no 



NATURE 



[November 23, 191 1 



u/ater into two basins and to fnaintain them distinct, the 

 one of which may be full of life and the other practically 

 barren. 



Th<-rc is an important point, which should not be 

 <\, in the similarity bi-tween what took place this 

 r at Marchais and what may have taken place in 

 <. .iiiiiaess or Orkney in the Old Red Sandstone period. 

 The fishes which buried themselves in such numbers in the 

 mud this summer, though they were fortunately released, 

 were in the strictest sense contemporaries, and were all 

 buried in the mud within a few days of each other. More- 

 over, in ordinary circumstances, at least in summer, the 

 mud is untenanted. If the fish were to migrate into the 

 barren waters covering the marly bottom, and their re- 

 turn were barred while the water over the mud evaporated 

 and the secular drought set in, this same mud-bed would 

 be met with in later ages as an unfossilifcrous stratum. 

 So that the fossil fishes which are found in these strata 

 must be held to have gone into occupation only when the 

 signal, intelligible to them, was made that complete 

 desiccation was going to take place. Once in a way this 

 desiccation turns out to be secular, and we have a rich 

 bed of fossils. 



In conclusion, I think that the behaviour of the fish in 

 the ditch at Marchais in the summer of 1911 adds one 

 more fact to the body of evidence which goes to show that, 

 in the production of geological formations, transportation 

 of material has probably been the exception rather than 

 the rule. J. Y. Buchanan. 



The Inheritance of Mental Characters. 



I HAVE just read Dr. Archdall Raid's paper 

 " Methods of Research," communicated to the Eugenics 

 Education Society. Situated as I am in Scotland, it 

 was impossible for me to attend the discussion which 

 I understand took place recently, and I had no oppor- 

 tunity of reading his paper until he sent it to me. 

 He makes certain statements with regard to a very con- 

 troversial point, the inheritance of mental characters ; and, 

 having had no chance of criticising these, I should be 

 much obliged if you would give me the opportunity of 

 doing so. 



Prof. Pearson, as quoted by Dr. Reid, says : — " We 

 inherit our parents' tempers, our parents' consciousness, 

 shyness, and ability, even as we inherit their stature, fore- 

 arm, and span." This statement may be loosely expressed 

 and open to misinterpretation ; but no one has a right to 

 assume, without further explanation, that more is meant 

 than the inheritance of capacity or absence of capacity for 

 making particular acquirements, whether Prof. Pearson 

 actually had this idea in his mind when he wrote or not. 

 At any rate, by ability he undoubtedly means capacity for 

 making acquirements. 



Dr. Reid says: — "Pearson's statement is utterly with- 

 out significance, utterly devoid of all content. Founded 

 with such an air of scientific accuracy on statistics and 

 family histories which have such an appearance of scien- 

 tific precision, it is so vague as to be quite nonsensical." 

 This statement certainly does not err on the side of vague- 

 ness. If it is as true as it is definite it reduces the mental 

 capacity of all men to that dead-level of competence or 

 incompetence which is the apparent ideal of Socialists and 

 trade unions ; it necessitates the adoption of some other 

 explanation than the action by selection upon the inborn 

 variations for the evolution of man's capacity for making 

 mental acquirements ; and it lenves the undoubted exist- 

 ence of variations in mental capacity, including feeble- 

 mindedness, unaccounted for. 



