Characters, Hereditary and Acquired, in 



For ' Brown-S^quard himself says, the changes in 

 the eye of the offspring were of a very variable 

 nature, and were only occasionally exactly similar 

 to those observed in the parents.' " 



Now, this does not appear to me a good com- 

 mentary. In the first place, it does not apply to 

 the other cases (such as the ears and the toes), 

 where the changes in the offspring, when they 

 occurred at all, were exactly similar to those observed 

 in the parents save that some of them occasionally 

 occurred on the opposite side, and frequently also on 

 both sides of the offspring. These subordinate facts, 

 however, will not be regarded by any physiologist 

 as making against the more ready interpretation of 

 the results as due to heredity. For a physiologist well 

 knows that homologous parts are apt to exhibit 

 corielated variability — and this especially where varia- 

 tions of a congenital kind are concerned, and also 

 where there is any reason to suppose that the nervous 

 system is involved. Moreover, even in the case of 

 the eye, it was always protrusion that was caused in 

 the parent and transmitted to the offspring as a result 

 of injuring the restiform bodies of the former ; while 

 it was always partial closure of the eyelids that was 

 caused and transmitted by section of the sympathetic 

 nerve, or removal of the cervical ganglia. Therefore, if 

 we call such effects "■' diseases," surely it was ''the same 

 disease" which in each case appeared in the parents 

 and reappeared in their offspring. Again, the " dis- 

 eases " were so peculiar, definite, and localized, that 

 I cannot see how they can be reasonably ascribed 

 to a general nervous ' shock." Why, for instance, 

 if this were the case, should a protruding eye never 



