172 NATURAL SCIENCE [September 
What more do we want to prove that acquired characters are 
hereditary ? I do not understand what he means when he says :— 
“In every case these changes can be interpreted as . . . adapta- 
tions or individual, non-hereditary modifications in the case of 
plants.”1 That garden races are adaptations to their environment 
is obvious, and to say that they cannot be hereditary is, as it seems 
to me, to shut one’s eyes gratuitously to the most conspicuous facts. 
The “ Student ” Parsnip was “fixed” in five years, 2.¢. from 1847 
to 1852, having been raised by Professor J. Buckman from seed 
of the wild plant, and it is still pronounced to be “the best in the 
trade” ; its acquired characters have been, therefore, relatively fixed 
for half a century, though the plant’s variability may never cease 
to exist, because no so-called “ fixed race” is absolutely stable. 
Hence we constantly hear of Mr A’s improved race of Mr B’s pea, 
bean, or what not. Nevertheless, that the typical garden form is 
always reproduced, and that its sub-varieties or races come relatively 
true by seed, is all that is wanted to establish the truth of acquired 
characters being hereditary in plants. 
Migration, essential With regard to the origin and fixation 
of varieties in nature a closer observation shows that, as a rule, 
contrary to the Darwinian view, new varieties of plants have not 
arisen among the parent types, but away from them. Thus, 
Sir J. D. Hooker, who in his knowledge of the geographical distribu- 
tion of plants is facile princeps, says :—“ As a general rule the best 
marked varieties occur on the confines of the geographical area which 
a species inhabits.”? Darwin also quotes A. de Candolle’s opinion 
that “ plants which have very wide ranges generally present varieties; 
and this might have been expected (he writes), as they are exposed 
to diverse physical conditions.”* Precisely so; but then this is 
due to migration together with adaptation to the new physical 
environments ; for the “diverse physical conditions” do not come 
to the plants where the large populations have been supposed to 
grow. It is interesting to see that both Darwin and Dr Wallace, 
after asserting the importance of large populations among which 
new varieties are said to arise, are compelled by facts to admit 
precisely the contrary. Thus, both Dr Wallace and Darwin observe 
that the struggle for existence will be “most severe between in- 
dividuals of the same species; for they frequent the same districts, 
require the same food, and are exposed to the same dangers.” Such 
is the condition said to be required for natural selection; but now, 
on the contrary, he tells us, “as an effect of this principle [?] we 
seldom find closely allied species of animals or plants living together, 
but often in distinct though adjacent districts where the conditions 
1 Loe. cit., p. 490. 2 “ Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania,” p. v. 
3 ** Origin, etc.,” p. 43. 