Unless Dr. Reid believes that the intellectual develop- 

 ment of man has been brought about by the action of 

 some supernatural power or by the inheritance of acquired 

 characters, he must believe that it has been due to the 

 action of natural selection upon inborn variations. The 

 term " mental character " is used by both Dr. Reid and 

 Prof. Pearson in such a way that both inborn and acquired 

 characters are included. The former classes the speaking 

 of English, the latter temper, shyness, and ability, as 

 mental characters. Many, perhaps most, of our mental 

 characters, using the words in this loose sense, are acquire- 

 ments ; but these acquirements depend upon an inborn 



NO. 2195, VOL. 88] 



capacity for making them, and tliis capacity, lik. 

 born characters, is subject to variations. Wiihu; 

 is dilTicult to see how man's capacity for makir.. 

 acquirements could ever have been evolved. .\ 

 method, which Dr. Reid supports so strongly r.^^ 

 so clearly, to his own examples and li 

 Pearson ! All normal English children sj 

 All normal French children speak French. lh«: ; 

 language spoken is an acquirement, dependent 

 environment. But it is impossible for Dr. Reid 

 tain that, given precisely the same opportui. 

 individuals are likely to attain the same degree < 

 the use of the language they have acquired. 

 they will vary in the facility with which they at 

 in the different ways of using the language. S 

 readily acquire an abundant flow of words in ^; 

 others may more easily attain a facile and clear si;. 

 writing. Does Dr. Reid believe that a great En. 

 orator or writer would not, ceteris paribus, hav ' 

 great orator or writer simply because his medium 

 to be French instead of English? This variabilii,, .. 

 capacity for making acquirements must apply to all aci. 

 ments. An individual may be able to acquire a 

 degree of development in music under comparativelv 

 favourable conditions, bui be quite incapable of rising, 

 to the average, in mathematics under favourable condit 

 and vice versa. Unless the existence of these variatic 

 mental capacity and the possibility of their transmli 

 from parents to offspring are admitted, it is impossible^ 

 account for the evolution of the human intellect by 

 action of natural selection upon inborn variations. 



Now take Prof. Pearson's first example, as quoted 

 Dr. Reid — temper ! I do not think that anyone 

 quarrel with the postulate that this word is used to exp 

 the control, or lack of control, over the emotions exhibi 

 by an individual, the strength of the emotion being| 

 variable quantity according to the susceptibility of^ 

 individual to the stimulus producing the emotion, 

 susceptibility will vary just as grocers' scales vary fr 

 delicate chemical balance, though both respond in a sil 

 manner to the same kind of stimulus. " Good-temj 

 implies the possession of a high degree of control or a 

 degree of susceptibility, or a combination of both. " 

 tempered " means a lack of control or a great sus 

 bility, or a combination of both. Dr. Reid might cofl 

 that the example of a bad-tempered parent might pre 

 a bad temper in the child. On the other hand, it ia^, 

 least equally probable that the exhibition of bad te 

 on the part of a child to a bad-tempered parent wo 

 bring swifter and greater punishment than would 

 been the case had the parent been good-tempered ; and 

 the bad temper in the child would be more than usi 

 checked. In the absence of direct evidence of a con 

 hensive and conclusive nature we must assume, 

 identical environment, that the susceptibility to i 

 tending to produce manifestations of temper is different 

 different individuals, and is an inborn character ; that 

 capacity for acquiring control over the emotions varies j 

 different individuals, and is an inborn character ; and 

 these variations are transmitted in an increased or les 

 degree to their offspring by the parents. These 

 characters are, of course, susceptible to great modific 

 by the environment. 



Using, I believe, methods approved by Dr. Reid, I 

 thus come to the same conclusion that Prof. Pearson 

 arrived at by a different road, and hold that 

 characters are transmitted from parents to oflsprl 

 though I fully realise the great extent to which these 

 born characters may subsequently be masked by 

 imposed acquirements. If this conclusion be correct, 

 the consideration of the inborn mental characters of 

 parents is even more important, from the eugenic poir' 

 view, than that of the inborn physical characters, and 

 more serious than any question relating to education. 



What has surprised me is that on all previous occa- 

 Dr. Reid's opinions seem to have been in complete ac 

 with the arguments put forward here. Hence I do 

 understand his unqualified condemnation of a statf 

 which does not appear, on the face of it. to be at var: 

 with his own views. Charles Walkf 



Glasgow, October 12. 



