676 The American Naturalist. [August,. 
diseased from the beginning, and readily became inflamed 
after a slight injury”! This gratuitous manner of explaining 
away the recorded instances of the supposed transmission of 
mutilations and the like, is common with the Neo-Darwinians, 
but it must always create the impression, it seems to me, of be- 
ing labored and far-fetched ; and inasmuch as it is incapable 
of proof, and is of no occasion beyond the mere point of up- 
holding an assumed hypothesis, it is scarcely worthy serious 
attention. It would be far better for the Neo-Darwinians if 
they would flatly refuse to accept the statements concerning 
the transmission of mutilations, rather than to attempt any 
mere captious explanation of them ; for it is yet very doubtful 
if the recorded instances of such transmissions will stand care- 
ful investigation. 
But perhaps the most remarkable example of this species of 
Neo-Darwinian logic is produced by Weismann when he is 
hard pressed by Hoffmann, who supposed that he had proved 
the hereditability of certain acquired characters in poppies.. 
Weismann says: “Since the characters of which Hoffmann 
speaks are hereditary, the term cannot be rightly applied to 
them ;” thus showing that his fundamental conception of an 
acquired character is one which cannot be transmitted! He 
then proceeds to elaborate this definition as follows: “ I have 
never doubted about the transmission of changes which depend 
upon an alteration inthe germ-plasm of the reproductive cells, 
for I have always asserted that these changes, and these alone, 
must be transmitted.” Then he proceeds to say that it is nec- 
essary to have “two terms which distinguish sharply between 
the two chief groups of characters—the primary characters 
which first appear in the body itself, and the secondary ones 
which owe their appearance to variations in the germ, however 
such variations may have arisen. We have hitherto been 
accustomed to call the former ‘ aequired characters,’ but we 
might also call them ‘ somatogenic,’ because they follow from 
the reaction of the soma under external influences; while all 
other characters might be contrasted as ‘ blastogenic,’ because 
they include all those characters in the body which have arisen 
from changes in the germ. * * * We maintain that the 
