160 Heredity. (April, 
Here it must be admitted that, although M. Ribot has col- 
leGted a most valuable mass of facts, and has given us 
many interesting reflections upon their bearings, he still 
leaves much work for his successors. The case is one of 
extreme complication. Every human being, and every 
animal of the higher orders, has two parents whose influence 
is blended in a manner which to us appears, so far, inex- 
plicable. We do not even know whether one parent, asa 
rule, determines the outward form, and the other the con- 
stitution and character; or whether, in each of these 
points, a resemblance may be detected to both. It has been 
suggested that something may here be traced resembling 
the chemical law of combination in multiple proportions, 
the male or the female parent, according to its general or 
momentary predominance, affecting more or less the cha- 
racter of the offspring. Thus children of the same parents 
might differ from each other, just like compounds formed 
from the same elements, but in varying proportions, as 
A+B,A+2B,2A+B, &c. 
Here, then, already is scope for great diversity. But in 
addition to the influences of the immediate parents, some- 
times acting in conjunction and sometimes in opposition, 
and varying with their degree of vigour and mental state, 
both at the moment of procreation and during gestation, 
we have the phenomena of atavism. It has long been 
remarked by physiologists, physicians, breeders of cattle, &c., 
that attributes which have been observed in grand-parents, 
or in more remote ancestors, but which have lain dormant 
for one generation or for more, suddenly reappear. In this 
fact M. Ribot sees a certain analogy with alternate and 
serial generation, as it may be observed in the salpz and 
the medusa. 
We have, further, what is called indireét heredity, “‘ the 
representation of collaterals in the physical and moral cha- 
racter of the progeny.” Between uncle and nephew, or 
grand-uncle and grand-nephew, and even in still remoter 
degrees, we not unfrequently find “ striking resemblances of 
conformation, face, inclinations, passions, character, defor- 
mity, and disease.” Such resemblances have been ascribed 
to chance, and used as an argument against the very exist- 
ence of heredity. M. Ribot very justly points out that 
‘‘indire&t heredity is only a form of atavism—a form which 
is rarer and less easy of apprehension than direct atavism, 
but differing from it only in appearance.” 
The most perplexing case is that which M. Ribot 
