3o8 



NA TURE 



[March 9, 1922 



say that a variation is innate or acquired we know- 

 exactly what is meant — i.e. that a difference between 

 two individuals is germinal or somatic, a product of 

 nature or nurture. For example, if B differs from A in 

 that he has a sixth digit and a scar, he varies innately 

 (not by acquirement) in the case of the digit, and by 

 acquirement (not innately) in the case of the scar. 

 But when we say that the digit itself is innate (not 

 acquired) and the scar itself acquired (not innate) 

 what can we mean ? We are now comparing not 

 separate individuals, but two characters of tlie same 

 individual. Obviously the digit as such is no more 

 germinal, no more a product of nature and evolution, 

 no less somatic, no less a product of nurture than the 

 scar. How then is the one more innate or acquired 

 than the other ? Our terms " innate " and " acquired" 

 are now unmeaning or else they have new meanings. 

 But, as 1 say, no new meanings can be thought of 

 which. cover the whole of established usage. All this 

 would not matter were it not for its consequences. 



When it is said that an innate variation is in- 

 heritable we know exactly what is meant — e.g. that 

 the descendants of B will tend to reproduce the digit 

 (will tend to differ from A) even when reared under the 

 same influences as A. Again, when it is said that an 

 acquired variation is not inheritable, we know exactly 

 what is meant — that B's descendants will not repro- 

 duce his scar when reared under the same influences 

 as A. But when it is said that innate characters are 

 inheritable and that acquired characters are (or are 

 not) inheritable, what is meant ? Either the word 

 inherit has now no meaning, or in this single sentence 

 it has two directly contrary meanings — inherit when 

 applied to innate characters, and non-inherit {i.e. vary) 

 when appHed to acquired characters. We are now 

 fully immersed in that fog of words in which, except for 

 a brief interlude in Darwin's time, biology has strayed 

 for a century. 



The trouble began in the popular notion that, like 

 Topsy, some {i.e. innate) characters " just growed," 

 while others are acquired through some influence or 

 other and may become, through "centuries" or "genera- 

 tions " of experience, " innate " in the race. Lamarck 

 formally introduced this popular notion to science. 

 His second law has been disputed and shown to be 

 inconsistent with the first, but the first has been 

 accepted without question. Yet it is crammed with 

 obviously erroneous assumptions. It is not true that 

 " In every animal that has not passed beyond the 

 term of its development, the frequent and sustained 

 use of any organ strengthens it, develops it, increases 

 its size, and gives it strength proportionate to the 

 length of time of its employment. On the other 

 hand, the continued lack of use of the same organ 

 sensibly weakens it ; it deteriorates, and its faculties 

 diminish progressively, until at length it disappears." 

 (i) No character is in any clear sense of the words 

 more innate or acquired than any other. (2) In our 

 own bodies are many characters — e.g. hair, teeth, ex- 

 ternal ears and genitals — which do not develop in the 

 least in response to use, or atrophy in the lack of it. 

 Only some characters develop in response to use, 

 and only such characters atrophy in the lack of it. 

 There is no evidence that the development of any 

 characters in low animals is influenced by use. On 

 the contrary, the power of so developing appears to 

 be, relatively speaking, a late and a high product of 

 evolution. But as to that I shall have something to 

 say -when trying to trace evolution from the physio- 

 logical standpoint. (3) Lamarck's first law dimly 

 impUes that which is more clearly implied in the 

 writings of succeeding biologists — that although all 

 characters develop somewhat in response to use, no 

 characters develop greatly in that way ; the actual 

 truth being that, from birth onwards, much the greater 



NO. 2732, VOL. 109] 



part of the growth of the higher animals is made in 

 response to that influence. 



For millions of years Nature fashions a species to 

 develop in response to an influence {e.g. injury or use). ' 

 The race persists because its individuals grow in that 

 way when need arises. At long last a biologist 

 observes such a character — e.g. scar, or blacksmith's 

 muscles. For no particular reason he calls it " ac- 

 quired," and supposes that evolution results from the 

 " transmission" of such traits — a wonderful thought, for 

 he must. know that regeneration and use-acquirements 

 are products of evolution. For half a century his 

 Tellows agree. Then some one denies not the funda- 

 mental error, not the special acquiredness of the char- 

 acter, but only its inheritability. Thereafter, con- 

 troversy, founded in the best scholastic style on 

 three misused words and a number of unverified 

 assumptions, rages for half a century. Presently a 

 majority are convinced that acquired characters are 

 not transmissible. Thereupon some biologists devote 

 their energies to discovering what characters are in- 

 nate and therefore inheritable, and others to discover- 

 ing what characters are inheritable and therefore 

 innate. Hedged about by her extraordinary termin- 

 ology, biology becomes isolated from a number of 

 kindred sciences and studies — physiology, psychology, 

 medicine, history, pedagogy, and the like. Of what 

 use is it to the students of these studies to learn that a 

 character is innate or acquired ? They want to know 

 what causes it to develop. Of what uses is it to the 

 biologist to know how a character develops ? He wants 

 to know whether it is innate or acquired. Meanwhile 

 many problems, mainly psychological, social, and 

 medical, of vast importance, on which the whole 

 future of the race depends, await solution and 

 the driving home of the truth by the weight of 

 scientific proof and united scientific conviction. But 

 all these problems are too big for the subsidiary 

 sciences. Their students are too few in number. 

 Moreover, in every case the evidence is derived from 

 more than one science. Only biology, which sits at 

 the hub whence radiate all the studies that deal with 

 life, is in a position to deal with them, and then only 

 if it has a clear and precise medium of expression. 

 I daresay many biologists think I am vapouring. But, 

 if they wait, I think they may perceive a method in my 

 madness. This much I will permit myself to say : that 

 unless biology awakens from her long sleep, our modern 

 civilisation is likely to smash, just as old Rome smashed 

 and for the same reason — because there is not enough 

 intelligence left to run a society grown very complex. 



According to Dr. Cunningham, biologists bestow 

 the descriptions " innate " and " acquired " on char- 

 acters which develop in response to internal and 

 external stimuli respectively. That is to say, " in- 

 nate " and " acquired " are supposed by him to be 

 technical terms which have meanings quite other than 

 their ordinary dictionary meanings. But : — 



(i) Before this discussion began no one ever thought 

 of such technical meanings. On the contrary, as 

 attested by all literature, biologists have genuinely 

 beheved that some characters are really innate and 

 others really acquired. Hence the synonyms — ger- 

 minal, blastogenic, plasmogenetic, somatic, somato- 

 genetic, and the Hke — which were coined to give 

 definition and emphasis to this belief. 



(2) Light, heat, moisture, gravitation, food, injury, 

 and the like are all external influences ; and of them, 

 the only one which is commonly regarded as evoking 

 acquired characters is injury. On the other hand, 

 hormones and functional activity (use) are internal 

 influences ; and since hormones act from outside the 

 characters they influence, whereas use acts from 

 within, the latter is the most internal of all stimuH. 

 But use is supposed to be more especially the influence 



