888 The American Naturalist. [October, 
ORGANIC VARIATION. 
By Cumas. Morris. 
The recent paper in Tue Naruratist, by Prof. Osborn,’ on 
variation in organisms, and the seeming presence of certain 
unknown factors in development which give rise to phenom- 
ena not included in the accepted theories, suggests the desira- 
bility of further consideration of this topic. The problem is a 
most intricate one, the final result being affected by every ex- 
ternal condition to which the organism is exposed throughout 
its whole career, and by various internal influences which are 
far more difficult to trace, yet are, perhaps, the leading forces 
at work. 
The effects of environment have been abundantly dealt 
with and are somewhat fully understood. It is not necessary 
here to state the principles of Lamarckism and Darwinism. It 
will suffice to say that they do not embrace the whole problem. 
Darwinism does not attempt to do so, since it takes the great 
fact of variation for granted and works from that as a basis. 
Lamarckism attempts to explain variation, as due to use and 
to the resulting strain upon the organism. But it evidently 
does not reach the great class of individual variations which 
are opposed to heredity, and whose cause lies deep in the organ- 
ism and must be sought in the conditions of the germinal cell 
itself. . 
Of the two great underlying principles involved in organic 
evolution, heredity and variation, the former seems much the 
most comprehensible. It is but natural to expect that the 
germ should unfold.in the manner of that from which it was 
derived. Such native tendencies as exist in it must be derived 
from the parents, and bear a resemblance to those that have 
been active in the parental organisms. As a result, if parthe- 
nogenesis prevailed, we should naturally expect every offspring 
to repeat all the peculiarities of its parent—all variation being 
1 May, 1895. 
