professor Cope has scored his first four 

 points, if only that we may see the game out. Every explanation of 



