54 Darwin, and after Darwin. 



did not believe in the transmissibility of mutilations 

 when these consist merely in the amputation of parts 

 of an organism, he did believe in a probable tendency 

 to transmission when removal of the part is followed 

 by gangrene. For, as he says, in that case all the 

 gemmules of the mutilated or amputated part, as they 

 are gradually attracted to that part (in accordance 

 with the law of affinity which the theory assumes), 

 will be successively destroyed by the morbid process. 

 Now it is of importance to note that Darwin made 

 this exception to the general rule of the non-trans- 

 missibility of mutilations, not because his theory of 

 pangenesis required it, but because there appeared to 

 be certain very definite observations and experiments 

 which will be mentioned later on proving that 

 when mutilations are followed by gangrene they are 

 apt to be inherited: his object, therefore, was to 

 reconcile these alleged facts with his theory, quite as 

 much as to sustain his theory by such facts. 



So much, then, for the challenge to produce 

 direct evidence of the transmissibility of acquired 

 characters, so far as mutilations are concerned : 

 believers in Darwin's theory, as distinguished from 

 Weismann's. are under no obligation to take up such 

 a challenge. But the challenge does not end here. 

 Show us, say the school of Weismann, a single in- 

 stance where an acquired character of any kind (be it 

 a mutilation or otherwise) has been inherited : this is 

 all that we require : this is all that we wait for : and 

 surely, unless it be acknowledged that the Lamarckian 

 doctrine reposes on mere assumption, at least one 

 such case ought to be forthcoming. Well, nothing 

 can sound more reasonable than this in the first in- 



