152 Darwin, and after Darwin. 



alleging that there is neither any necessity for, 

 nor evidence of, the so-called Lamarckian factors^. 

 And this opinion, whatever it may be worth, is 

 at all events both deliberate and impartial. As 

 one of the first to doubt the transmission of acquired 

 characters, and as one who has spent many years 

 in experimental inquiries upon the subject, any 

 bias that I may have is assuredly against the 

 Lamarckian principles — seeing that nearly all my 

 experiments have yielded negative results. It was 

 Darwin himself who checked this bias. But if the 

 ultra-Darwinians of the last ten years had succeeded 

 in showing that Darwin was mistaken, I should be 

 extremely glad to fall into line with them. As 

 already shown, however, they have in no way affected 

 this question as it was left by Galton in 1875. And 

 if it be supposed a matter of but little importance 

 whether we agree with Galton in largely diminish- 

 ing the comparative potency of the Lamarckian 

 principles, or whether we agree with Weismann 

 in abolishing them together, it cannot be too often 

 repeated that such is an entirely erroneous view. 

 No matter how faintly or how fitfully acquired 

 characters may be transmitted, in so far as they 

 are likewise adaptive characters, their transmission 

 (and therefore their development) must be cumu- 

 lative. Hence, the only effect of attenuating our 

 estimate of their intensity, is that of increasing 

 our estimate of their duration — i.e. of the time over 

 which they have to operate in order to produce 



1 E. g. " The supposed transmission of tiiis artificially produced 

 disease (epilepsy) is the only definite instance which has been brought 

 forward in support of the transmission of acquired characters." — Essays, 

 p. 328. 



