THE INFLUENCES OF NURTUEE 121 



tells of her study of 265 children, mostly of *' the lowest 

 class " (Class A, fourth below the poverty level !), who 

 had been sent to institutions and trained. She found 

 that 192 (72 per cent.) turned out well ; that 44 (16 per 

 cent.) were doubtful ; and that only 29 (less than 11 per 

 cent.) were unsatisfactory, and of these 13 were defec- 

 tives. One would like to know, of course, that the turn- 

 ing-out-well lasted, and one would hke to have a hundred 

 similar sets of figures. But the suggestion is that nurture 

 means much to the individual. 



Professor Punnett probably expresses the views of 

 most biologists when he says : " Hygiene and education 

 are influences which can in some measure check the 

 operation of one factor [(what in the germ-cell is causally 

 related to a character in the adult)] or encourage the 

 operation of another. But that they can add a factor 

 for a good quality, or take away a factor for an evil 

 one is utterly opposed to all that is known of the facts 

 of heredity." But there are modifications that hygiene 

 and education can imprint on the organism, and the 

 very fact that these are not hereditarily entailed should 

 lead us to an increased appreciation of their importance. 

 Desirable modifications can be impressed on each 

 successive crop and undesirable modifications evaded. 

 It should also be borne in mind, though it is rather a 

 speculation than a fact, that desirable modifications 

 hammered on generation after generation may serve as 

 a protective screen for an inborn variation evolving 

 from within in the same direction. 



And apart from particular modifications, this also 



