Grant Allen’s “Charles Darwin” 219 
accidents of molecular physics in a colliding germ cell and 
sperm cell; the other makes him depend mainly on the 
doings and gains of his ancestors as modified and altered 
by himself.” 
This second creed is pure Erasmus-Darwinism and 
Lamarck. 
Again :— 
““ It seems to me easy to understand how survival of the 
fittest may result in progress starting from such functionally 
produced gains (italics mine), but impossible to understand 
how it could result in progress, if it had to start in 
mere accidental structural increments due to spontaneous 
variation alone.’’* 
Which comes to saying that it is easy to understand the 
Lamarckian system of evolution, but not the Charles- 
Darwinian. Mr. Allen concluded his article a few pages 
later on by saying :— 
“The first hypothesis’ (Mr. Darwin’s) ‘‘is one that 
throws no light upon any of the facts. The second hypo- 
thesis ” (which is unalloyed Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck) 
“is one that explains them all with transparent lucidity.” 
Yet in his ‘‘ Charles Darwin ” Mr. Allen tells us that though 
Mr. Darwin ‘‘ did not invent the development theory, he 
made it believable and comprehensible ”’ (p. 4). 
In his ‘‘ Charles Darwin” Mr. Allen does not tell us 
how recently he had, in another place, expressed an opinion 
about the value of Mr. Darwin’s “ distinctive contribution ” 
to the theory of evolution, so widely different from the 
one he is now expressing with characteristic appearance 
of ardour. He does not explain how he is able to execute 
such rapid changes of front without forfeiting his claim 
on our attention; explanations on matters of this sort 
seem out of date with modern scientists. I can only suppose 
that Mr. Allen regards himself as having taken a brief, as it 
were, for the production of a popular work, and feels more 
* “Mind,” p. 498, Oct., 1883. 
