172 _ THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
mathematical paraphrase of some of Prof. Pearson’s arguments. 
The recent disinterring of Mendel’s contributions to the study of 
the question, based to a great extent on his researches into the 
characters of hybrids, receives from the author its due meed of 
not always with similar results. Amongst the genera experimented 
n were species of Hieracium, Pisum, Mathiola, Cirsium, 
w. Correns seems to conclude that the domina- 
tion of a character shows itself only in crosses between varieties ; 
whilst the hybrids of true species show the characters of both 
species, though in diminishing degree. 
In discussing adaptive variations, the author points out that 
u 
Unless such variations are governed by the laws of chance (if, 
indeed, chance has laws), Henslow’s conclusions do not seem to be 
justified. If then the term “definite,” as applied to variations, 
is regarded as more or less synonymous with adaptive,” then 
with the help of Lloyd Morgan’s definition of determinate or 
definite variations as ‘variations along special or particular lines 
of adaptation,”’ the discussion of their definiteness or indefiniteness, 
for practical purposes, is narrowed dow n spite of all that has 
been written to account for the almost universally present adapta- 
tion whi In animate nature, there is still a lingering 
life in important ways, and have combated the views of Weismann, 
who, in a most able work, essays to show that the inheritance of 
acquired characters is a will-o’-the-wisp. Mr. Spencer even goes 
so far as to say that either there has been inheritance of acquired 
characters, or there has been no evolution. 
Natural Selection, or survival of the fittest, as operative through- 
out the vegetal kingdom and throughout the lower animal kingdom, 
is characterized by relative passivity. But with the ascent to 
1 ose produced by inheritance of acquired characters ; until, 
in animals of complex structures, inheritance of acquired characters 
becomes an important, if not the main, cause of evolution. Weis- 
mann, unlike Kimer in his Factors of Organic Evolution, seems to 
ic, know ariations. 
Dr. Vernon is not biassed in the matter, but rather avoids the issue 
_ by seeking some via media for extracting the more reasonable 
evidence from both points of view. This seems the only weak 
