Januaby 11, 1907] 



SCIENCE 



61 



more than appears in it. The biological 

 student, be he medical man or layman, -will 

 be disappointed that the author does not men- 

 tion, in any adequate way, in his chapter on 

 * Theories of Heredity,' the recent work of 

 students of cytology as laying the foundations 

 for a scientific study of the subject. The com- 

 pensation for this insufficient treatment of a 

 fundamental aspect of the subject is to be 

 sought in the introduction of new matter from 

 the field of observation of the medical man. 

 But, this is not altogether satisfying. 



The results achieved by the application of 

 biometrics to studies of heredity, and by ex- 

 periments, along lines suggested by Mendel's 

 researches, are also omitted. The chapter on 

 ' Theories of Evolution ' and the subsequent 

 consideration of the theories mentioned are 

 likewise disappointing. This is not, as it ap- 

 pears to the reviewer, because the statement 

 of the theories is necessarily brief, but be- 

 cause it is superficial and dogmatic. 



The presentation of the subject is more 

 argumentative and speculative than closely 

 analytical. The pages abound in great vigor 

 of statement, but the positiveness of the au- 

 thor's position on controverted matters de- 

 tiacts from its worth. The book appears to 

 be written with little scholarly reserve, and 

 one misses in it the fine balance of statement 

 which has been set as a standard by earlier 

 writers in the same general field, even as far 

 back as Lamarck, and so fully exhibited in 

 Darwin's works and in the last edition of 

 Weismann's ' Lectures on the Evolution The- 

 ory.' Therefore this book, although intro- 

 ducing much new matter, does not appear to 

 rise to the level of current standards in the 

 serious discussion of the principles of heredity. 



A few quotations will serve to illustrate the 

 vein in which the discussion is carried on: 



" At first sight it would appear an easy 

 matter to test the truth of the Lamarckian 

 doctrine of heredity. We might, for example, 

 amputate the tails of a pair of parent dogs, 

 and then observe whether puppies, subse- 

 quently born, were tailless. But the theory 

 is not held in this crude form, at any rate by 

 the scientific supporters of it." The sugges- 

 tion that observations upon the progeny of one 



pair of parent dogs might give results of sci- 

 entific value is too superficial, and should be 

 accompanied with a reference to the work 

 of experimenters on this very point, such as 

 the following by Weismann of the effects of 

 amputating the tails of both parents, through 

 twenty generations of mice. Many similar 

 instances occur, where a general statement is 

 made without reference to any recent data. 

 The author's discussion of the inheritance of 

 acquired characteristics, although we agree 

 with his main contention, is not up to the 

 standard of that of a number of writers of 

 the past few years. 



In portions of the book the author goes at 

 his task like a special pleader. The outline 

 of Chapter XII. on ' The Argument from Dis- 

 ease ' is characteristic : " The Lamarckian doc- 

 trine is certainly untrue. It is equally un- 

 true that hereditary tendencies may be easily 

 changed by the direct action of external forces 

 • — Professor Cossar Ewart's observations." 



Page 14 : " The Bathmic theory of heredity 

 and evolution may then be ruled out of court. 

 We are left with the Lamarckian and Neo- 

 Darwinian doctrines. One or the other or 

 both combined must furnish the true explana- 

 tion of evolution." The use of must in this 

 connection is an illustration of what is meant 

 by the author's positive form of statement, as 

 is also ' The Lamarckian doctrine is certainly 

 untrue.' The author might properly reach 

 these conclusions after a suitable examination 

 of the data bearing upon the matter, but what 

 one misses is the essence of philosophical 

 opinion, and the reader is to be excused if he 

 reaches the conclusion that the writing is a 

 weak discussion of underlying principles. 

 While a limited class of readers may like to 

 have debated questions so directly disposed of, 

 the large body of scientific readers will take 

 exceptions to this summary way of dealing 

 with them. 



After one page of general statement the 

 author says, page 15 : " We need not multiply 

 instances; the Lamarckian doctrine should 

 now be plain to the reader." But to one at 

 all acquainted with Lamarck's writings, the 

 impression remains very strong that La- 



