218 CHARLES R. STOCKARD AND GEORGE N. PAPANICOLAOU 



but merely because no harmful effect was shown. Such criti- 

 cism is of little interest, yet one very serious point was cited 

 against the data on which this study was based, and Pearson and 

 Elderton ('10) in their reply failed to satisfy the objection. The 

 children considered were in the neighborhood of nine years old 

 at the time the statistics were collected and the fact that some 

 parents were drinking at this time might not necessarily prove 

 that they were drinking nine or ten years ago when the children 

 were conceived. It is very evident that from our standpoint 

 accurate data relating to this particular fact is most essential. 



This study really has no bearing in the literature on the chemi- 

 cal modification of germ cells or the developing embryo, as 

 Elderton and Pearson themselves state in the italicized portion 

 of the quotation cited above. No one can confidently affirm 

 that in their data alcoholics are being compared with normals or 

 really whether any alcoholics or normals as such are actually 

 being considered beyond the chance probability that some in- 

 dividuals of both classes creep into the statistics to be included 

 in the two groups arranged. 



Very recently Pearl ('17) has published a most thorough 

 analysis of the influences of parental alcoholism on the progeny 

 of the domestic fowl. He states (p. 285) : 



that a careful study of the present results makes it impossible to assert 

 that the treatment of the parents has had no effect upon the progeny. 

 . . . . The offspring of the alcoholists, as a class, are indubitably 

 differentiated from the offspring of the non-alcoholists. 



Such a statement agrees entirely with our results from the 

 alcoholic guinea-pigs. In detail, however, Pearl finds that after 

 treating fowls with alcohol the progeny produced are in some 

 respects superior to 'the control. This, he believes, is brought 

 about by an elimination of all weaker ge»m cells through the 

 action of alcohol which thus serves as a selective agent to im- 

 prove the race. At first sight this would seem to be entirely 

 contradictory to our results, since the guinea-pig progeny is 

 decidedly the worse for the experimental treatment. Yet the 

 treatment in both cases has affected the progeny through its 



