E. DARWIN AND LAMARCK. \Z 



:)j 



theory of the mutabiHty of species, and this theory 

 had two main features, namely, that animals were 

 evolved, not, as Buffon supposed, by the direct exter- 

 nal action of environment, but by environment acting 

 upon internal structure through the nervous svstcm, 

 and by the transmission of the modifications thus 

 produced. As regards the origin of plants, Lamarck 

 believed with Buffon, that they were evolved bv the 

 direct action of environment. Lamarck nowhere 

 makes any allusion to the Zoonomia, and De Lanes- 

 san has pointed out that he also pays a very scant 

 tribute to Buffon, while there is the strongest inter- 

 nal evidence that Lamarck was largely influenced 

 by the writings of Buffon's second period. 



How shall we explain this coincidence or appar- 

 ent plagiarism .f* We must adopt one of two alter- 

 natives. One is, as later in the famous and quite 

 as closely parallel Wallace-Darwin case, that both 

 naturalists arrived independently at the same con- 

 clusions, influenced alike by the writings of Linnanis 

 and Buffon and by their own observations uj)()n 

 Nature ; or, we must suppose that Lamarck bor- 

 rowed freely from Darwin without giving him credit. 

 We should hesitate before adopting the latter alter- 

 native, when we consider that the interchange of 

 thouo-ht between the two countries was not as 

 constant as at present, also that Dr. Darwin's views 

 were buried rather obscurely in a great quarto 

 mainly devoted to medicine, and in two long didac- 

 tic poems. Again, wemust note that Geoffroy St- 



