Characters, Hereditary and Acquired. 53 



of the inheritance of injuries, or mutilations. But 

 in making this answer they appear to forget that 

 Darwin has already shown its inefficiency. That the 

 self-styled Neo-Lamarckians have been much more 

 unguarded in this respect. I fully admit ; but it is 

 obviously unfair to identify Darwin's views with those 

 of a small section of evolutionists, who are really as 

 much opposed to Darwin's teaching on one side as is 

 the school of Weismann on the other. Yet, on read- 

 ing the essays of Weismann himself — and still more 

 those of his followers— one would almost be led to 

 gather that it is claimed by him to have enunciated 

 the distinction between congenital and acquired char- 

 acters in respect of transmissibility ; and therefore 

 also to have first raised the objection which lies 

 against the theory of Pangenesis in respect of the 

 non-transmissibility of mutilations. In point of fact, 

 however, Darwin is as clear and decided on these 

 points as Weismann. And his answer to the obvious 

 difficulty touching the non-transmissibility of mutila- 

 tions is, to quote his own words, " the long-continued 

 inheritance of a part which has been removed during 

 many generations is no real anomaly, for gemmules 

 formerly derived from the part are multiplied and 

 transmitted from generation to generation '." There- 

 ' fore, so far as Darwin's theory is concerned, the 

 challenge to produce evidence of the transmission of 

 injuries is irrelevant : it is no more a part of Darwin's 

 theory than it is of Weismann's to maintain that 

 injuries are transmitted. 



There is, however, one point in this connexion to 

 which allusion must here be made. Although Darwin 



' Variation under Domestication, ii. 392, 



