VIII.] SUPPOSED TRANSMISSION OF MUTILATIONS. 461 



position, I am far from believing that the question is settled, 

 simply because the transmission of mutilations may be dis- 

 missed into the domain of fable. But at all events wc have 

 gained this much, — that the only facts which appear to 

 directly prove a transmission of acquired characters have been 

 refuted, and that the only firm foundation on which this hypo- 

 thesis has been hitherto based has been destroyed. We shall 

 not be obliged, in future, to trouble about every single so-called 

 proof of the transmission of mutilations, and investigation may 

 be concentrated upon the domain in which lies the true 

 decision as to the Lamarckian principle, it may be concerned 

 with the explanation of the observed phenomena of trans- 

 formation. 



If, as I believe, these phenomena can be explained without 

 the Lamarckian principle, we have no right to assume a form 

 of transmission of which we cannot prove the existence. Only 

 if it could be shown that we cannot now or ever dispense with 

 the principle, should we be justified in accepting it. 1 do not 

 think that I can represent the state of the subject better than by 

 again referring to the metaphor of the ship. We see it moving 

 along with all sails set, w^e can discern the presence of neither 

 paddles nor screw, and as far as we can judge there is no 

 funnel, nor any other sign of an engine. In sucli a case 

 we shall not be justified in concluding that an engine is present 

 and has some share in the movement of the vessel, unless the 

 movement is of such a kind that it is impossible to explain it 

 as due to the unaided action of the wind, the current, and the 

 rudder. Only if the phenomena presented by the progress 

 of organic evolution are proved to be inexplicable witht)ut the 

 hypothesis of the transmission of acquired characters, shall wc 

 be justified m retaining such an hypothesis. 



