1 74 TAfe and Leftfr^ of Fnitids (Unltoii 



Galton concludes as follows, therein ro-iissertiiig the difference l)etween 

 somatic and mimetic qualitias, JUid at the same time the value of the 

 statistical metnod: 



"One result of this investigation is to show very clearly that largo variation in individuals 

 from their parents is not incompatible with the strict doctrine of heredity, but is a consecjuence 

 of it wherever the breed is impure. I am desirous of applying these considerations to the intel- 

 lectual and moral gifts of the huiniin race, which is more mongrelised than that of any other 

 domesticated animal. It ha.s Ix'on thought by some that the fact of children frecjuently showing 

 marke<l individual variation in ability from that of their parents is a proof that intellectual 

 and moral gifts arc not strictly transmitted by inheritance. My arguments lead to exactly the 

 opposite result. I show that great individual variation is a necessity under present conditions; 

 and I maintain that results derive<l from large averages are all that can be required, and all 

 we could expect t-o obtain, to prove that intellectual and moral gifts are as strictly matters of 

 inheritance as any purely physical qualities." (p. 402.) 



It is curious that in the face of such a passage as this, there should still 

 exist writers who have not grasped that the inheritance of the mental and 

 moi-al qualities was a foundation stone of Galton's creed of life. His whole 

 theory of inheritance was developed to account for supposed difficulties in 

 this principle raised by his critics. And the principle itself — the equal in- 

 heritance of the p.sychical and physical characters — wiis the basis of his 

 proposal to better the race of man by giving primary weight to his nature, 

 and only secondary importance to his nurture. This paper of Galton's is now 

 half-a-century old ; I know of no earlier paper which ponited out so definitely 

 the distinction between the somatic and gametic characters, which emphasised 

 the continuity of the germ-plasm', which rai.sed at the very least doubts as 

 to the inheritance of acquired characters, which asserted that the pereonaJ or 

 bodily characters of the offspring were not the product of those of the parents, 

 and taught that the resemblance of father and son was really like that of 

 brothers, for all were products of selected elements of a continuous germ- 

 plasm. I feel that adequate credit has rarely been given by biologists to 

 Francis Galton for these results, and there is no excuse for this neglect, for 

 the paper in question was not published in an ol)scure journal, but in the 

 proceedings of the foremost English learned society. 



I caji only hope that, however late in the day, this Life of Galton may 

 aid in demonstrating the real ])arentage of certain now widely-current ideiis. 



W(^ may now return to the rabbit corresjxjndence. 



9, UovAL Crescknt, Makinp. Pakai)*:, Brioiiton. AnyiiKl 11/72. 



My DEAR Darwin, The buck is (juiU' well — the (mclosed note just re<-eived explains every- 

 thing. Now that Dr Ciirt»'r has returned, he will 8e«j timt all is ri^ditl^Mloiie. Will you kindly 

 tell your servant to explain to the carrier? Very sincej-ely yours, Francis Galton. 



' To show how opposed this was to Darwin's views I may cite thei4ntfm»/» aivd I'laiUg..., 

 IstEdn. Vol. ii,p. 383: "The reproductive organs do not actually create the sexual elements; they 

 merely determine or pennit the aggregation of the gemmules." "Use or disuse etc. which in- 

 duced any modification in a structure should at the same time or previously act on the cells... 

 and consjHjuently would act on the gemmules" (p. 382). '' Hence, spt^iking strictly, it is not 

 the rtrpnxluctive elements nor the buds, which generate new organisms, but the cells themselves 

 throughout the body" (p. 374), i.e. by the production of gemmules which aggregate in buds or 

 aexual elements. 



