224 GEOEGE JOHN EOMANES I88I- 



certain point, I do, only the issue between Pangenesis 

 and Germ-plasm is not really or nearly so well defined 

 as Weismann represents, where the matter of experi- 

 ments is concerned ; e.g. it is not the case that any 

 crucial test is furnished by the non-transmissibility of 

 mutilations ; Darwin did not set much store by them, 

 though Eimer and others have done so since. In 

 fact all the Germans on both sides, and all the 

 Englishmen on Weismann's side, seem to me unjust 

 to Darwin in this respect. 



Eegarding the cessation of selection, the motive 

 that prompted my question to you was not the paltry 

 one of claiming priority in the enunciation of an ex- 

 ceedingly obvious idea. My motive was to assure my- 

 self that this idea is exactly the same as Weismann's 

 Panmixia ; for, although I could see no difference, I 

 thought perhaps he and you did (from absence of 

 allusion to my paper, while priority is acknowledged 

 as regards a later one) ; and, if this were so, I wanted 

 to know where the difference lay. And the reason I 

 wanted to know this was because when my paper 

 was published, and Darwin accepted the idea with 

 enthusiasm, I put it to him in conversation whether 

 this idea might not supersede Lamarckian principles 

 altogether. (By carefully reading between the hnes 

 of the paper itself, you will see how much this 

 question was occupying my mind at the time, though 

 I did not dare to challenge Lamarck's principles in toto 

 without much more full inquiry.) Then it was that 

 Darwin dissuaded me from going on to this point, on 

 the ground that there was abundant evidence of 

 Lamarck's principles apart from use and disuse of 



