1896.] Psychology. 425 



the case of psychological sports." But I do not see the connection. If 

 Prof. Cope means denial of the inheritance of acquired characters then 

 I deny it equally of sports and other creatures ; but I do not deny that 

 the native " sportiveness " (!) of sports tends to be transmitted. In my 

 view the " massiveness of front" which progress shows (and which 

 Prof. Cope accepts) shows that in social transmission the individual 

 is usually swamped in the general movement as the individual sport 

 is in biological progress. As a matter of fact, however, the analogy 

 from " sports " which Prof. Cope makes does not strictly hold. For the 

 social sport, the genius, is sometimes j ust the controlling factor in social 

 evolution. And this is another proof that the means of transmission 

 of intelligent adaptations is not physical heredity alone, but that they 

 are socially handed down. I do not see, therefore, what Prof. Cope meani 

 by saying that I " admit and deny Weismannism," for I have never 

 discussed Weismannism at all. I believe in the Neo-Darwinian position 

 plus some way of getting " determinate variations." And for this lat- 

 ter I think the way now suggested is better than the Lamarkian way. 

 Like many of the biologists (e. g., Minot) I see no proof of Wei.-m;um- 

 ism (just as I protest mildly against being sorted with Mr. Benjamin 

 Kidd !) ; yet I have no competence for such purely biological specula- 

 tions as those which deal in plasms ! 



. Second, the question as to how evolution can be made " progressive." 

 Prof. Cope thinks only by the theory of "lapsed intelligence" or "in- 

 herited habit." Admitting that the intelligence makes selections, then 

 they must be inherited, in order that the progress of evolution may set 

 the way the intelligence selects. But suppose we admit intelligent 

 selection (even in the way Prof. Cope believes) ; still there are two in- 

 fluences at work to keep the direction which the intelligence selects 

 apart from the supposed direct inheritance. There is that of social 

 handing down, imitation, etc., or Social Heredity, which I have already 

 pointed out ; and besides there is the survival by natural selection of 

 those creatures which have variations which intelligence can use. This 

 puts a premium on these variations and their intelligent use in follow- 

 ing generations. Suppose, for instance, a set of young animals some 

 of which have variations which intelligence can use for a partic- 

 ular adaptation, thus keeping these individuals alive, while the others 

 who have not these variations die off; then the next generation 

 will not only have the same variations which intelligence can use 

 in the same way, but will also have the intelligence to use the varia- 

 tions in the same way, and the result will be about the same as if the 

 second generation had m» directly. The direc- 



