58 Luck, or Cunning ? 
now pretty generally seen to be nonsense to talk about 
“hereditary experience” or ‘‘ héreditary memory” if 
anything else is intended. 
I have said above that on page 113 of his recent work 
Mr. Romanes 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 exception 
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 substratum as the 
same both in ganglionic or organic, and in the 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 repetition, complexity of operation, or 
other causes, involve what I have before called ganglionic 
friction.” 
I submit that I have correctly translated Mr. Romanes’ 
meaning, and also that we have a right to complain of his 
not saying what he has to say in words which will involve’ 
less “‘ ganglionic friction ” on the part of the reader. 
Another example may be found on p. 43 of Mr. Romanes’ 
book. “ Lastly,” he writes, ‘‘ just as innumerable special 
mechanisms of muscular co-ordinations are found to be 
inherited, innumerable special associations of ideas are 
found to be the same, and in one case as in the other the 
strength of the organically imposed connection is found 
to bear a direct proportion to the frequency with which 
in the history of the species it has occurred.” 
Mr. Romanes is here intending what the reader will find 
insisted on on p. 51 of “‘ Life and Habit ;”” but how dif- 
ficult he has made what could have been said intelligibly 
