Aueust 13, 1897.] 
ters due to mutilation and injuries.’ Some 
of these may be considered as mere coinci- 
dences; others provoke skepticism for one 
reason or other. To discuss them would be 
‘out of place here. But at least we may 
meet evidence with counter-evidence. 
On the one hand, all the data and ex- 
periments recapitulated in the cases enumer- 
ated concern only two, or at most very few, 
generations of the animals in question, and 
were within the compass of a single man’s 
life-time. 
On the other hand, we have data and ob- 
servations of the most reliable nature, and 
of an extraordinary compass. These have 
resulted not from experiments for the de- 
termination of a specific question, but from 
observances of a religious character. They 
were really in the nature of surgical oper- 
ations, but for our purpose may be looked 
upon as experiments and have the value of 
contrived experiments. In no other field 
has such a series of disinterested experi- 
ments been available. They were conduct- 
ed on countless millions of mankind and 
for thousands of years. The subjects ex- 
perimented upon were kept isolated from 
others alike by their own prejudices and 
the prejudices of their neighbors. Circum- 
cision is the term applied to the experi- 
ments in question. 
For about 4,000 years circumcision has 
been practiced on a gigantic scale. Hvery 
male child among the Jews was operated 
upon, not only in Palestine, but wher- 
ever representatives of the race had wan- 
dered and adhered to their religion; reli- 
gion itself was involved in the operation 
and it was regarded as a holy rite ; the most 
scrupulous attention was paid to details. 
The operation was performed eight days 
after birth, and consequently there could 
be no functional activity of the tissues con- 
cerned. But after 4,000 years the new- 
born boys of the race come into the world 
with the special integument developed as 
SCIENCE. 
241 
much as in those of other races. Even the 
principle of atrophy through disuse has not 
become manifest in the case. 
Other evidence, it seems to me, is the re- 
sult of confounding the potentiality of a 
function with its manifestation. I allude 
to one set of examples on account of the 
interest of the cases, and I do so with the 
deference due to the eminence and ability 
of the gentleman who has furnished the evi- 
dence. That evidence has been collected 
under the head of ‘ inheritance of characters 
due to the exercise of function.’ The evo- 
lution of the American trotting horse was 
considered. It wasrecorded that “by 1810 
the taste for trotting as a sport had * * * 
increased here, and in 1818 it became a 
recognized sport under specific rules.”’ * ** * 
“ Atthe end of 1824, six years after the first 
accepted three-minute record, the record 
had fallen to2:34.” * * * “By 1848 
the record was lowered to 2:294; the next 
decade lowered the record five seconds.” 
Finally, at the close of 1895, the record had 
been furthered lowered to 2:08}. * * * 
It is deduced from these premises that ‘there 
is nothing whatever in the actual phenom- 
ena observed anywhere along the line of this 
development of speed that would lead us 
to even suspect that the changes due to ex- 
ercise of function had not been a factor in 
the evolution.” But to me it seems that 
there is no evidence to show that the speed 
attained was other than would have re- 
sulted from taking the same animals un- 
trained and then speeding the last. The 
speed is, of course, simply the expression of 
functional adaptation, and the horses were 
selected merely because, by their manifes- 
tation, they showed that they had the co- 
ordination of structural and psychological 
characters needed for the manifestation of 
the function. The manifestation guided 
the breeder to the selection of the animals. 
The successful animals were the pick of 
thousands unknown to fame. 
