DISCUSSIONS ON INSTINCT 291 
of education, circumstances, etc., and too little in 
heredity; hence all sorts of cures for deep-rooted 
evils are ever welcome. But we find that the changes 
wrought by “social heredity ” are very much on the 
surface, and, in consequence, there may be but little 
outcome from these effects—possibly none in some 
cases—in heredity, as ordinarily understood, which does 
not, however, contravene the Lamarckian or any 
other well-recognised principle of heredity or evolu- 
tion. To return to the concrete: A and B_ have 
offspring, differing slightly from themselves; the 
“social heredity” has had little effect, therefore, on 
the race in the case of the lower animals, much less 
than in the case of man, possibly, and if the offspring 
C and D be placed in widely different environments, 
the slight extent to which they have varied (con- 
genitally) will be all the more evident. 
A Lamarckian explains these variations, such as 
they may be, by the influence of the use and disuse 
of parts, and evolutionists of other schools in other 
ways. Prof. Baldwin misapprehends, I take it, the 
sense in which I employed the term “use” in the 
phrase in which he quotes from my last letter. The 
Lamarckian sense was that intended. 
I must repeat that, after reading a good deal of what 
Prof. Baldwin has written on this aspect of evolution, it 
still seems to me that while he has, with new terminology, 
set forth old views in a new dress, that there is really 
no new principle or factor involved. I do not, of course, 
consider such writing without special value, though 
it may sometimes be provokingly difficult to under- 
stand from the new technicalities employed, for the 
relative parts played by heredity and environment 
in the make-up of each individual is an interesting 
and practically very important problem. 
