538 The American Naturalist. [July, 
to give the young the adaptations which the adults already 
have, but also to produce adaptations which depend upon social 
coöperation ; thus variations in the direction of sociality are selected 
and made determinate. “When we remember that the per- 
manence of a habit learned by one individual is largely con- 
ditioned by the learning of the same habits by others 
(notably of the opposite sex) in the same environment, we 
see that an enormous premium must have been put on varia- 
tions of a social kind—those which brought different indi- 
viduals into some kind of joint action or coöperation. Wher- 
ever this appeared, not only would habits be maintained, 
but new variations, having all the force of double hereditary 
tendency, might also be expected” (ref. 3). Why is it, for 
example, that a race of Mulattoes does not arise faster, and 
possess our Southern States? Isit not just the social repug- 
nance to black-white marriages? Remove or reverse this in- 
fluence of education, imitation, etc., and the result on phylogeny 
would show in our faces, and even appear in our fossils when 
they are dug up long hence by the paleontologist of the 
succeeding aeons ! 
(3) In man it becomes the law of social evolution. “ Weis- 
mann and others have shown that the influence of animal 
intercourse, seen in maternal instruction, imitation, gregarious 
coöperation, etc., is very important. Wallace dwells upon the 
* actual facts which illustrate the ‘imitative factor, as we may 
call it, in the personal development of young animals. I have 
recently argued that Spencer and others are in error in hold- 
ing that social progress demands use-inheritance; since the 
socially-acquired actions of a species, notably man, are socially 
handed down, giving a sort of ‘social heredity ’ which supple- 
ments natural heredity ” (ref. 4). The social “sport,” the 
genius, is very often the controlling factor in social evolution. 
He not only sets the direction of future progress, but he may 
actually lift society at a bound up to a new standard of attain- 
ment (ref. 6). “So strong does the case seem for the Social 
Heredity view in this matter of intellectual and moral progress 
that I may suggest an hypothesis which may not stand in 
court, but which I find interesting. May not the rise of social 
