Modification of Germinal Conslilulion oj Organisms 155 



maintain the cherished dogma of the biogenetic repetition 

 of ontogenetic stages and inheritance through a transmission 

 of some kind. Adequate answer to these hypotheses would 

 seem to exist in the non-inheritance of modifications of nose, 

 ear, lips, etc., of many savage tribes, often repeated with in- 

 tense kinetic effects of pain and stimulation, or of the feet of 

 Chinese women, bandaged and modified through long series 

 of generations, but these to the earnest neo-Lamarckian 

 are mutilations and of course are not to be expected to be 

 inherited. Curiously enough the "idea" only "works" 

 in those instances where there are no facts or evidences 

 available for analytical investigation. 



Distinctly dift'erent from the results of grafting experi- 

 ments or the arguments from plausible interpretations of 

 past series of phylogenetic states, are the interpretations 

 placed upon many experimental series not properly guarded. 

 Thus Semon's interpretation of the results of many experi- 

 mental series is justified from his point of view because so 

 many investigations have not been suflficiently critical in 

 orientation, nor in analytical procedure. Thus, for example, 

 the experiments of Standfuss, Fischer, Pictet, Woltereck, 

 Kammerer, Pshibram, Zederbauer, and others admit of 

 interpretations from either point of view. What is unques- 

 tionably shown is change in gametic constitution, permanent 

 and heritable, but not capable of answering the fundamental 

 questions involved. 



That organisms may be modified by incident conditions 

 there is no reasonable doubt, but the question is, how ? If 

 the discover}' of the methods of change is desired, then 

 experiments made upon known materials under carefully 

 guarded conditions are necessary, and are our only means 

 of obtaining real knowledge of the underh-ing processes. 



