﻿388 



characteristics after they have originated through the action of this 

 law. 



According to my own view of the facts, often published else- 

 where, its use is unnecessary for the explanation of the quick evolu- 

 tion of series in the early periods of their evolution near the origin 

 of types, also for the elucidation of the pathologic phenomena in 

 the quick evolution of phylogerontic forms and series. 



It can also not be applied to the explanation of experimental 

 results, as is admitted by all experimenters and most Darwinists, 

 in cases where modifications have been produced by the artificial 

 application of physical agencies, of which there are now so many 

 on record in both the animal and vegetable kingdoms. 



It is plainly, as Dr. A. S. Packard has pointed out, a doctrine 

 derived from the study of the results of evolution and cannot be 

 applied to the more general and fundamental phenomena of the ori- 

 gin of types, the building up of series or the origin of character- 

 istics. My own experience leads substantially to the same opinion, 

 and I find its use unnecessary except for the explanation of the per- 

 petuation of some characteristics that occur during the acme of the 

 evolution of species. The perpetuation of many characteristics 

 which are fundamental to the organism and species is necessarily 

 provided for by agencies which originated them and by heredity as 

 soon as they become fixed in the organism. I think there is good 

 ground for the statement that in many cases these are plainly not 

 advantageous. 



Weismann and his supporters are necessarily Darwinians. No 

 one denies that ctetic characters arise through the action of the 

 surroundings. If these are perpetuated through heredity, evolution 

 is an undeniable corollary and it must follow the path defined by 

 the dynamical school. If, however, ctetic characteristics may origi- 

 nate at the bidding of the surroundings and persist in the succes- 

 sive members of the same genetic series only while the surroundings 

 are comparatively unchanged, or in other words sufficiently alike to 

 continue to force their reappearance, then it must be admitted that 

 the law of the survival of the fittest through the action of the strug- 

 gle for existence is probab-ly a fundamental law of evolution in 

 organism. 



In other words, the battle of the two contending theories is being 

 fought in the domains of ctetology and it is hoped that this paper 

 may be a definite contribution to the Neolamarckian side of the con- 



