598 



NATURE 



[January 6, 192 1 



tion of fundamental data. Mow, then, shall we 

 classify characters — as "innate" and ■'acquired," or 

 as responses to this or that lorin of nurture? This 

 is what 1 meant by ■clearing the lield. " 



Of one thinfJ 1 am very sure : that so long as 

 the present classification is maintained biology will 

 never be other than a tumbling-ground for whimsies — 

 LamarcUian suppositions, questions as to whether 

 nature or nurture is the stronger, and the like. 

 When IJarwin, the greatest figure that biology has 

 produced, worked on lines of Lainarck's classifica- 

 tion he went hopelessly wrong — as in his theory of 

 pangenesis. His whole success was achieved when 

 he studied, not differences between characters, but 

 differences between individuals. 



Prof. Poulton's letter in Naturk of December 23, 

 p. 532, which 1 have seen since writing the above, is 

 valuable for its line of thought and for its definitions. 

 He begins by comparing individuals, and finds that 

 their likenesses and differences are separable into 

 those which are inherent (blastogenic) and those which 

 are acquired (somatogenic). This is the firm ground 

 which Darwin occupied in all his valid thinking. No 

 one doubts the existence of these likenesses and dif- 

 ferences, and most biologists believe that only those 

 which arc blastogenic tend to be inherited (per- 

 petuated) by offspring. Thus chicks resemble each 

 other innately in that they have heads and differ by 

 acquirement as regards scars. Next, Prof. Poulton 

 transfers the terms "inherent" and "acquired " from 

 the likenesses and differences betweeq individuals to 

 the characters wherein they are alike or different. 

 The head is called "inherent" and the scar 

 "acquired." He is now comparing the characters 

 of the same individual. This change, subtle yet vital, 

 is precisely the cause of the chaos which prevails in 

 biology. We are now in the morass in which 

 Lamarck and Weismann floundered. We have de- 

 parted altogether from Darwin's point of view. We 

 have transferred the argument from the chestnut 

 horse to the horse-chestnut. In what particular 

 is the head more inherent and less acquired than 

 the scar? Prof. Poulton writes: "Whenever change 

 in the environment regularly produces appreciable 

 change in an organism, such difference may be 

 called an acquired character." Suppose I decide 

 to work harder and so develop my muscles 

 beyond the ordinary standard which thev have 

 already attained through use. In what respect 

 is the addition more "acquired" than the ordinary 

 development (which is usually termed " innate ")? 

 What would be the change in the environment? 



I think 1 can give Prof. Poulton better definitions. 

 Whenever the influence in response to which a 

 character (e.g. a blacksmith's muscles, scars) develops 

 is glaringly obvious, biologists call that character 

 "acquired" and "somatogenic"; but whenever the 

 influence is not glaringly obvious (e.g. ordinarv 

 muscles, head) that character is called "inherent" 

 and "blastogenic." When^er a biologist considers 

 a character innate he reasons as if the soma and 

 nurture had nothing to do with it. Whenever he 

 considers it "acquired" he reasons as if the germ- 

 plasm and nature had nothing fo do with it. In all 

 this he adheres strictly to ancient popular usage, and 

 is not troubled by such recently discovered, recondite 

 things as germ-plasms and germ-celfs. He may talk 

 about the latter unendingly, but they do not influence 

 his thinking. Situated at the hub, whence radiate all 

 sciences connected with life, biologv, because of its 

 unique classification of characters, has rendered not 

 only itself, but also all these other studies relatively 

 impotent — intellectually, socially, politically. It can 



NO. 2671, VOL. 106] 



use their data only to a minimal degree ; and is not 

 used by them at all. G. Archdai.l Reid. 



Victoria Road South, Southsea, Hants. 



The British Committee for Aiding Men of Letters and 

 Science in Russia. 



We have recently been atjle to get some direct com- 

 munication from men of science and men of letters in 

 North Russia. Their condition is one of great priva- 

 tion and limitation. They share in the consequences 

 of the almost complete economic exhaustion of 

 Russia ; like most people in that country, they are ill- 

 clad, underfed, and short of such physical essentials 

 as make life tolerable. 



Nevertheless, a certain amount of scientific research 

 and some literary work still go on. The Bolsheviks 

 were at first regardless, and even in some cases hos- 

 tile, to these intellectual workers, but the Bolshevik 

 Government has apparently come to realise something 

 of the importance of scientific and literary work to 

 the community, and the remnant — for deaths among 

 them have been very numerous — of these people, the 

 flower of the mental life of Russia, has now been 

 gathered together into special rationing organisations 

 which ensure at least the bare necessaries of life for 

 them. 



These organisations have their headquarters in two 

 buildings known as the House of Science and the 

 House of Literature and Art. Under the former we 

 note such great names as those of Pavlov the physio- 

 logist and Nobel prizeman, Karpinskv the geologist, 

 Borodin the botanist, Belopolsky the astronomer, 

 Tagantzev the criminologist, Oldenburg the Orien- 

 talist and permanent secretary of the Petersburg 

 -Academy of Science, Koni, Bechterev, Latishev, 

 Morozov, and many others familiar to the scientific 

 world. 



Several of these scientific men have been interviewed 

 and affairs discussed with them, particularly as to 

 whether anything could be done to help them. There 

 were many matters in which it would be possible to 

 assist them, but upon one in particular they laid 

 stress. Their thought and work are greatly impeded 

 by the fact that they have seen practically no Euro- 

 pean books or publications since the Revolution. This 

 is an inconvenience amounting to real intellectual 

 distress. In the hope that this condition may be 

 relieved by an appeal to British scientific workers. 

 Prof. Oldenburg formed a small committee and made 

 a comprehensive list of books and publications needed 

 by the intellectual community in Russia if it is to keep 

 alive and abreast of the rest of the world. 



It is, of course, necessary to be assured that any 

 aid of this kind provided for literary and scientific 

 men in Russia would reach its destination. The Bol- 

 shevik Government in Moscow, the Russian trade 

 delegations in Reval and London, and our own 

 authorities have therefore been consulted, and it would 

 appear that there will be no obstacles to the trans- 

 mission of this needed material to the House of 

 Science and the House of Literature and .\rt. It can 

 be got through by special facilities even under present 

 conditions. Many of the publications named in Prof. 

 Oldenburg's list will have to be bought, the costs of 

 transmission will be considerable, and accordingly 

 the undersigned have formed themselves into a small 

 committee for the collection and administration of a 

 fund for the supply of scientific and literary publica- 

 tions, and possibly, if the amount subscribed permits 

 of it, of other necessities, to these Russian savants 

 and men of letters. 



W'e hope to work in close association with the Royal 



