FUNCTION AND ENVIRONMENT 189 



make better still. This was Lamarckism 



before Lamarck, as his grandson pointed out. 



Lamarck^agreed with Buffon in maintain- 



ing tTm-TpYtprTiRT prmrh'tlrmg rlirpntly 



plants, but diflferjed_rQnL.him in 

 forjmimals, "for environment can effect no 

 clirectchange whatever upon the organiza- 

 tion of animals." In so doing, despite the 

 obvious exaggeration, we must credit him 

 with clear recognition of the relative pas- 

 sivity of the vegetative life, the relative 

 activity of that of the animal. The p^ntral 

 idea of his theory, however, was the, cumu- 

 lative transmission o;T functional modifica- 

 tions: "Changes in environment, bring about 

 changes fri the habits of animals. Changes 

 in their wants necessarily bring about parallel 

 changes in their habits. If new wants be- 

 come constant or very lasting, they form new 

 habits, the new habits involve the use of 

 new parts, or a different use of old parts, 

 which results finally in the production of new 

 organs and the modification of old ones." 

 But beyond this he clearly insisted on the 

 inward urge or effort of the organism to 

 realize its inmost wants, and to express this 

 in change of habits and even of structure. 



Treviranus (1776-1837), whom Huxley 

 ranked beside Lamarck, was on the whole 

 like Buffon in attaching chief importance to 



