266 



NATURE 



[April 28, 192 1 



now comparing individuals and now characters. 

 Moreover, he makes distinctions where there are no 

 differences. As a consequence, he is convinced that 1 

 contradict myself, and so on. Taken by itself, not a 

 statement he makes is incorrect. Taken as a part of 

 a whole, every statement is incorrect. It is quite true 

 that a hand and a sixth digit are germinal, but the 

 scar also takes origin in germinal potentiality. It is 

 true that the scar is a response to the stimulus ot 

 injury, and in that sense acquired; but injury is not 

 the only form of nurture, and hands and sixth digits 

 are as much products of nurture and as much situated 

 in the soma as scars. 



Is not the following true? — (i) All likenesses 

 between individuals are innate and, acquired. 

 For example, men have similar hands because, (a) 

 having started with similar germinal potentialities, 

 and {b) experienced similar nurtures, they have (c) 

 developed similar characters. (2) All unlikenesses 

 between individuals are innate or acquired. Thus a 

 sixth digit indicates an unlikeness (variation) which 

 has a germinal origin ; for under similar nurtures 

 the individuals develop differently. A scar indicates 

 an acquired or somatic unlikeness (modification) ; for 

 this unlikeness develops only when unlike nurture is 

 experienced by the individual. (3) All characters as 

 such {e..g- when compared together) are innate and 

 acquired. Thus a hand is founded on germinal 

 potentiality, and, therefore, is innate; it develops 

 under the influence of nurture, and, therefore, is 

 acquired ; and it is situated in the soma, and, there- 

 fore, is somatic. The same is true of every character 

 that can be thought of. It follows that while it is 

 correct to distinguish differences between individuals 

 by the terms "innate" and "acquired," it is incor- 

 rect so to distinguish characters. A sixth digit indi- 

 cates an innate difference, but is not in itself especially 

 innate. A scar indicates an acquired difference, bui 

 is not in itself especially acquired. If the matter be 

 considered, it will be found that while some biology 

 {e.g. the theory of natural selection and the Mendelian 

 theory) is founded on the belief that differences be- 

 tween individuals are innate or acquired, much the 

 greater part of biology — or, at least, of biological 

 literature (e.^. the Lamarckian and Neo-Darwinian 

 hypotheses) — is based on the assumption that all 

 characters are so distinguishable. 



It is admitted that in the germ-cell are, not the 

 characters of the individual, but only potentialities 

 for developing them in response to fitting nurture. 

 Therefore, nothing but potentialities can be trans- 

 mitted. It follows that when, using a colloquialism 

 which is pardonable, since it neither deceives nor con- 

 fuses, we say that a child "inherits" his parent's 

 hand, we can mean only that the child, having in- 

 herited a like potentiality, has under similar conditions 

 developed a similar character. We then mean that 

 the child is like the parent both by nature and by 

 nurture, both by inheritance and by acquirement. If 

 we used our words with the same meanings, we should 

 say that a child inherits his parent's scar when he 

 develops it under the same conditions as the parent did 

 (in response to injury). The child would then be like 

 the parent both by nature and by nurture. He would 

 really have "inherited" in the only sense in which 

 the word has meaning. But, misled by his misuse of 

 words, the biologist will have none of this. He would 

 regard the scar as inherited only if the child repro- 

 duced it in a way in which the parent did not and 

 could not have produced it, only if the child were un- 

 like the parent both by nature and by nurture, only if 

 the child had varied so profoundly and improbably 

 from his progenitors that the scar, this ancient and 

 vitally useful product of evolution, is now produced 



NO. 2687, VOL. 107] 



(and the whole course of evolution upset) under 

 some other influence as a useless and burdensome / 

 thing. The misuse of the words " innate," " acquired," 

 and "inherited" conceals the enormity of the notion 

 and gives it an air of probability. As a consequence, 

 biologists have debated for a century as to whether 

 evolution follows the "transmission" of "acquired" 

 characters, and to-day biologists using "exact 

 methods " are trying to ascertain what characters are 

 "innate," and therefore worthy of the attention of 

 the student, and what "acquired," and therefore 

 unworthy of his attention. 



When employed to describe differences betv/een 

 individuals, the words "innate," "acquired," and 

 "inherit" are used intelligibly with their ordinary 

 dictionary meanings. When applied to characters 

 they cannot have these meanings. They have then 

 no meanings, or technical meanings. It is claimed 

 that they have the latter. But, as has appeared in 

 this correspondence, no technical meanings can be 

 thought of which accord with past or present usage. 

 Moreover, the claim is unhistorical ; for, as may be 

 seen by an examination of literature, biologists have 

 never intended to give their words technical mean- 

 ings. Their very synonyms, "germinal," "blasto- 

 genic," "somatogenic," and the like, were coined to 

 give greater definiteness to the naive belief that, while 

 "some characters have their representatives in the 

 germ-plasm," others are products of "heat, light, 

 moisture, and the like." Historically, all biologists 

 have limited the term "acquired." to characters which 

 develop in response to glaringly obvious stimuli, and 

 applied the term "innate" to all other characters. 

 For example, the musculature of the blacksmith 

 has been termed "acquired," while those of the child, 

 the youth, and the ordinary man which have developed 

 in response to precisely the same stimulus (use) have 

 been termed "innate." 



"Innate," "acquir^," and "inherit" are the chief 

 terms of biology. We see that the first two have 

 sometimes clear meanings and sometimes no mean- 

 ings, and that "inherit" sometimes means "inherit" 

 and sometimes its direct opposite, "vary." I daresay 

 that most readers of this corresf)ondence think I am 

 engaged in a mere logomachy. But with the chief 

 terms in such a state of vagueness and confusion, how 

 is it possible to build a science? Confusion is sure to 

 follow. It has followed. As Dr. Norman R. Camp- 

 bell has well said (Nature, April 21, p. 234): 

 "Accuracy of thought is intimately dependent upon 

 the constancy of the meaning of the words used 

 to express it." Consider the chaos of biological 

 sects and opinions. Consider the controversies, 

 always unending in the face of abundant evidence, 

 and, therefore, as clearly products of mere prejudice 

 as religious or political disputes. Consider the fact 

 that, alone among interpretative sciences, biology has 

 no body of truth accepted by all its students with the 

 sole exception of the supposition that living beings 

 have arisen through evolution. Consider the parochial 

 littleness of biology, which has more tremendous 

 problems ripe and ready for solution than any other 

 science. Consider the enormous masses of neglected 

 evidence — for example, that available from physiology 

 and pathologv and that which demonstrates the evolu- 

 tion of the power of developing in response to func- 

 tional activity. Consider what happens when a 

 humble outsider such as myself brings his difficulties 

 to biologists. He is told pontifically that he is doing 

 harm, or conceitedly that biologists are quite capable 

 of conducting their deliberations without his help, and 

 so on. The feelings of awe and admiration excited 

 in the humble inquirer are then likely to be — well, of 

 no importance. 



