12 Darwin's Predecessors 
misses the connection between this struggle and the Survival of the 
Fittest)” 
Lamarck? (1744—1829) seems to have thought out his theory 
of evolution without any knowledge of Erasmus Darwin’s which it 
closely resembled. The central idea of his theory was the cumulative 
inheritance of functional modifications. “Changes in environment 
bring about changes in the habits of animals. Changes in their 
wants necessarily bring about parallel changes in their habits. If 
new wants become constant or very lasting, they form new habits, 
the new habits involve the use of new parts, or a different use of old 
parts, which results finally in the production of new organs and the 
modification of old ones.”’ He differed from Buffon in not attaching 
importance, as far as animals are concerned, to the direct influence 
of the environment, “for environment can effect no direct change 
whatever upon the organisation of animals,” but in regard to 
plants he agreed with Buffon that external conditions directly 
moulded them. 
Treviranus’ (1776—1837), whom Huxley ranked beside Lamarck, 
was on the whole Buffonian, attaching chief importance to the 
influence of a changeful environment both in modifying and in 
eliminating, but he was also Goethian, for instance in his idea that 
species like individuals pass through periods of growth, full bloom, 
and decline. “Thus, it is not only the great catastrophes of Nature 
which have caused extinction, but the completion of cycles of 
existence, out of which new cycles have begun.” A characteristic 
sentence is quoted by Prof. Osborn: “In every living being there 
exists a capability of an endless variety of form-assumption ; each 
possesses the power to adapt its organisation to the changes of the 
outer world, and it is this power, put into action by the change of the 
universe, that has raised the simple zoophytes of the primitive world 
to continually higher stages of organisation, and has introduced a 
countless variety of species into animate Nature.” 
Goethe* (1749—1832), who knew Buffon’s work but not Lamarck’s, 
is peculiarly interesting as one of the first to use the evolution-idea 
as a guiding hypothesis, e.g. in the interpretation of vestigial structures 
in man, and to realise that organisms express an attempt to make a 
compromise between specific inertia and individual change. He gave 
1 Osborn, op. cit. p. 142, 
2 See: E. Perrier, La Philosophie Zoologique avant Darwin, Paris, 1884; A. de 
alata Darwin et ses Précurseurs Francais, Paris, 1870; Packard, op. cit.; also 
sp - peg oe der Descendenzlehre, Wien, 1888; Haeckel, Natural History 
reation, King. transl. London, 1879; Lang, J isti 
Rs ii pare ene ie ps ; 8, Zur Charakteristik der Forschungswege 
i oo Hurxley’s article ‘Evolution in Biology,” Encyclopaedia Britannica (9th edit.), 
as > oy 744—751, and Sully’s article, “Evolution in Philosophy,” ibid. pp. 751—772. 
ee Haeckel, Die Naturanschauung von Darwin, Goethe und Lamarck, Jena, 1882, 
