48 Darzvin, and after Daiivin. 



continuous than Darwin supposed (Stirp) ; but be this 

 as it may, it is certain that any such question as to 

 the degree of continuity differs, toto caelo, from that as 

 to whether there can ever be any continuity at all. 



How, then, we may well ask, is it that so able 

 a naturalist and so clear a thinker as Weismann 

 can have so far departed from the inductive methods 

 as to have not merely propounded the question 

 touching Continuity and its degrees, or even of Con- 

 tinuity as absolute ; but to have straightway assumed 

 the latter possibility as a basis on which to run 

 a system of branching and ever-changing speculations 

 concerning evolution, variation, the ultimate struc- 

 ture of living material, the intimate mechanism of 

 heredity, or, in short, such a system of deductive 

 conjectures as has never been approached in the 

 history of science ? The answer to this question is 

 surely not far to seek. Must it not be the answer 

 already given? Must it not have been for the sake 

 of rearing this enormous structure of speculation 

 that Weismann has adopted the assumption of 

 Continuity as absolute? As we have just seen, 

 Galton had well shown how a theory of heredity 

 could be founded on the general doctrine of Con- 

 tinuity, without anywhere departing from the in- 

 ductive methods — even while fully recognizing the 

 possibility of such continuity as absolute. But 

 Gallon's theory was a '• Theory of Heredityl^ and 

 nothing more. Therefore, while clearly perceiving 

 that the Continuity in question may be absolute, 

 he saw no reason, either in fact or in theory, for 

 concluding that it viust be. On the contrary, he 

 saw that this question is, for the present necessarily 



