172 



Life ami Tji'tters of Frunci* (lultou 



germinal selection on tlie origin of" species, or his 'class representation' on 

 the orijfin of somatic variations. He did not prt'-ss it himself to its legitimate 

 conclusions, and probably did not see its full bearings on evolution. His 

 general schenu' from 'sf luct nii-li'ss ch'inents' of parent to those of oHspring 

 IS as follows : 



Stroetiiralew 



BUmraUof 



Parent 



{tbroagh 

 BeprcMDUtioD > 

 afford ) 



°'*~-U-'''y''-{ri'pnL\[.Aauu 



ElenMBU 



I become ) 



ElemcnU 



whioh by s 1 

 Second Selection y 

 ooutribate to j 



I throngh ' Class 1 Latent ( which by a 

 •! Representation '[• Klementg ■|(li'volopmfiit 

 , ( afford ) in Embryo ( become 



Intent r which bv a 1 

 Klemonts ■(Second Selection >• 

 in Adult ( contribute to I , 



Structureless 



Elements of 



Offspring 



What I have terme<l a 'Second Selection' (ialton terms 'Family llepre- 

 sentation," 1 think, on the ground that these selections produce the various 

 somatic and gametic differences to be found in the niemliers of the same 

 family'. But it seems to me that it would l)e best simply to sj)eak of first 

 and second selections instead of 'class' and 'family' representations. Having 

 put forward this scheme Galton now proceeds to express his grave doubts as 

 to the 'a<lult elements' contributing anything or at least anything substantial 

 to the 'structureless elements' of the offspring. He asserts that where the 

 parents have a patent character that also exists in the latent form, Le. in 

 their gametic characters, 



"I should demur, on precisely the same grouuds, to objections Itased on the transmission of 

 qualities to grandchildren being more fre<|uent through children who jmissi'8.s those qualities 

 than through children who do not; for I maintain that the personal manifestation is, on the 

 average*, though it need not be so in every case, a oert4iin proof of the existence of some latent 

 elements." (p. 399.) 



In other words Galton is insisting on the somatic characters being only 

 correlated with, or an index to, the gametic chai-acters, and on the alwence of 

 complete association. He states that : 



"the genonil and safe conclusion is, that the contribution fniiii the patent elements [somatic 

 characterti (»f parent] is very much less than from the hitent elements [gametic characters of 

 parent]." (p. 399.) 



And again : 



"We see that parents are very indirtnitly and only partially related to their own children, 

 and that there are two lines of connection between them, the one [adult latent elements] of large 

 and the other [adult somatic element*] of small relative iniportiinee. Tlie former is a collateral 

 kinship and very distant, the parent l)eing descended through two stages from a structureless 

 source, and the child (as far as the parent is concerned) througii five distinct stages from the 

 same source; the other but unimportant line of connection is direct and connects the child with 

 the parent through two stages." (p. 400.) 



Galton even speaks of the 'structureless elements' that go to form the 

 embryonic elements of tlie parents as going so far as heredity is concerned 

 to "a nearly sterile destination." 



Why did not Galton have the confidence at this time to say wholly 

 sterile destination? I think there is not the least doubt that the lenfant 



' Of course Ualton reoogiiis<><I the biparental contributions and in n second diagram shows 

 the increased complexity. 



