( cxxiJi ) 



It is indeed surprising that Darwin himself, after hig own 

 crushing argument against the hypothesis of evohition by 

 inherited experience, should have been willing to admit some 

 tinctiu'e of the same principle in other parts of the wide field. 

 If we are perforce thrown upon unaided natural selection for 

 the origin and growth of the most complex and specialized 

 societies of the Hymenoptera, what need have we for co-operat- 

 ing causes of evolution elsewhere ? 



I conclude this section of my Address dealing with the most 

 remarkable of all nerve-mechanisms of instinct known to us, 

 with the following impressive comparison, made by Professor 

 Lankester, after contemplating the higher forms in which 

 instincts have been replaced by the power of educability. 

 " The character which we describe as ' educability ' can be 

 transmitted ; it is a congenital character. But the results of 

 education can not be transmitted. In each generation they 

 have to be acquired afresh. With increased ' educability ' 

 they are more readily acquired and a larger variety of them. 

 On the other hand, the nerve-mechanisms of instinct are 

 transmitted, and owe their inferiority as compared with the 

 results of education to the very fact that they are not acquired 

 by the individual in relation to his particular needs, but have 

 arisen by selection of congenital variation in a long series of 

 preceding generations." 



" To a large extent the two series of brain-mechanisms, the 

 ' instinctive ' and the ' individually acquired,' are in opposition 

 to one another. Congenital brain-mechanisms may prevent 

 the education of the brain and the development of new 

 mechanisms specially fitted to the special conditions of life. To 

 the educable animal the less there is of specialized mechanism 

 transmitted by heredity, the better. The loss of instinct is what 

 permits and necessitates the education of the receptive brain." 



" We are thus led to the view that it is hardly possible for 

 a theory to be further from the truth than that expressed by 

 George H. Lewes and adopted by George Romanes, namely, 

 that instincts are due to ' lapsed ' intelligence. The fact is 

 that there is no community between the mechanisms of instinct 

 and the mechanisms of intelligence, and that the latter are 

 later in the history of the development of the brain than the 



PROC. ENT. see. LOND., V. 1904. K 



