208 An Examination of Weismannism. 



views ; and my only object in publishing my previous article 

 was to save the theory of use-inheritance from what seemed to 

 me the weaker parts of Mr. Spencer's ad: )cacy, while thus all 

 the more emphasizing my acceptance of its stronger parts. 

 Therefore, the impression which he seems to have gained from 

 my attempts at impartiality is entirely erroneous. Far from 

 " deliberately ignoring " any of his arguments or hypotheses 

 which seemed to me at all available on the side of use-inherit- 

 ance, I everywhere endeavoured to make the most of them. 

 And, as regards this particular instance, I expressly used the 

 term "gemmules," instead of "physiological units," simply 

 because I could not see that, as far as my "mountain of dif- 

 ficulties " was concerned, it could make one atom of difference 

 which term I employed. It now appears, however, that, in 

 Mr. Spencer's opinion, there is some very great difference. 

 For, while he allows that the " mountain of difficulties " which 

 I have " piled up " against his interpretation of the alleged 

 phenomena would be valid on the supposition that the ultimate 

 carriers of heredity are " gemmules," he denies that such is the 

 case if we suppose these ultimate carriers to be "physiological 

 units." For this statement, however, he gives no justification ; 

 and, as I am unable to conceive wherein the difference lies, 

 I sincerely hope that in any subsequent editions of his pamphlet 

 Mr. Spencer will furnish the requisite explanation. Gladly 

 substituting. the words "physiological units " wherever I have 

 used the word "gemmules," I am genuinely anxious to ascertain 

 how he would overcome the " mountain of difficulties " in 

 question. For I do not regard the subject as one of mere 

 dialectics. It is a subject of no small importance to the general 

 issue, Weismann versus Lamarck ; and, therefore, if Mr. Spencer 

 could show that the phenomena in question make exclusively in 

 favour of the latter, as he alleges, he might profitably inform us 

 in what way he supposes them to do so. 



In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity of ex- 

 plaining that my former article was written in Madeira, where 

 I did not receive a copy of Weismann's most recent work, 

 entitled The Germ-plasm, until the Co?itemporary Review for 

 April was being printed off. Thus, I was not then aware that in 

 this work Professor Weismann had fully anticipated several 



