AiDEFINITION OF HEREDITY- -NATURE VS. 



NURTURE^^ NOT A GOOD EXPRESSION 



Frederick Adams Woods 



THE expression "Nature versus 

 Nurture," introduced originally 

 by Galton, has been very widely 

 adopted, but this prettily 

 balanced phrase is not altogether satis- 

 factory from the standpoint of scien- 

 tific definiteness. From the artistic 

 point of view we cannot but admire 

 a dainty little bit of word carpentry. 

 We have the two N's furnishing alliter- 

 ation, and the words nearly balance in 

 weight. The last four letters are 

 identical, and in addition to this the 

 words seem to express well, the same 

 idea as heredity vs. environment for the 

 antithetical forces of nature. But here 

 is already the first objection. The 

 word nature can never be made to mean 

 anything less than all the forces of the 

 cosmos. Surely everything is nature. 

 Sometimes, again, the word nature 

 is employed in another limited, yet 

 entirely different sense, as meaning the 

 wild-woods, the fields, the clouds, and 

 the birds. The zealot advocates a "back 

 to nature" movement, as though human 

 nature were not a part of nature. In 

 the same way our forefathers invented 

 for us the phrase "natural history," thus 

 suggesting that human history was un- 

 natural or at least non-natural, and that 

 man was apart from the world of 

 organic life. 



Of course this sort of criticism is 

 almost inevitable, if we start to dissect 

 the English language. The same 

 objections can be raised against the 

 words heredity and inheritance. We 

 all use these words in dift'erent senses 



with different associative ideas, accord- 

 ing to our age, habits of thought, and 

 professional training, even if we are 

 trying to use them in a narrowly defined 

 and technical sense. The word heredity 

 to a biologist, trained in microscopical 

 anatomy and embryology, suggests a 

 single cell — a germ-cell immediately 

 after fertilization. Is it likely that this 

 word suggests the same picture to a 

 man trained in theology or law? 



But we shall all have to see the same 

 picture some time — that is, if we are to 

 make the science of heredity part of 

 the curriculum of education, and the 

 best definition of heredity will have to 

 be closely associated with the mech- 

 anism of chromosomes and germ-cells, 

 and the clearest pictures will be mentally 

 held only by those who have some ideas 

 of the structures and functionings of 

 these primordial elements. 



The use of the word "nature" as 

 synonymous with heredity is associated 

 with an objection beyond the academic 

 one that everything is nature anyway ; 

 and that is, because we have the com- 

 mon phrase "human nature," so that 

 when we say the nature of that man 

 is bad, we do not know whether \ye 

 mean to suggest that his bad nature is 

 inherent or the result of bad associates. 



Again,, we have the familiar phrase 

 applied to kindly souls that he or she 

 has a "good nature." This last idea 

 can only be conveyed if the words are 

 spoken (or read as spoken) quickly. 

 How different is the picture portrayed 

 of one who has a good nature (spoken 



Note: In connection with this discussion it may interest some readers to refer to a 

 former article in the Journal of Heredity for February, 1918 (vol. ix, No. 2) on the 

 "Meanings of Genetic Terms." About sixty of the terms commonly used in the subject of 

 genetics are there discussed. — Ed. 



426 



