1 8 THE CHARACTERS OF LIVING BEINGS 



34. The names we use do not greatly matter if they serve to 

 indicate the truth ; an erroneous term, provided it is obviously 

 erroneous, may convey a right impression. But the words inborn, 

 acquired, and inheritable, appear when we think of individuals, 

 instead of the germ-plasm as, very naturally, we tend to do so 

 obviously correct that their use has been, and is still productive 

 of endless confusion and controversy. 1 For example, it was 

 formerly believed that parental acquirements were transmissible 

 to offspring: in other words it was maintained in effect that a 

 character (e.g. a scar) which the parent was able to acquire in a 

 certain way (as a reaction to injury), because a long course of 

 evolution had rendered such acquisition possible to the members 

 of his race, tended to be reproduced by the child in a different 

 category of characters and in a way (as a reaction to nutriment) in 

 which no member of his race had ever acquired it before, and with 

 which, therefore, evolution had nothing to do. An actual miracle 

 was supposed to happen, the miraculous nature of which was con- 

 cealed under a misuse of terms. 



descendants become skin-cells, others muscle-cells, and so on ? What brings 

 about this differentiation amongst the cells of the community ? " Two answers 

 to this question are conceivable. Though the division of the cells is apparently 

 equal quantitatively, it does not follow that it is equal qualitatively. Equal 

 amounts of germ-plasm may pass into daughter-cells ; but the kind of germ- 

 plasm which passes into one daughter may not be quite similar to that which 

 passes into the other daughter. Obviously if this differentiation were accentuated 

 in succeeding cell-divisions it would account for the fact that skin or bone-cells, 

 for example, are so dissimilar, not only in appearance but more especially in 

 functions, from germ-cells. That there may be a good deal of truth in this hypo- 

 thesis is rendered probable by the fact that not only do the body (somatic) cells 

 differ qualitatively from the germ-cells, but the germ-cells differ in the same way 

 amongst themselves ; for they give rise to cell -communities (children) which 

 may present marked differences. The second conceivable explanation is that 

 the appearances and qualities which cells develop depend on their environments. 

 According to this hypothesis, a skin-cell assumes the appearance and qualities 

 of its kind, not because its germ-plasm (' idio-plasm ') differs from that of a germ- 

 or muscle-cell, but because it is differently situated, and therefore differently 

 stimulated. That there may be much truth in this suggestion also is proved 

 by the fact that fragments of many cell-communities, for instance fragments "of 

 begonia leaf, which apparently contain no germ-cells, are capable of giving rjse 

 to an entire ' person,' an entire cell-community, which contains every kind of 

 cell; including germ-cells. Possibly the true explanation lies in a combination 

 of these hypotheses. In other words, it is possible that cells, like individuals, 

 differ amongst themselves partly because they differ in germ-plasm, and partly 

 because they differ in environments. 



1 In the misuse of them I have sinned as deeply as anyone see, for example, 

 The Present Evolution of Man, A Icoholism, and The Principles of Heredity. In 

 the latter work, however, I made some endeavour to make the situation clear. 

 See note, p. 249, and especially the second edition, Appendix A. 



