388 
characteristics after they have originated through the action of this 
law. 
According to my own view of the facts, often published else- 
where, its use is unnecessary for the explanation of the quick evolu- 
tion of series in the early periods of their evolution near the origin 
of types, also for the elucidation of the pathologic phenomena in 
the quick evolution of phylogerontic forms and series. 
It can also not be applied to the explanation of experimental 
results, as is admitted by all experimenters and most Darwinists, 
in cases where modifications have been produced by the artificial 
application of physical agencies, of which there are now so many 
on record in both the animal and vegetable kingdoms. 
It is plainly, as Dr. A. S. Packard has pointed out, a doctrine 
derived from the study of the results of evolution and cannot be 
_ applied to the more general and fundamental phenomena of the ori- 
gin of types, the building up of series or the origin of character- 
istics. My own experience leads substantially to the same opinion, 
and I find its use unnecessary except for the explanation of the per- 
petuation of some characteristics that occur during the acme of the 
evolution of species. The perpetuation of many characteristics 
which are fundamental to the organism and species is necessarily 
provided for by agencies which originated them and by heredity as 
soon as they become fixed in the organism. I think there is good 
ground for the statement that in many cases these are plainly not 
advantageous. 
Weismann and his supporters are necessarily Darwinians. No 
one denies that ctetic characters arise through the action of the 
surroundings. If these are perpetuated through heredity, evolution 
is an undeniable corollary and it must follow the path defined by 
the dynamical school. If, however, ctetic characteristics may origi- 
nate at the bidding of the surroundings and persist in the succes- 
sive members of the same genetic series only while the surroundings 
are comparatively unchanged, or in other words sufficiently alike to 
continue to force their reappearance, then it must be admitted that 
the law of the survival of the fittest through the action of the strug- 
gle for existence is probably a fundamental law of evolution in 
organism. 
In other words, the battle of the two contending theories is being 
fought in the domains of ctetology and it is hoped that this paper 
may be a definite contribution to the Neolamarckian side of the con- 
