THE DEADLOCK IN DARWINISM 1 



PART II 



AT the close of my article in last month's 

 number of the Universal Review, I said I 

 would in this month's issue show why the 

 opponents of Charles-Darwinism believe the 

 effects of habits acquired during the lifetime 

 of a parent to produce an effect on their sub- 



1 Mr. J. T. Cunningham, of the Marine Biological Laboratory, 

 Plymouth, has called my attention to the fact that I have as- 

 cribed to Professor Ray Lankester a criticism on Mr. Wallace's 

 remarks upon the eyes of certain flat-fish, which Professor Ray 

 Lankester was, in reality, only adopting with full acknow- 

 ledgment from Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Cunningham has left 

 it to me whether to correct my omission publicly or not, but he 

 would so plainly prefer my doing so that I consider myself 

 bound to insert this note. Curiously enough I find that in my 

 book " Evolution Old and New," I gave what Lamarck actually 

 said upon the eyes of flat-fish, and having been led to return to 

 the subject, I may as well quote his words. He wrote : 



" Need always occasioned by the circumstances in which an 

 animal is placed, and followed by sustained efforts at gratification 

 can not only modify an organ that is to say, augment or 

 reduce it but can change its position when the case requires 

 its removal. 



' ' Ocean fishes have occasion to see what is on either side of 

 275 



