Definite Variation 101 
as not, I suspect rather of the nature of tool-marks, mere incidents 
of manufacture, benefiting their possessor not more than the wire- 
marks in a sheet of paper, or the ribbing on the bottom of an oriental 
plate renders those objects more attractive in our eyes. 
If Variation may be in any way definite, the question once more 
arises, may it not be definite in direction? The belief that it is has 
had many supporters, from Lamarck onwards, who held that it was 
guided by need, and others who, like Nageli, while laying no emphasis 
on need, yet were convinced that there was guidance of some kind. 
The latter view under the name of “Orthogenesis,” devised I believe 
by Eimer, at the present day commends itself to some naturalists. 
The objection to such a suggestion is of course that no fragment of 
real evidence can be produced in its support. On the other hand, 
with the experimental proof that variation consists largely in the 
unpacking and repacking of an original complexity, it is not so certain 
as we might like to think that the order of these events is not 
pre-determined. For instance the original “pack” may have been 
made in such a way that at the nth division of the germ-cells of a 
Sweet Pea a colour-factor might be dropped, and that at the n+1’ 
division the hooded variety be given off, and so on. I see no ground 
whatever for holding such a view, but in fairness the possibility should 
not be forgotten, and in the light of modern research it scarcely looks 
so absurdly improbable as before. 
No one can survey the work of recent years without perceiving 
that evolutionary orthodoxy developed too fast, and that a great deal 
has got to come down ; but this satisfaction at least remains, that in 
the experimental methods which Mendel inaugurated, we have 
means of reaching certainty in regard to the physiology of Heredity 
and Variation upon which a more lasting structure may be built. 
