674 The American Naturalist. [August, 
rectly visible in the body of the organism or is an intangible 
force impressed upon the germ, it is nevertheless an environ- 
mental character, and was at first acquired. If this is not 
true—that the changed conditions of life exert a direct effect 
upon the phylogeny of the species—then no variation is pos- 
. sible save that which comes from the recompounding of the 
original or ancestral sex-elements; and it would still be a 
question how these sex-elements acquired their initial diver- 
gence. 
The Neo-Darwinians would undoubtedly meet this argu- 
ment by saying that their hypothesis fully admits the import- 
ance of these external influences, the only reservation being 
that they shall have affected the germ. It is true that this is 
a common means of escape; but it cannot be gainsaid that 
the denial of the influence of the external or environmental 
forces is really the fundamental difference between them and 
the Darwinians or Neo-Lamarckians, as the following quota- 
tion from, Weismann will show: “Our object is to decide 
whether changes in the soma (the body, as opposed to the 
germ-cells) which have been produced by the direct action of 
external influences, including use and disuse, can be trans- 
mitted; whether they can influence the germ-cells in such a ` 
manner that the latter will cause the spontaneous appearance 
of corresponding changes in the next generation. This is the 
question which demands an answer; and, as has been shown 
above, such an answer would decide whether the Lamarckian 
principles of transformation must be retained or abandoned." 
If, then, to repeat, organisms are adapted to their environ- 
ment, it must be equally true that this environment directly 
affects its inhabitants; and considering the intense struggle 
for existence under which all organisms live, it is highly prob- 
able that any advantageous variation can be seized upon at 
once. I cannot conceive that nature allows herself to lose the 
result of any effort. 
9. My third conviction against Neo-Darwinism arises from 
the fact that its advocates are constantly explaining away the 
arguments of their opponents by verbal mystifications and in- 
genious definitions. This charge is so frequently made, and 
