A REJOINDER 173 



transmitted as such. If Miss Wodehouse will read 

 Dr. Adams Woods' book on " Inheritance in Royalty,"* 

 she will find abundant historical instances of the 

 transmission of normal mental and moral qualities, 

 and of high intellectual capacities. But the actual 

 existence, nature, and number of the possible unit- 

 characters involved is a matter for future 

 investigation. More than this I have nowhere im- 

 plied. 



In the passages which I have already indicated 

 I spoke of the hereditary transmission of those 

 qualities that make the " loafer, the wastrel, the 

 congenital drunkard, the habitual criminal, the 

 congenitally tuberculous, the mentally deficient, the 

 thriftless and generally incapable persons." Does 

 Miss Wodehouse deny the inheritance of these 

 defects ? I gather not, for she says " I yield at once 

 to my opponent the obvious exception of such 

 definite deformity in the mind or brain as shows 

 itself in insanity or feeble-mindedness " ; and she 

 admits " there is good ground for believing that 

 these may be units." Having made that admission, 

 I must confess I fail to see the justification of her 

 attitude towards mental traits which are normal. 

 Does she wish us to believe that normal and abnormal 

 qualities of mind or body constitute two separate 

 and distinct kingdoms of characters ? If so, what 

 explanation is forthcoming of the fact that feeble- 

 minded children are born of the same parents who 

 produce normal children ; that in families where 



* Reviewed in this number of the Journal. 



