56 LUCK, OR CUNNING? 



of the new-born child as " emlodying the results of a 

 great mass of hereditary experience" (p. 77), so that 

 what he is driving at can be collected by those who 

 take trouble, but is not seen until we call up from 

 our own knowledge matter whose relevancy does not 

 appear on the face of it, and until we connect passages 

 many pages asunder, the first of which may easily be 

 forgotten before we reach the second. There can be 

 no doubt, however, that Mr. Eomanes does in reality, 

 like Professor Hering and myself, regard development, 

 whether of mind or body, as due to memory, for it 

 is now pretty generally seen to be nonsense to talk, 

 about "hereditary experience" or "hereditary memory" 

 if anything else is intended. 



I have said above that on page 1 1 3 of his recent 

 work Mr. Eomanes declares the analogies between the 

 memory with which we are familiar in daily life, and 

 hereditary memory, to be " so numerous and precise " 

 as to justify us in considering them as of one and the 

 same kind. 



This is certainly his meaning, but, with the excep- 

 tion of the words within inverted commas, it is not 

 his language. His own words are these : — 



" Profound, however, as our ignorance unquestionably 

 is concerning the physical substratum of memory, I 

 think we are at least justified in regarding this sub- 

 stratum as the same both in ganglionic or organic, and 

 in conscious or psychological memory, seeing that the 

 analogies between them are so numerous and precise. 

 Consciousness is but an adjunct which arises when 

 the physical processes, owing to infrequency of repeti- 



