February 3, 192 1] 



NATURE 



727 



"acquired " to such developments as the blacksmith 

 displays. If everyone worked as blacksmiths, Prof. 

 MacBridc would differ still more from Mr. Cunning- 

 fiam, for the whole of development would then be 

 termed by the former "innate" and by the latter 

 "acquired." To Mr. Cunningham the English lan- 

 guage is always an acquirement ; to Prof. .MacBride 

 it is innate if learned in England, but acquired if 

 learned in France. 



Formal definitions of the meanings of the terms 

 innate" and "acquired" when applied to characters 

 are extremely rare in biological literature — unless 

 such terms as "germinal" and "somatic" be 

 attempts at definition. However, Romanes made the 

 attempt. This is what he says (" An E.\amination of 

 Weismannism," p. 5): "By a congenital character 

 is meant any individual peculiarity, whether struc- 

 tural or mental, with which the individual is born. 

 By an acquired character is meant any peculiarity 

 which the individual may subsequently develop in 

 consequence of its own individual experience." Else- 

 where (p. 214) he defines congenital (plasmogenetic) 

 characters as " variations due to admixtures of germ- 

 plasm in acts of sexual fertilization (and, therefore, 

 present at birth), as distinguished from somatogenetic 

 characters-variations which have been acquired in- 

 dependently of germ-plasm." Somatic characters he 

 defines as "characters acquired by th<' soma (i.i. 

 variations acquired after birth by the action of the 

 environment), as distinguishinl from characters pro- 

 duced and potentially present from the first by a union 

 of two masses of germ-plasm plasmogonetic charac- 

 ters." Romanes's langua>;e may be lacking in pre- 

 cision, but evidently he supposed that tlv^re is some- 

 thing peculiarly "innate" about a "germinal" 

 character and something |x-i-ullarly "acquired" about 

 a "somatic" character. I'niike Prof. MacBride, he 

 gives all these terms their ordinary or dictionary 

 meanings — and so, I believe, do most biologists. 



Dr. Ruggles Gates (Nati'kk, January 20, p. 663) 

 believes I contradict myself. It is possible he has 

 not f;raspe<l my meaning. .\n illustration may help. 

 Before me are two pencils. Comparing these indi- 

 viduals, 1 find that their differences as regards length 

 are great, but as regards colour small. Dr. Gates 

 will agree that I am not entitled to transfer the terms 

 by which I described the differences between the 

 individuals to the characters wherein thev differ — i.e. 

 I am not entitled to call the lengths of thi' pencils 

 great and their colours small. That way lies 

 confusion of thought. Now consider two living 

 individuals, the one an Fnjjlishman and the other 

 a scarred negro. They differ in colour innatelv 

 — they are in this respect by nature different ; their 

 perm-plasms are unlike ; even if reared under cxactlv 

 similar conditions of nurture they would be unlike. 

 They differ in scars by acquirement ; here they have 

 had not unlike natures, but unlike nurtures; if n-ared 

 under similar conditions they would be like. In 

 brief, the colour difference is blaslogenic, while 

 the difference in scars is somatogenic. .Ml this is 

 intelligible; the words are used correctly. They are 

 given their ordinary meanings; they are not in the 

 least technical. But are we now entitled to transfer 

 our descriptive terms from the differences between 

 individuals to the rhararters in which thev differ? 

 Are we entitled to call skin-coloration "innate" and 

 scars "acquired "? We are now comparing, not 

 srnarnfe indivi<luals, but the charncti-rs wherein thev 

 differ. In effect, we are comparing the characters of 

 the same individual. How is skin-colotir more innate 

 and l<^ss acquired than a scar? Thev are both ancient 

 proflurfs of evolution, both depend on germinal 

 potentiality, both develop in res) on>*e to some form 

 of nurture, and both are situated In tli>> soma. 



NO. 2675, VOL. 106'' 



Dr. Ruggles Gates writes : " I pointed out (Nature, 

 December 2, p. 440) that if his contention that all 

 characters are both innate and acquired in exactly 

 the same sense and degree is true, then it would 

 follow that all variations are also of one type, while 

 experimental biologists are universally agreed that 

 this is not the case. .Xt least two categories of varia- 

 tions are postulated . . . blastogenic and somato- 

 genic. . . . Yet Sir .Xrchdall Reid's only attempt to 

 answer my criticism that the universally admitted 

 existence of two types of variations undermines his 

 whole position is the very weak one of quoting 

 Darwin's tentative theory of pangenesis." But I 

 did not quote the theory of pangenesis against Dr. 

 Gates ; 1 was merely trying to make my meaning 

 clear. .And surely the word "variation" indicates, 

 not a character as such, but a difference between 

 individuals. Resemblances do not necessarily exclude 

 differences. A cleft lip is always a character in both 

 man and r.nbbit ; but it is a variation in the former, 

 but not in the latter. A sixth digit resembles all 

 other digits in that it is a product of nature and 

 nurture ; and yet (if the parent has it not) it is none 

 the less a variation. So also a sixth digit resembles 

 a scar in that it is a product of potentiality and 

 stimulus ; and vet it differs from the latter in that 

 the unlikeness from the parent is innate, whereas it 

 is acquired in the case of the scar. The resemblances 

 between the two do not necessarilv eliminate their 

 differences. How, then, is iny whole position under- 

 mined? G. .\rchdau. Reid. 



<) Victoria Road South, Southsea. 



Man and the Scottish Fauna. 



I AM grateful to your reviewer (N.\ture, Decem- 

 ber 30, 1920, p. 568) for his appreciation and for 

 pointing out slips and misprints in my " Influence of 

 .Man on .\nimal Life in Scotland," but on some 

 points of fact I would venture to disagree with other 

 of his remarks. 



Geologists will not be perturbed by his difficulty in 

 believing in the persistence of evidence of man's 

 presence in Scotland from times earlier than 

 the formation of the 25-ft. beach, 

 many places have shown that the 

 of estuarine material, rests upon 

 clay, so that it is certainly not 

 the land ice was grinding over 



Sections of 

 25-ft. beach, 

 the boulder 

 " clear that 

 all after the 

 elevation which formed the younger 2S-ft. beach." 

 On the contrary, the evidence is that the 25-ft. beach 

 was formed subsequent to the disappearance of the 

 ice-fields. The relations of the 50-lt. beach are not 

 so clear, but facts have to be explained on reasonable 

 suppositions. .Xnd the occurrence of kitchen-middens 

 of molluscan shells along the ridge of the 50-ft. beach 

 in the Forth Valley is more easily accounted for on 

 the supposition I have advocated — that they were 

 collected while the 50-ft. beach was still a se.i-margin 

 —than on that of your reviewer, who would have the 

 kitchen-middeners collect their shell-fish on the sea- 

 side, now a great distance away, and thereafter scale 

 first the 25-ft., and afterwards the 50-ft., beach before 

 sitting down to their simple meals. 



On the strength of a reference by Thomas the 

 Rhymer, your reviewer suggests that I have 

 erroneously omitted tin- preen wcHulpecker from the 

 list of banishe<l Scottish animals. But both ornitho- 

 legists (such as Varrell and Newton) and etymo- 

 logists (as ill Wright's "Dialect Dictionary") are 

 agreed that the word " wodewale," on which the 

 whole value of the citation hangs, is a general word 

 for a woodpecker, .-ind applie<l to the great spotted 

 as well as to the green woodpecker. The word has 

 no specific significance. Then- -^eenis to he, indeed. 



