ARE ACQUIRED CHARACTERS HEREDITARY? 325 
Misunderstanding III.— Begging the question by starting with 
what is not proved to be a modification.—There is no relevancy in citing 
cases where an abnormal bodily peculiarity re-appears generation 
after generation, unless it be shown that the peculiarity is a modifica- 
tion, and not an inborn variation whose transmissibility is admitted 
by all. Short-sightedness may recur in a family-series generation 
after generation, but there is no evidence to prove that the original 
short-sightedness was a modification. In all probability, short- 
sightedness is in its origin a germinal variation, like so many other 
bodily idiosyncrasies. 
In regard to some diseases, such as rheumatism, it is often said 
dogmatically by those who know little about the matter that the 
original affection in the ancestor was brought about by some definite 
external influence—such as a cold drive or a damp bed; but it seems 
practically certain that in all such cases we have to do with an inborn 
predisposition, to the expression of which the cold drive or the damp 
bed were merely the liberating stimulus, comparable to the pulling of 
the trigger in a loaded gun. The liberating stimulus is, of course, of 
great importance, both in the case of the gun’s discharge and the 
organism’s disease, but it only goes a little way towards a satisfactory 
interpretation in either case. Not that we can explain the origin of 
rheumatism or shortsightedness or any such thing—there is no expla- 
nation in calling them germinal variations that cropped up; but we 
are almost certain that they never are modifications or acquired 
characters. 
Herbert Spencer twits those who are sceptical as to the trans- 
mission of acquired modifications with assigning the most flimsy 
reasons for rejecting a conclusion they are averse to; but when Spencer 
cites the prevalence of short-sightedness among the ‘notoriously 
studious” Germans, the inheritance of a musical talent, and the inheri- 
tance of a liability to consumption, as evidence of the inheritance of 
modifications, we are reminded of the pot calling the kettle black. 
Over and over again in the prolific literature of this discussion the 
syllogism is advanced, either in regard to gout or something analogous— 
Gout is a modification of the body, an acquired character; 
Gout is transmissible; 
Modifications are sometimes transmissible. 
It may be formally a good argument, but there is every reason to 
deny the major premise. There is no proof that the gouty habit had 
an exogenous origin—that it was, to begin with, for instance, the 
direct result of high living; though it is generally admitted that 
