Inheritance of Acquired Characters 245 
Mm 
Plantar face of ungual phalanx of first toe . A ‘ A «EG 
Palm ‘ : F é 7 . . 7 5 ‘ s - 11.3 
Back of second phalanx of finger. 5 3 5 7 is + 113 
Forehead . . F ‘ - . . Fi ‘i ; . 22.6 
Back of ankle ‘ . 3 . . . ‘ 3 ‘ - 22.6 
Back of hand . : . . . . ‘ . ‘ . - 31.6 
Forearm, leg . - : . 3 3 : e $ ‘ » 40.6 
Dorsum of foot : - . - . - : F - - 40.6 
Outer sternum . 3 . - . . ‘ ‘ 7 + 45.1 
Back of neck . $ é . ‘ . . ei . . + 54.1 
Middle of back , : . ‘ ‘ F F ; . 67.1 
Upper arm, thigh . : 4 7 3 . . . . . 67.1 
The great difference in the sensitiveness of the skin in 
the different regions is very striking, and if, as seems probable, 
about the same proportionate difference is found at birth, then 
the degree of sensibility of the different regions is inborn, 
and is not the result of each individual experience. Until it ' 
can be shown that more of the sense-organs develop in any | 
special part, as the result of the increased use of the part, we 
have no real basis on which to establish, even as probable, 
the Lamarckian view. 
But, after all, is the distribution of the sense-organs ex- 
actly that which we should expect on the Lamarckian theory? 
Has not Spencer taken too much for granted in this direc- 
tion? The lower part of the forearm (represented by 15) we 
should expect to be more sensitive than the protected surface 
of the eyelid (11.3), but this is not the case. The forehead 
(22.6) is much less sensitive than the forearm, and only half 
as sensitive as the eyelid. The knee (36.1) is still less sensi- 
tive than any of these other parts, and this does not in the 
least accord with the theory, since in its constant moving 
forward it must be continually coming into contact with foreign 
bodies. The fact that the back is as insensitive as the upper 
arm (67.7) can hardly be accredited in favor of the theory. 
The great difference between the lower third of the forearm 
on the ulnar surface (15) and the upper arm (67.7) seems 
