NEOLAMARCKISM 409 
the effects of outward influences on the animal body, 
and very little to their effects upon vegetable organ- 
isms.’’ Whereas if he had read his Lamarck care- 
fully, he would have seen that the French evolu- 
tionist distinctly states that the environment acts 
directly on plants and the lower animals, but indi- 
rectly on those animals with a brain, meaning the 
higher vertebrates. The same anti-selection views 
are held by Eimer’s pupil, Piepers,* who explains 
organic evolution by ‘‘ lawsof growth, . . . un- 
controlled by any process of selection.”’ 
Dr. Cunningham likewise, in the preface to his 
translation of Eimer’s work, gives his reasons for 
adopting Neolamarckian views, concluding that “‘ the 
theory of selection can never get over the difficulty of 
the origin of entirely new characters;’’ that ‘* selec- 
tion, whether natural or artificial, could not be the 
essential cause of the evolution of organisms.’’ In 
an article on ‘‘ The New Darwinism ’’ (Westminster 
Review, July, 1891) he claims that Weismann’s the- 
ory of heredity does not explain the origin of horns, 
venomous teeth, feathers, wings of insects, or mam- 
mary glands, phosphorescent organs, etc., which 
have arisen on animals whose ancestors never had 
anything similar. 
Discussing the origin of whales and other aquatic 
mammals, W. Kiikenthal suggests that the modifi- 
cations are partially attributable to mechanical prin- 
ciples. (Annals and Mag. Nat. Hist., February, 
1891.) 
From his studies on the variation of butterflies, 
* Die Farbenevolution bei den Pieriden. Leiden, 1898. 
