JuLy 16, 1897.] 
tesimal sense different from any other. This 
is really a distinctive feature of organisms 
as contrasted with bodies of inorganic 
matter. 
This distinction between normal and ab- 
normal reproduction, as if variation were 
but a slight modification of the so-called 
law of reproduction, has also led us into 
confusion. Reproduction is but the pro- 
duction again of what has been produced 
in a previous cycle ; and a case of variation 
in the offspring, however slight, is not a 
ease of reproduction, but of the production 
in the offspring of some new character, and 
the great thing to account for is the fact of 
the production of such new characters in 
organisms. But the process by which the 
individual acquired some new character is 
not different in nature from the process by 
which it acquired the old characters already 
expressed by its ancestors. If we can ac- 
count for growth in the first place we are 
on the immediate track of accounting for 
the continuance of growth. To say that 
the growth of the individual in a particular 
direction and to a particular degree is due 
to the influence of the ancestor upon the 
offspring is offering a cause for reproduction, 
but not for variation ; for, however varia- 
ble the original stock might be, generation 
would result in increasing the degree of 
uniformity of the ancestry of each indi- 
vidual. As one can easily discover by 
computing the total number of direct an- 
cestors of any individual with two parents, 
and supposing them to belong to distinct 
lines in each generation, it would take but 
twenty-one generations back to find one’s 
lineage spreading over a million separate 
individuals of the twenty-first generation. 
If the ancestors controlled the growth of 
the offspring it is thus evident that, how- 
ever different might be the individuals at 
any particular period in the course of a 
hundred generations, given free access to 
crossing, each offspring would unite strains 
SCIENCE. 
79 
of influence from every possible line of an- 
cestry which had been accessible. 
If variation were the result of difference 
in the external conditions, or what we call 
environment, the question arises why 
should not the same variability be ex- 
pressed in the phenomena of crystallization; 
in the phenomena of chemical combination 
of elements ; in the phenomena of light or 
heat, and in all the physico-chemical 
phenomena of matter, where like conditions 
produce like effects? If we have a uni- 
form common force at work, the varying 
expressions of which are due to diverse 
conditions of environment, why should the 
result be so different from any other uni- 
form common force operating under like 
diverse conditions of environment? The 
question brings its self-evident answer ; the 
variations cannot be explained as the reflex 
of a discrete and varying environment upon 
a uniform common kind of matter. The 
idea that the cycles of development of the 
offspring should repeat the cycles of de- 
velopment of the ancestors is based on the 
prior assumption that the organism does 
not normally vary; that it acts as if it 
were an inorganic body, subject to the law 
of inertia and conservation of force. With 
this idea, it is easy to imagine that the cycle, 
once started, should not stop, except by rea- 
son of some resistance or impediment. 
But we ask how can the cycle begin ? 
How ean it be started? and here we come 
to the fundamental point under considera- 
tion. Starting is itself variation—a de- 
parture from remaining inactive; and a 
cycle is uniformity, not variation. If the 
simplest act in the world takes place, it is 
a diversion from the condition of things be- 
fore it took place; and if it stop and is sim- 
‘ply repeated periodically, there is a cessa- 
tion of the action of the initial starting 
force, and we have but the continuation of 
reflex action of the original impulse in the 
midst of resisting media. Hence, to begin 
