758 



NATURE 



[February io, 192 i 



less all his life, but unless he gains access to the out- 

 lying districts of knowledge during his student stage, 

 and under the stimulus of preparation tor an examina- 

 tion test, he may never know anything about those 

 other subjects at all. 



Reference to an old London University Calendar 

 will show the list of subjects that had individually 

 and separately to be taken and passed in during' my 

 own student period — in addition to any attempt to 

 carry some one or more to a higher grade so as to 

 secure specific honours tested by a separate and 

 supplementary additional paper : — 



Matriculation. First B.Sc. Second B.Sc. 



Latin Mathematics (Trig. Organic Chemistry 

 Greek and Conies) Physiology 



French or German Physics Geology and 



Arithmetic and Inorganic Palx'ontology 



Algebra Chemistry Logic and Moral 



Geometry Zoology Philosophy. 



English Language Botany. 

 English History 



and Geography 

 Mechanics 

 Chemistry. 



Then, on this basis of general knowledge, the 

 doctorate gave an opportunity of carrying some sub- 

 division of one of these subjects to a very much 

 higher stage. Options must be allowed sooner or 

 later, of course, but the question is how soon an 

 option should be allowed. A multitude of options at 

 an early stage is liable to produce a crop of specialists. 

 Such a crop may be necessary for the world's work, 

 but the process of raising it can scarcely be called 

 an education suited to the development of a human 

 being. 



While writing, and without presuming to comment 

 on anything concerning London organisation, may I, 

 as an outsider, venture to express a hope that Fins- 

 bury Technical College will not be closed? The 

 admirable work done there in the past, and the great 

 names associated with it, entitle it to be held in 

 honour. Let us hope that its benefits will be con- 

 tinued to a generation seemingly more desirous of 

 instruction than ever before. Oliver Lodge. 



January. 



Heredity and Biological Terms. 



Will you allow me space for a short comment on 

 the recent discussion in Nature on Sir Archdall Reid's 

 letters? The chief point raised by Sir Archdall Reid 

 seems to me to be of great importance, and very far 

 from being a side-issue. The usual custom of speaking 

 of " characters " in living beings as either " innate " 

 or "acquired": the product of either nature or nur- 

 ture : or of describing them by other pairs of terms 

 of similar import, does lead to much confusion in 

 the minds of many when studying the production of 

 "characters," and very especially that of human 

 characters. Some seventeen years ago, when making 

 a study ot this kind, I was aided greatly by many 

 communications I had with Sir Archdall Reid, and 

 particularly by an article entitled "Biological Terms," 

 published in the final number of Bedrock in 1914, 

 which virtually sets forth the main position advocated 

 by him in the present discussion. I do not intend to 

 touch on any conflicting views on modes of hereditary 

 transmission which may enter into this discussion, 

 but are not strictly relevant to Sir Archdall Reid's 

 main contention, except to say that the particular 

 difficulty which he points out and strives to conquer 

 can concern onlv those" biologists who do not regard 

 the modern Lamarckian hypothesis as established, or 



NO. 2676, VOL. 106] 



even j^ \.ri,imilar. if that hypothesis were verified 

 the whole t untention would fail. 



Sir -Archdall Reid's chief point is that it would be 

 a great benefit to science if all branches of it wliich 

 deal with life adopted a like classification of "charac- 

 ters." .Vt present biologists generally classify 

 characters as "innate" or "acquired," while physio- 

 logists tend to classify characters from the point of 

 view of the influences, or "nurture," which produce 

 them. He takes, for instance, the case of a hand, a 

 sixth digit on it, and a scar on it. The physiologist 

 says all these characters are products of some kind 

 of nurture, and tries to find out what kind it is. 

 That is the physiologist's business. The biologist, 

 concerned mainly with "nature," says the hand and 

 the sixth digit are "innate" and the scar "acquired." 

 In a certain sense both are right. But the physio- 

 logist's language implies that all "characters " are 

 both inborn and acquired, while the biologist's im- 

 plies that some are "inborn" and some "acquired." 

 The language of the physiologists is always clear, 

 while that of the biologists is very often obscure. 

 Hence, probably, the absence among physiologists of 

 the great divergences of opinion which exist among 

 biologists. 



Physiologists are mainly concerned with the 

 development of the individual ; biologists with heri- 

 tage and evolution (or change in the heritage). 

 Assuming that most biologists of the present day 

 hold that heritage passes down the germ-tract, may 

 it not be argued justly that if the child has a hand like 

 the parent, there is no change in "nature" or "nur- 

 ture " ; that if the child has a sixth digit which the 

 parent had not, there is a change in nature, or heri- 

 tage, but none in "nurture"; and that if the child 

 has a scar, there is no change in heritage, but only 

 one in nurture? It therefore appears to me that Sir 

 -Archdall Reid's chief contention is very soundly based. 

 If we think of a hand, scar, and sixth digit as 

 "characters," as the physiologist does, they are all 

 alike products of nature and nurture (innate and 

 acquired) ; if we think of them as likenesses and 

 differences between individuals , the hand indicates an 

 innate likeness, the digit an innate difference, and 

 the scar an acquired difference ; and if we think of 

 them in terms of the germ-plasm, the hand and the 

 scar indicate no change, but the digit is a change 

 (or, in biological language, a " variation "). 



The burden of Sir .Archdall Reid's complaint is that 

 biologists have thought and expressed themselves in 

 terms of " characters," not of the germ-plasm ; and 

 that this has largelv caused the misleading question, 

 widespread beyond all scientific borders, as to whether 

 "nature" or "nurture" is the stronger influence. 

 This is especiallv notable in relation to the produc- 

 tion of "characters" in the higher animals, and 

 most of all to that of the most distinctive characters 

 of man. Sir -Archdall Reid thus insists that a vague 

 terminologv has caused neglect of the evolution of 

 the power of developing in response to functional 

 activitv ; and that, with a more precise terminology, 

 the simple statement, " Variations are the sole cause 

 of non-inheritance ; apart from variations , like 

 exactly begets like when parent and child develop 

 under like conditions," will cover almost the whole 

 field and thus leave biology free to deal with the 

 manv problems of immense scientific and practical 

 importance which concern it. 



In mv own inquiries I have found that the common 

 assumption of human characters being rigidly divisible 

 as to their origin into tw'O groups, "innate" or 

 " acquired," constitutional or environmental, is a 

 cause of much confusion ; and T think that the import 

 of Sir -Archdall Reid's exposition of this matter has 



