346 
NALORE 
[JUNE 4, 1914 
stance can also be done with testicular substance. 
It is an extraordinary fact that injection of the 
gonadial substance, or even cerebral substance, of 
animals in heat (of males especially), may be fol- 
lowed in castrated animals by sexual excitement 
and symptoms of heat. The eroticised brain is to be 
regarded as a regulator, which quickens or retards 
the growth of certain parts by its effect on the 
blood-vessels, and also affects the tonus of other 
ganglia. 
Kammerer goes on to show that sex characters 
behave in inheritance like specific or racial charac- 
ters; they illustrate either blended or alternative 
inheritance. Indifferent systematic characters may 
come to be sex-linked; all sex characters are 
fundamentally species characters, and all species 
characters are also sex characters. As we shall 
point out later, this appears to us to be a sound 
idea exaggerated into an extravagance. Nor can 
we accept Kammerer’s general Lamarckian 
theory, for which no convincing evidence is ad- 
duced, that sex differences have been environment- 
ally impressed on the passive organism or func- 
tionally acquired by the active organism. Our 
only other criticism of a monumental piece of work 
is that the author seems to be just a little in a 
hurry to accept conclusions in regard to the 
efficacy of the gonadial hormones. Some of Mr. 
Geoffrey Smith’s recent work, which is of the 
highest importance, seems to indicate that we are 
not shut up to one interpretation. 
(2) The fine work of Tandler and Grosz is in 
many ways like Kammerer’s, but it deals in the 
main with man and mammals. The authors regard 
the differentiation of dimorphic gametes as the 
first and fundamental step in the evolution of sex ; 
somatic dimorphism was a later acquisition. The 
criterion of a sex character is not so much that it 
has to do with reproduction, but that it responds 
variably to the stimulus of the internal secretion 
of the gonads. Sex characters are not novelties, 
but specific, or generic, or other systematic charac- 
ters which have been brought into close correla- 
tion with the glands of internal secretion, and with 
those of the gonads in particular. This thesis is 
supported by masterly argument, and one is not 
disinclined to admit that, not only in regard to 
sex characters, but also in regard to other adaptive 
characters, it has been the method of evolution to 
get apparently new things out of the most ancient 
materials. It will be remembered that Dohrn 
elaborated this idea in his theory of ‘‘ Funktions- 
wechsel.”” But it appears to us that Tandler and 
Grosz have over-generalised. _ It may be that the 
antlers of the stag are masculine exaggerations of 
a systematic character once common to both sexes 
(and still shared by both in the reindeer), but we 
NO, 222757 VOLE. 03) 
think there are many cases, especially among in- 
vertebrates (where we know little of internal 
secretions), which will not. admit of a_ similar 
interpretation. Is the pouch of the female marsu- 
pial, or the pouch of Nototrema, or the shell of the 
female Argonaut referable to a _ systematic 
character originally common to both sexes? The 
claspers of Selachians are evolved from portions of 
the pelvic fins, and to that extent from a character 
common to the two sexes; but is there any warrant 
for supposing that ancestral female Selachians had 
anything definitely corresponding to “claspers ” ? 
The same kind of remark may be made in refer- 
ence to many similar cases, such as the extra- 
ordinarily specialised tips of the pedipalps in male 
spiders. And what shall we say of such familiar 
sex characters as the scrotum of most male 
mammals or the ovisacs of many’ female 
Copepods ? eck, 
(3) Mr. Heape is well known as an embryo- 
logist and investigator of the physiology of repro- 
duction, and his conclusions on the relations of 
the sexes are entitled to careful consideration. 
He is of opinion that the male sexual instincts 
and requirements are quite different from those 
of the female; environmental changes affect the 
two sexes differently ; antagonism arises when the 
natural requirements of the two sexes clash. 
Thus he regards the present phase of the woman’s 
movement (‘‘the present sex war,” he calls it) as 
primarily a biological phenomenon. “It is obvious 
that the driving force is engendered by desire to 
alter the laws which regulate the relations, and 
therefore the relative power of the sexes.” At 
present the male is disturbed and damaged by 
being compelled to repress his strong generative 
impulse; the female is disturbed and damaged be- 
cause she is leaving, or is forced to leave, the 
straight path of maternity. This seems to us an 
exaggeration of the sex factor, and we adhere to 
the belief that the driving force with the great 
majority of women interested in the wholesome 
unrest of to-day is the deliberate and conscious 
desire to alter those social, economic, and political- 
conditions which have tended in the past to pre- 
vent large numbers of women from taking their 
due share in citizenship. We think that Mr. 
Heape has done good service in emphasising the 
deep constitutional differences between man and 
woman, and we heartily agree with his conclusion 
that ‘‘a woman’s usefulness, her value in society, 
and therefore her power and her happiness, depend 
not on her likeness to, but on her dissimilarity from 
man.” We maintain, however, that the threads 
of sex have been caught up and intertwined with 
so many others that, although the importance of 
no set of threads can be disregarded, the attempt 
