October 6, 192 1] 



NATURE 



// 



which have occupied biologists would automatically 

 end, and the way be cleared for further advance. Is 

 this the explanation that Dr. Bather desires? 



Can Dr. Bather tell us in terms of utility why, 

 when all characters are equally innate, acquired, and 

 inheritable, biologists should distinguish them from 

 one another by these terms? 1 am sure he will find 

 the task impossible. Fortunately, the historical ex- 

 planation is clear. Formerly it was universally be- 

 lieved (and still is popularly) that the soma of the 

 child was derived, by means of physiological units, 

 gemmules, or what not, from that of the parent — the 

 child's head from the parent's head, and so on. 

 Granting that assumption, this, the child's heritage, 

 was innate. But it could be altered, as by injury and 

 use, and these alterations were acquired. If the 

 soma of the child took origin in that of the parent, 

 it was reasonable to believe that characters acquired 

 by the parent could be transmitted in some degree to 

 the child in whom they would be innate. Hence the 

 Lamarckian hypothesis. Obviously, with this con- 

 ception of heredity, the application of the distinguish- 

 ing terms "innate," "acquired," and "inheritable" 

 was intelligible and correct. Characters actually were 

 innate or acquired, inheritable or non-inheritable. 

 Nature and nurture were warring forces, and attempts 

 to estimate their relative strength were reasonable. 

 But no clear distinction could be drawn, and, in fact, 

 none was drawn, between variations and modifica- 

 tions, which were all called variations. The truism 

 was not true, for what we now recognise as modi- 

 fications altered the heritage, and like did not produce 

 like under like conditions of nurture alone. 



•After the discovery of the cellular structure of the 

 body the belief grew that the heritage travelled solely 

 dovvn the germ-tract. If that were true, only poten- 

 tialities to develop in this or that way were trans- 

 missible ; all characters were equally products of 

 nature and nurture; the terms "innate," "acquired," 

 and "inheritable" became inapplicable to characters 

 as distinguishing terms ; the physiological classifica- 

 tion of characters as responses to various stimuli 

 became necessary and clear, as did also the distinction 

 between variations and modifications ; nature and 

 nurture were not warring, but co-operating, forces ; 

 the Lamarckian discussion became absurd, for valid 

 reasoning cannot be founded on non-existent differ- 

 ences ; the truism became true, and, since it covered 

 almost the whole area under discussion, there ensued 

 a vast simplification of study. One now thought of 

 development in terms of nurture, and evolution and 

 heredity in terms of the potentialities of the germ- 

 plasm, which was conceived as changing through the 

 ages, by the accumulation of variations in it, in such 

 ways that some of the old potentialities were 

 eliminated or altered and some new ones evolved. 

 For example, one conceived man as differing from 

 the oak because his nature, and therefore his nurture, 

 was different. One ceased to regard him as a being 

 compounded of innate and acquired characters. 



Biologists failed to perceive fully the necessary 

 Implications of their own discoveries. '" Men believe 

 that their reason rules over words; but it is also the 

 case that words react, and in their turn also use their 

 influence on the intellect." The words '"innate," 

 '"acquired," and ""inherit," sanctified in usage 'oy 

 tradition, exercised a fatal influence. Instead of 

 perceiving that all characters are equally innate, 

 acquired, and inheritable, biologists proceeded to 

 fortifv the error by coining new synonyms ("ger- 

 minal," "somatic," "" blastogenic," and the like) and 

 to discuss the "transmission of acquired characters," 

 "the intensitv of inheritance," and so on. In other 

 words, the old notion that the parts of the child are 

 derived from those of the parent was wonderfully 

 NO. 2710. VOL. 108] 



combined, by means of a misuse of language, with 

 the new and quite incompatible belief that the heritage 

 travels down the germ-tract. When a supixvsition is 

 true or untrue it may be proved or disproved. When 

 it is nonsensical it can be neither proved nor dis- 

 proved. Crucial testing is then impossible ; discussion 

 leads merely to more nonsense. At once the word 

 "inherit" acquired, quite unnoticed, two contrary 

 meanings, and, besides, was often used as synonymous 

 with ■■ reproduce." Endless controversy arose; sects 

 developed ; holy ways of gathering (i.e. restricting) 

 evidence were acclaimed ; the habit of calmly examin- 

 ing all the evidence by means of crucial testing fell 

 very largely into abeyance. Thus did biology achieve 

 the scientific status of theology and politics. Hence 

 the present chaos. Hence the fact that, though bio- 

 logists believe that all characters that develop in 

 resp>onse to use are "acquired," they, following tradi- 

 tion, limit the term to some only of the characters 

 that so develop. For example, while they term the 

 muscles of the blacksmith "'acquired," they consider 

 those of the child and the ordinary man, which grow 

 in response to similar nurture, ""innate." Hence the 

 failure to observe the magnitude of use-developments 

 in the higher animals, and, therefore, to perceive 

 what is for human beings the most important phase 

 of all evolution, that of the power of so developing. 

 Hence the fact that I, a mere outsider, neither 

 zoologist nor botanist, am able to write so impudently 

 without fear of being eaten like a shrimp, as would 

 have happened had I assailed physics, chemistry, 

 mathematics, astronomy, or descriptive zoology or 

 botany. 



Biologists may declare that their terms have tech- 

 nical meanings. But no such meanings which accord 

 with usage can be thought of. The evidence in litera- 

 ture is plain that every writer has really believed that 

 some characters are more innate, acquired, and in- 

 heritable than others. Witness the synonyms, .\gain, 

 biologists mav declare that when they discuss 

 Lamarckian "'• inheritance " they merely consider 

 whether these so-called acquirements so alter the 

 germ-plasm (cause it to vary) that a character, which 

 evolution fitted ancestors to develop in response to 

 use or injury, tends to be developed by descendants 

 in some other wav — e.g. in response to a hormone. 

 But why not use plain and correct language? Why 

 designate characters which are not especially innate, 

 acquired, and inheritable by those terms? Why say 

 "inherit" when exactly the opposite (vary, non- 

 inherit) is meant? Why suppose that characters 

 which develop in response' to use or injury (and only 

 some of these) have this amazing property of causing 

 such wonderful germinal alterations? Why not 

 speculate as to whether the development in ancestors 

 of ordinary muscles in response to use tends so to 

 change the germ-plasm that ordinary muscles can 

 be developed in descendants in response to other 

 influences — e.g. hormones? Why not question 

 whether the development ot hair and teeth in ances- 

 tors in response to hormones tends to cause their 

 development in descendants in response to other 

 influences— e.^. use or injury? Use, injury, hor- 

 mones, and the rest of what we call nurture are all 

 influences to which evolution has made the individuals 

 of the different races responsive; why, then, select 

 only two of them as causes of "acquirements" in 

 progenitors and of "innate" characters in descen- 

 dants? Why ignore the evidence furnished by the 

 evolution of' the higher animals, v>hich demonstrates 

 that, so far from "innate" characters replacing in 

 decendants characters acquired by ancestors, the con- 

 trary has happened on a vast scale; for, unlike low- 

 animals, the higher types (in proportion as they are 



