C. Lloyd Morgan 347 



always correct. And if, on closer examination in the light of 

 fuller knowledge, they are found to present grave difficulties, 

 a less simple and less obvious interpretation may claim our 

 provisional acceptance." ^ 



'New Statement' from Professor Lloyd Morgan^ 



1. On the Lamarckian hypothesis, racial progress is due to 

 the inheritance of individually acquired modifications of bodily 

 structure, leading to the accommodation of the organism or race 

 to the conditions of its existence. 



2. This proposition is divisible into three : {a) Individual 

 progress is due to fresh modifications of bodily structure in 

 accommodation to the conditions of life, {b) Racial progress is 

 due to the inheritance of such newly acquired modifications. 

 if) The evolution of species is the result of the cumulative 



series — 



^>^+^'>^'+^">^"+^"'>/^'", etc., etc., where a, a\ a!\ ^'" 

 are the acquisitions, and b, b\ V\ /»"' the cumulative inherited 



results. 



3. Anti-Lamarckians do not accept {b) and {c). But they 

 accept {a) in terms of survival. No one denies that indi- 

 vidual survival is partially due to fresh modifications of bodily 

 structure in accommodation to the conditions of life. 



4. It logically follows from 3 that individual accommodation 



1 See also Professor C. LI. Morgan's later statements in his work Animal 

 Behaviour (1900), pp. 37-39» "S- 



2 The above exposition of his position comes to me from Professor Lloyd 

 Morgan after the page-proofs of the body of the book are already passed — 

 in response to my request for annotations on the proofs of Chapter XIV. I 

 have much pleasure in printing it, with Professor Morgan's permission, and 

 regret that I cannot take more direct account of it in the chapter mentioned. 

 It appears to sharpen the definition and also the limitation of the phrase * co- 

 incident variation,' and to set the views of Weismann in a somewhat different 

 relation to organic selection from that which is expressed on pp. 183 ff. above. 

 Whatever the relation may be historically, logically it is certainly close, and 

 the present writer is not at all disposed to be strenuous for an opinion on such 

 a matter. 



