1896.] Psychology. 423 



tion to generation ; second, " the progressive character of evolution ; " 

 and third, " mental education " or acquisition. 



First, agreeing as we do on the fact of mental acquisition or " selec- 

 tion through pleasure, pain, experience, association, etc.," Prof. Cope 

 cites my second paper (Science, Mar. 20th) in which I hold that con- 

 sciousness makes acquisitions of new movements by such selections. 

 He then says, if so, then I admit the Lamarkian factor. But not at 

 all ; it is just the point of my article to refute Romanes by showing that 

 adaptation by intelligent selection makes the Lamarkian factor un- 

 necessary. And in this way, i. e., this sort of adaptation on the part 

 of a creature keeps that creature alive by supplementing his reflex and 

 instinctive actions, so prevent* the operation of natural «rl<ctioi> in his 

 case, and gives the species time to get congenital variations in the lines 

 that have thus proved to be useful (see cases cited). Farthermore, all the 

 resources of Social Heredity — the handing down of intelligent acquisi- 

 tion by maternal instruction, imitation, gregarious life, etc.— come in 

 directly to take the place of the physical inheritance of such adapta- 

 tions. This influence Prof. Cope, I am glad to see, admits ; although in 

 admitting it, he does not seem to see that he is practically throwing 

 away the Lamarkian factor. For instead of limiting this influence to 

 human progress, we have to extend it to all animals with gregarious 

 and family life, to all creatures that have any ability to imitate, and 

 finally to all animals which have consciousness sufficient to enable then 

 to make conscious adaptations themselves : for such creatures will have 

 children that do the same, and it is unnecessary to say that the chil- 

 dren must inherit what their fathers did by intelligence, when they can 

 do the same things by their own intelligence. As a matter of fact Prof. 

 Cope is exactly the biologist to whose Lamarkism this admission is, 

 so far as I can see, absolutely fatal ; for he more than all others holds 

 that adaptations all through the biological scale are secured by con- 

 sciousness. 2 If so, then he is just the man who is obliged to extend to 

 the utmost the possibility of the transmission also of these adaptations 

 by intelligence, which, as I said, rules out the need of their transmission 

 by physical heredity. At any rate he is quite incorrect in saying 

 that " he [I] both admit and deny Lamarkism." 



To this argument of mine Prof. Cope presents no objection that I see 

 except one from analogy. He says : " I do not see how promiscuous 

 variation and natural selection alone can result in progressive psychic 

 evolution, more than in structural evolution, since the former is condi- 

 VII and IX of my Mental Dt •■ l»p- 



