I4«> Lift' anil Letterx of Fraiicix (ialton 



collected the data on wliicli an answer jus to tin* valm- i)f f Iw hereditary factor 

 could really 'hi given. 



That Giilton \va.s somewhat moved by the attitude ut" De Caiidolle to 

 his own work is provetl not only by the letters cited above, but by an in- 

 teresting jmjier he contributed to the Fortnightly Ifcview entitled: "On 

 the causes which operate to create Scientific Men'." Galton begins by 

 referring to his difficult paper "Blootl Relationship" of the previous year 

 which we shall consider later. In that paper he distinguishes clearly, if in 

 now unusual language, Iwtween somatic and genetic characters, and in the 

 Fartniyhthf he refers to the "parado.xical conclusion" — as it cerfciinly wfis in 

 1 872 — that the child nnist not bo looked upon as directly descended from 

 his own parents. The bearing of this statement lies in the explanation it 

 art'ords of the rea.st)n why children differ freqiiently in mental character from 

 their parents' — an observation which had Ix^en raised as an argument against 

 Galton's theory of the inheritance of ability. Ability in an individual marks 

 as a rule ability in the ancestry, not necessarily in the immediate parents. 

 Galton then turns to 



"a volume written by M. de Candolle in which my name is frequently referred to and used 



as a foil to set off his own conclusions. The author maintains that minute intellectual pecu- 

 liarities do not go by descent, and that I have overstated the influence of heredity, since social 

 causen, which he analyst<s in a most instructive manner, are much more important. This may 

 or may not be the case but I am anxious to point out that the author contradicts hiiiiHclf, and that 

 cxpres-sions continually («cape from his pen at variance with his general conclusions. Thus he 

 allows (p. 1'.)')) that in the pnxhiction of men of the highest scientific rank tlie influence of race 

 i8 8up<*rior toall others; that (p. 2GS) there its ayetgreat«^rdifferen<-e Ijetwetii families of the same 

 race than U'tween the nicos themselves; and that (p. .'520) since most, and prohiiljly all, mental 

 qualities are connected with structure, and as the latter is certainly inherited, the former must 

 Ijc so as well. Consequently I propose to consider M. de Candolle as having been my ally 

 against his will, notwithstanding all he may have said to the contrary. The most valuable part 

 of his inve.stigation is this: What are the social conditions most likely to produce scientific 

 investigation.s, irrespective of natural ability, and a fortiori irrespective of theories of heredity? 



This is necessarily a, on(vside<i inquiry But it admits of In-ing complete in itself, because 



it is based on statistics which atTord well-known means of disentangling the eflect of one out 

 of many groups of contemporaneous influences. The author, however, continually trespasses on 

 hereditary questions, without, as it appears to me, any adequate basis of fact, since he haa 

 collected next to nothing aljout the relatives of the i)eople up<m whom all his statistics are founded. 



The book is also deficient in method but it is full of orii;iiial and sut,'i;('stive i(l(«as." 



(pp. 346-7.) 



As an exam J lie of deficiency of method, Galton cites De Candolle's sta- 

 tistical treatment: 



"The author's tables of the scientific productiveness per million of different nations at 



' Forlnightly Revieio, Vol. xni. New Series, pp. 345-610. No copy of this exists among 

 Oalton's collected pajK-rs and no reference to it in any of the manuscript or printt-d bibliographies. 



' Even De Candolle (p. 2H2) admits that "Une aptitude naturelle est toujours prolMvlileinent 

 h^rit«k!, puisque les j>areiits sont la cause qui k precwle ot determine I'existence de I'individu. 

 Lea exceptions s'expli(|uent par la <livi'rsite des parents, leur etat momentane lors de la concep- 

 tion " to which latter source of divergence Galton in his much annotated copy puts the note 



"Stuff!!" I cite this to indicate how strongly he held that the environment could not inmie- 

 diately affect the gametic characters, and how fully Galton rejec!te><l factors like 'maternal 

 impressions' and 'momentary states at conception' as influencing the mental character of 

 offspring. 



