34 HEREDITY 



fore [organic] evolution, is largely due to bi-parental 

 reproduction, there is, in fact, in the whole range of 

 biological literature not one iota of evidence which 

 supports that view. Men, as in so many instances, 

 have accepted a dogma without proof, and have held 

 it without inquiry." 



What, then, is the function of sex in relation to 

 heredity ? That there is a function we can scarcely 

 doubt ; for though we know other uses for sex, as in 

 human life which is incalculably widened thereby, it 

 is not possible to explain the earlier stages of sex by 

 reference to any future advantages, moral or social or 

 other, such as we now enjoy. 



We have already found that the exceedingly plau- 

 sible and attractive theory of Weismann is unten- 

 able. If bi-parental reproduction is not a cause of 

 variations, it must nevertheless bear some relation 

 to them. Knowing what we do of the manner in 

 which sexual cells unite to form a new individual, 

 it is inconceivable that sexual reproduction has no 

 relation to heredity and variation. 



The answer appears to be that bi-parental repro- 

 duction is a means of preserving the racial type. 

 The true answer is exactly the opposite of that given 

 by Weismann. As this subject is more adequately 

 and recently considered by Archdall Reid than by 

 any other writer, I will quote largely from him in 

 considering it. But here let me make an observa- 

 tion of my own. In my opinion, Mr. Reid has con- 

 clusively proved that bi-parental reproduction, by 

 " planing away useless variations," " contributes to the 

 stability of the species." Now a school of observers 

 — Professor Karl Pearson and his followers — who 



