S2 Physical Jlcrcdity and Social T^^ansmission 



what their fathers did by intelligence, when they can do the 

 same things by their own intelligence. As a matter of fact, 

 Professor Cope is exactly the biologist to whose Lamarck- 

 ism this admission is, so far as I can see, absolutely fatal ; 

 for he more than many others holds that accommodations all 

 through the biological scale are secured by consciousness.^ 

 If so, then he is just the man who is obliged to extend to 

 the utmost the possibility of the transmission also of these 

 accommodations by means of inteUigence, which, it appears, 

 rules out the need of their transmission by physical heredity. 

 At any rate, he is quite incorrect in saying that 'he [I] 

 both admits and denies Lamarckism.' 



To this form of argument Professor Cope appears to pre- 

 sent no objection except one drawn from analogy. He says : 

 * I do not see how promiscuous variation and natural selec- 

 tion alone can result in progressive psychic evolution more 

 than in structural evolution, since the former is conditioned 

 by the latter.' As to the word 'progressive,' that question 

 is taken up below ; but as to the analogy with structural 

 evolution, two answers come to mind. In the first place, 

 Professor Cope is one of the biologists who hold that all 

 structural evolution is secured by direct conscious accom- 

 modations. He says : * Mind determines movements, and 

 movements have determined structure or form.' If this be 

 true, how can psychic be conditioned by structural evolu- 

 tion } Would not rather the structural changes depend 

 upon the psychic ability of the creature to effect accommo- 

 dations } And then, second, at this point Professor Cope 

 assumes the Lamarckian factor in structural evolution. 

 Later on he makes the same assumption when he says : 



1 An.l in tliis he is no douhl ri«,'lil ; sec Chai)tcrs VII. and IX. o^ Mental 

 Dn>elopmcnt. 



