226 Theories Treating of Inheritance 
It seems to us quite superfluous to expose any further 
here the pure verbality of such an explanation without 
any real content. Neither shall we go more closely into 
the objection, which is apparent on the very surface, that 
physiological units identical throughout the whole or- 
ganism cannot form muscles here, bones there, nerves 
elsewhere, all of which represent special tissues with 
totally different physical, chemical and vital properties. 
We limit ourselves rather to noting that, according to 
this, the inheritability of even quantitative and partial 
modifications, for example the transmission of the merely 
greater development of a tissue or an organ already ex- 
isting, must be attributed to a uniform, qualitative change 
of all the physiologic units of the organism. And not- 
withstanding that, the properties of each group of these 
units, not excepting the group constituting the tissue 
which has undergone a simple increase in mass, must re- 
main identically the same as they were before. 
Let us consider the case which Spencer himself quotes 
and regards as one of the examples of the inheritance of 
acquired characters, namely, the increase in size or 
greater development of the great toe as well as the 
diminution or regression of the little toe, as a result of 
the fact that our ape-like ancestors gave up life in the 
trees for life on the surface of the ground.1” 
Is it possible that so very local a morphologic change 
has transformed qualitatively the physiological units of 
the entire organism? And apart from the fact that the 
change is limited to a certain very small part of the body, 
it must yet be borne in mind that one has to do here with 
no new quality nor with any new material introduced 
*7?Spencer: A Rejoinder to Prof. Weismann. London, Williams 
and Norgate. 1893. P. 3ff. 
