Weismannism up to date (1893). I 3 I 



between congenital and acquired characters in respect 

 of transmissibility. And this solution, as likewise 

 already stated, was substantially identical with that 

 which Professor Weismann published in the next 

 decade. Indeed, the only important difference be- 

 tween these two theories of heredity is, that while 

 Weismann's excludes on deductive grounds the 

 physiological possibility of the inheritance of acquired 

 characters, Galton's more judiciously leaves to be 

 determined, by subsequent enquiry of the inductive 

 kind, the question whether acquired characters are 

 ever transmitted in faint degrees, or whether they are 

 never transmitted at all. In addition to this important 

 difference, however, there are certain others which 

 seem to me of very little consequence, inasmuch as 

 they have reference to speculations on the ultimate 

 mechanism of heredity, or the intimate morphology 

 and physiology of the carriers of heredity — specula- 

 tions which it would be absurd to suppose can be 

 other than purely conjectural. Therefore in my 

 previous criticism I did not allude to these subordinate 

 points of difference, but stated merely, in general 

 terms, that Galton's view of the ultimate mechanism 

 in question was such as to leave room for the possi- 

 bility of the occasional transmission of acquired 

 characters. And in this respect, it still seems to me, 

 his theory has an advantage over that of Weismann. 

 No doubt the latter is a much more elaborate and 

 highly finished piece of work ; but beauty of ideal 

 construction is no guarantee of scientific truth — as we 

 shall presently find exemplified in a striking manner 

 with regard to Weismann's theory of evolution. And 

 if his theory of heredity, in its final shape, is a much 



K 2 



