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. 



