Alfred Russel Wallace 



trouble grasped the meaning and bearing of it, I saw the 

 work it would do and was a convert at once. It really has 

 no relation to Lamarckism, and leaves the non-heredity of 

 acquired characters exactly where it was. — Yours very 

 *^"^y» Alfred E. Wallace. 



The next letter relates to the great controversy then being 

 carried on with respect to Weismann's doctrine of the non- 

 inheritance of " acquired " characters, which doctrine im- 

 plied complete rejection of the last trace of Lamarckism 

 from Darwinian evolution. Wallace ultimately accepted 

 the Weismannian teaching. Darwin had no opportunity 

 during his lifetime of considering this question, which was 

 raised later in an acute form by Weismann. 



To Prof. Meldola 



Parkstone, Dorset. January 6, 1897. 



My dear Meldola, — The passage to which you refer in the 

 " Origin " (top of p. 6) shows Darwin's firm belief in the 

 " heredity of acquired variations," and also in the import- 

 ance of definite variations, that is, " sports," though else- 

 where he almost gives these up in favour of indefinite 

 variations; and this last is now the view of all Dar- 

 winians, and even of many Lamarckians. I therefore 

 always now assume this as admitted. Weismann's view 

 as to " possible variations " and " impossible varia- 

 tions " on p. 1 of '' Germinal Selection " is misleading, 

 because it can only refer to " sports " or to " cumulative 

 results," not to " individual variations " such as are the 

 material Natural Selection acts on. Variation, as I under- 

 stand it, can only be a slight modification in the offspring 

 of that which exists in the parent. The question whether 

 pigs could possibly develop wings is absurd, and altogether 

 beside the question, which is, solely, so far as direct evidence 

 goes, as to the moans by which the change from one species 



70 



