290 ANIMAL INTELLIGENCE 
But in discussing evolution I feel that we are on a 
different plane. Here the appeal to facts is of a much 
less decisive character.* 
I have been trying, since reading Prof. Baldwin’s 
letter in Science of 1st May, in reply to my own, to 
ascertain his real views in regard to evolution, and 
have some hesitation in deciding whether I really grasp 
his meaning or not. However, a few concrete cases 
may make matters plainer. A and B are, let us 
suppose, two individuals that survive because they can 
and do adapt to the environment; X and Y die 
because they cannot; or, in Prof. Baldwin’s terminology, 
A and B adapt to their “social heredity ” constituting 
“ organic selection,” which is ontogenetic, or affects the 
individual. But the survival of individuals specially 
adapted affects the race or phyllum. But surely an 
individual adapts to an environment (“social heredity ”) 
because of what he is congenitally. In the language 
of evolutionists, this is survival of the fittest, or natural 
selection, though Prof. Baldwin seems to think he has 
introduced a new factor in his “social heredity.” The 
name is new, and to my mind objectionable, as there is 
no real heredity ; the idea is not. 
Ordinary people express themselves by saying that 
we become what we are because of “ education,” “ cir- 
cumstances,” etc. We say: “The man is the product 
of his age.” 
People tend to believe too much in the power 
* Although the bearing on evolution of the observations under 
dicusssion was not the principal theme of these communications, it 
may be stated that, under ‘‘ Determinate Evolution,” Prof. Baldwin 
has elaborated his views in their most mature form in the July 
(1897) number of the Psych. Rev., in which article also, reference 
is made to the opinions of others holding views similar to his own. 
Prof. Morgan ues Matin the subject fully in his ‘‘ Habit and 
Instinct.”—W. 
