j6 An Examination of Weismannism. 



so entirely independent as this fundamental proposition 

 sets forth; but that, on the contrary, there appears 

 to be a certain amount of reciprocal action between 

 this sphere and that of the somatic-tissues — even 

 though we may agree (as I myself agree) with Galton 

 in holding that the degree of such reciprocal 

 action is neither so intimate nor so constant as it 

 was held to be by Darwin. This, indeed, is the 

 direction which the course of our criticism has taken 

 already. For it has just been shown that Weismann 

 has failed to adduce any facts (preceding text) or 

 considerations (Appendix I) in support of his fun- 

 damental proposition as above stated, save such as 

 proceed on a prior acceptance of the proposition 

 itself. The facts and considerations which he has 

 adduced are therefore useless as evidence in support 

 of this proposition, although they would admit of 

 being explained by it supposing it to have been 

 already substantiated by any facts or considerations of 

 an independent kind. Which is merely another way of 

 saying, as already said, that there is no evidence in 

 favour of the proposition. 



But I am now about to argue that there is evidence 

 against the proposition. For I am about to argue, 

 not only as heretofore that for anything Weismann has 

 shown to the contrary there may be a certain amount 

 of reciprocal action between the sphere of germinal- 

 substance and the sphere of body-substance ; but that, 

 as a matter of fact, there is a certain amount of such 

 reciprocal action. 



Without laying undue stress on the intimate 

 "correlation" that subsists between the reproductive 

 organs and all other parts of the organism, I never- 



