DECEMBER 29, 1899. ] 
were these made for man, but they appear to 
have been made as rewards for the exercise of 
his intellect,’’ may satisfy the inquisitions of the 
author, but it may be quite an open question as 
to its conclusiveness to the intellect of the 
average Darwinian., Similarly, when he pro- 
ceeds to say ‘‘ There are other substances, such 
as the rarer elements of which no use seems 
ever likely to be made, except the important 
one of stimulating inquiry ’’; he can hardly be 
aaid to materially contribute to the elucidation 
of Darwinism or Lamarckism, new or old. 
The first lecture on Darwinism, while a fair 
summary of the general subject, is less a critical 
exposition of the essentials of his subject than a 
comparison with the main points in the theory 
of Lamarck, and of limitations to the theory. 
The second lecture, purporting to set forth the 
distinctive features of the ‘The New Darwin- 
ism’ is, however, very unfortunate in that it 
strangely confuses Neo-Darwinism with those 
special contributions made by Gulick and Ro- 
manes, the factors of isolation and physio- 
logical selection. For example, on page 84 the 
author says: ‘‘'The Neo-Darwinians accept 
Darwin’s teachings, and supplement the theory 
of natural selection with methods of isolation, 
which had been either overlooked or had not 
been brought into sufficient prominence by Mr. 
Darwin.’’ It certainly can hardly comport with 
clearness of exposition to confuse these contri- 
butions, valuable as they may be, with those of 
Wallace, Weismann and others, which have 
given rise to the phrase Neo-Darwinism, and 
established it as an integral element of recent 
Darwinian literature. This oversight can hardly 
be attributed to any lack of acquaintance with 
the subject, for he makes frequent reference to 
it. Itis, however, none the less unfortunate, 
and renders the entire lecture more or less mis- 
leading to the class of readers to whom it is 
specially directed. 
In the chapter devoted to ‘The New La- 
marckism’ the author is more fortunate in this 
respect, properly distinguishing the principles 
and representatives, and their special contribu- 
tions to the subject. Upon the whole the dis- 
cussion is good, though, as elsewhere suggested, 
he at times assumes the position of the advocate 
rather than the expositor. And yet, strangely 
\ 
_ SCIENCE. 
967 
enough, his final summary would seem to com- 
mit him to at least a quasi indorsement of the 
very principles he has been so ardently criti- 
cizing. For example, on page 215 he says: 
“Tt is generally allowed that children some- 
times have the habits of their parents. This 
may occasionally be due to imitation, but I 
think not always. The jerking movements of 
the tails of many birds, and the side movements 
in that of the wagtails, are probably inherited 
habits, for they do not appear to be of any use. 
* * * Tf habits and instincts which have certainly 
been acquired can be transmitted, it is probable 
that physical characters can be transmitted 
also. The best instance of this is, I think, the 
eyes of flatfish, already mentioned ; and until 
some better explanation can be found, we must 
assume that this is a case of use-inheritance.’’ 
Speaking of the ‘‘ difficulty of explaining how 
great changes took place in the first pelagic or- 
gauisms, notwithstanding the uniformity under 
which they existed,’’ the author proposes, ‘‘ as 
a possible way out of the difficulty, that the first 
variations were due to different organisms 
assimilating different substances with their food. 
x  * %* However this may be, we know 
nothing capable of initiating organic changes, 
except the action of external forces on proto- 
plasm.’’ So far from discrediting Neo-Lamarck- 
ism, these conclusions, in certain of their aspects, 
are just such as Neo-Lamarckians have urged 
in support of their theory. 
In a chapter devoted to the discussion of 
‘Darwinism in Human Affairs,’ the author 
undertakes to point out some more or less ap- 
parent analogies between natural selection and 
forms of selection seen in various human insti- 
tutions. While emphasizing the operation of 
both physical and physiological factors in social 
and intellectual life, he suggests a significant 
caution against carrying such analogies beyond 
the warrant of facts. ‘‘The term ‘social or- 
ganism’ is not, in fact, a happy one, because it 
is misleading. What, for instance, in the or- 
ganization of an animal answers to the profes- 
sions of law, medicine or theology? What to 
prisons or reformatories?’’ 
As a series of lectures addressed to mixed 
audiences, and intended as popular expositions 
of Darwinian doctrine, they may serve in some 
