THE PROBLEMS PRESENTED 23 



I have placed this passage in italics because of its import- 

 ance from the point of view of the two problems which I am presen- 

 ting and would remark here that if only all the writers had used 

 Professor Thomson's term " modifications " instead of " characters " 

 in the statement of this doctrine much confusion and evasion of 

 plain facts would have been avoided, and yet such workers as the 

 Mendelians, if deprived of their clear-cut term " characters " 

 would have been less able to carry on their studies. To this point 

 of terminology I refer below. 1 



1 The term " character " derives both from its etymological origin and 

 its application to biology a double-edged quality. This is of great value to the 

 study of Mendelism which can only or mainly work with " unit-characters," 

 and it also serves the Weismann dogma well. In both cases the term obli- 

 terates the conception of initial variation, and while serving the purposes of 

 these two great schools of thought it directs attention away from the early 

 minute and unimportant stages by which many germinal variations may have 

 arisen. If it had been coined for the purpose, which it was not, it would 

 have been a remarkable instance of polemic cunning. It will be evident in 

 the course of this study of initial variation, that the accredited and general 

 use of the term " character " begs the question far too manifestly for the 

 general use of biologists. It it be retained for the neo-Darwinian and 

 Mendelian provinces there is nothing to say against it, but I adopt here with 

 pleasure the alternative term, often used by Professor Thomson, " modifica- 

 tion." This is wide enough to include the more clear-cut " character" so 

 long as one makes it clear that the latter is one of the germinal variations. 

 Further, I hold that his use of the term " transmission " instead of " inheri- 

 tance " is the more useful for a wide range of phenomena. As far as possible 

 I shall employ the expression " transmission of modifications," instead of 

 that well-worn but often sophisticated expression " inheritance of acquired 

 characters." This has been subjected by Sir Archdall Reid and Dr. Dixey, 

 to say nothing of others such as Mr. George Sandeman, to a somewhat bewil- 

 dering analysis. Thus the former says, " It follows that the so-called " acquire- 

 ments " are innate and " inherited " in precisely the same manner as the 

 so-called " inborn characters."* Dr. Dixey admits " that all characters are 

 both acquired and innate "** and goes on to say that the accepted meaning 

 of the terms was vague, that it led to confusion, and that it ought to be 

 dropped. For this remark of Dr. Dixey one may be thankful, but of my 

 friend Sir Archdall Reid I would ask what he is doing in this galley ? 



Sir E. Ray Lankester in a letter in Nature, 21st March, 1912, dissented 

 from the mode of treatment of this point by Sir Archdall Reid and presumably 

 also by Dr. Dixey in the words " It is not, I think, permissible to say that the 

 normal characters which arise in response to normal conditions are with 

 equal fitness to be described as ' acquired.' " As to what is a normal 

 character and what are normal conditions there may be much reason for 

 difference of opinion, but I have said enough of this discussion to show that 

 the terms " acquired " and " character " would afford a biological Pascal 

 some such food for criticism as did the term " probable " in Ms Provincial 

 Letters. The less these two terms are employed the less misunderstanding 

 there will be of certain problems. 



It has been held that " discussing words is often indescribably tiresome, 

 but it is better than misunderstanding them," which is most true. 



* Nature, Vol. 77, Jan. 30th, 1908, p. 293. 



** Nature, Vol. 77, Feb. 1908, p. 392. 



