4o6 



NATURE 



[November 25, 1920 



in a way in which the parent did not, and could not, 

 have produced it, i.e. only if the child became pro- 

 foundly different by nature from the parent, only if 

 it varied. It follows that the word "inherit" (be- 

 cause often used as synonymous with "reproduce") is 

 employed, commonly but quite unconsciously, with 

 two directly opposite meanings. When applied to 

 "germinal'' characters it is given its ordinary 

 meaning; it then means inherit (in the only sense in 

 which anything can be said to be inherited). When 

 applied to " acquired " characters it means vary. 

 All this loose use and misuse of words — innate, ger- 

 minal, acquired, somatic, inherit, reproduce — is a 

 legacy from the days, before the discovery of cells, 

 ■when students of heredity thought in terms, not of 

 the germ-tract, but of the whole individual, the soma. 

 "Germinal" and "somatic" are modern terms, but 

 they reproduce ancient, inaccurate, popular ideas. 

 The result has been half a century of futile 

 labour, discussion, and confusion. If it be 

 thought that I am mistaken as to all this, can 

 anyone tell us in precise terms what in the world 

 the Lamarckian controversy was about; or what is 

 meant when it is said that some characters have 

 "representatives in the germ-plasm" while others are 

 merely due to "light, heat, mois- 

 ture, and the like " ; or what is 

 intended when an inquirer seeks to 

 ascertain to what categories (ger- 

 minal or somatic) certain characters 

 belong, and so on? 



Is not the following universally 

 and indisputably true? Does it not 

 cover the whole Neo-Darwinian- 

 Lamarckian field, and much be- 

 sides? The sole antecedent of non- 

 inheritance is variation. Apart from 

 variation, like exactly begets like 

 when parent and child develop under 

 like conditions. But if this general 

 statement be true, the study of 

 heredity is relatively simple. 

 Its difficulties have resulted not 

 so much from the complexities and obscurities of 

 reality as from those of language. 



The natural inference from the discovery of cells 

 and their mode of origin is that heritage travels down 

 the germ-tract. The necessary inference from this, 

 in turn, is that all the characters of the individual 

 are innate, acquired, and inheritable in exactly the 

 same sense and degree. The inference which Weis- 

 mann, hypnotised by words, drew was that acquired 

 characters are not transmissible. If we give our 

 words their natural meanings (which is not the 

 meaning the Lamarckians gave), there is sense in the 

 statement that acquired characters are transmissible. 

 Of course, acquired characters are transmissible in 

 exactly the same sense and degree that any characters 

 are transmissible. But there is absolutely no meaning 

 in the Neo-Darwinian statement that acquired 

 characters are not transmissible. It is like a declara- 

 tion that five miles weigh five pounds. 



G. .^RCHDALL ReID. 



9 Victoria Road South, Southsea. 



Squalodont Remains from the Tertiary Strata of 

 Tasmania. 



During a recent visit to the north-west coast of 

 Tasmania I was fortunate enough to discover in the 

 Tertiary beds at Wynyard— usually regarded as 

 Miocene — the skull and a good proportion of the 

 skeleton of a Squalodont whale. The fossil is in a 

 particularly fjood state of perservation, and has been 



::o. 2665, VOL. 106] 



removed to the biological department of the Univer.sity 

 of Tasmania. 



The remains so far discovered in Australia which 

 can be assigned definitely either to the Archaeoceti or 

 to the primitive Odontoceti comprise in all some tix 

 or seven teeth, so that the present discovery is of 

 more than passing interest. A detailed description of 

 this specimen will be published later, but I have 

 thought that a preliminary notice might be of interest 

 to 'British naturalists. 



The following is a short summary of the characters 

 of the skull of this fossil : 



Measurements. — Total length, 56 cm. ; zygomatic 

 breadth, 376 cm. ; snout length (from bottom of 

 antorbital notch), 255 cm. Whole skull, dolphin- 

 like; snout shorter in proportion to skull than in 

 Squalodon, longer than in Prosqualodon or Patrio- 

 cetus ; shape of snout triangular, but slightly concave 

 on each side. Nasal bones similar to those of Pro- 

 squalodon. External nares not so far back as in 

 Squalodon. Supra-orbital plate of frontal not entirelv 

 covered by the supra-orbital process of the maxill.-j. 

 Supra-occipital strongly developed, meeting frontals 

 anteriorly, and so preventing the parietals from enter- 

 ing into the formation of the skull-roof. Symphysis 



Fig. I. 



of mandible extends to posterior edge of first 

 molar. 



Dental formula: I 3/3, C i/i, P 4/4, M 6/6 (Van 

 Beneden's notation). 



Posterior molar in each jaw degenerate. All molars 

 two-rooted, with indications of disappearing third 

 root. Roots of molars connected by an isthmus as in 

 Prosqualodon ; roots of premolars coalesced, though 

 separated by a groove in some cases. All teeth closely 

 packed in jaw, sometimes overlapping. Molars with 

 three cusps on each edge, making, with the primary 

 cusp, seven cusps in all. Pattern of surface of molai- 

 teeth can be seen from Fig. 2, (B) and (C). 



The arrangement of the bones of the skull-roof 

 marks this skull as being that of a Squalodont, but 

 there are features in which the specimen closely ap- 

 proaches the Archaeoceti, e.g. in the form of nasals, 

 the position of the external nares, and the shortness 

 of the rostrum. The problems centring round the 

 dentition need not be discussed here. 



It is possible that these remains might be referred 

 to one of the genera Parasqualodon and Meta. 

 squalodon founded bv Hall on an examination of the 

 Australian teeth referred to above. 



This is a point on which a definite opinion can be 

 given only after a detailed examination of the teeth in 

 the National Museum, Melbourne. I have refrained, 

 therefore, from referring the specimen to anv -genus. 



With regard to the figures accompanving this letter. 

 Fig. I shows the skull from the right side, and Fig. 2 

 (A) the posterior premolar, (B) the fourth molar, 



