


496 THE AMERICAN NATURALIST. | [Vor. XXXVI. 
Lamarck’s death. This occurred, according to Dr. Packard, on 
Dec. 28, 1829 (p. 56), the obsequies were celebrated on the Sunday 
preceding December 23, the burial took place December 30 (p. 57); 
and the first assembly of professors after his death was on 
December 22 (p. 62). From this confusion of dates one may seek 
refuge in a biographical dictionary to find that Lamarck died 
December 18 and was buried probably December 20. It is really 
unfortunate that in the one extended account of Lamarck’s life in 
English the date of his death should not be accurately recorded. 
Although the biographical introduction is somewhat disappoint: 
ing, the body of the work more than makes good this defect. 
Dr. Packard is to be congratulated on having hit upon the happy 
idea of allowing Lamarck to expound his own views, and a large part 
of the 300 pages that follow the biography is made up of translations 
of well-selected passages from the works of Lamarck. Nowhere 
else in English is one likely to find so true an exposition of the 
Philosophie zoologiqgue as in the chapter devoted to this subject, 
and the reading of this portion of the work is to be recommended 
to every student of zoólogy that is not already familiar with 
Lamarck's original publications. 
The concluding chapter deals with Neolamarckism, a movement 
with which Dr. Packard has had much to do and about which he 
can consequently speak with authority. The impression made by 
this chapter is, however, one of extreme vagueness. What Neola- 
marckism is, is nowhere made very clear. Darwin’s views and 
Lamarck's are contrasted, and much stress is laid on the importance 
of environment as a factor in the production of variations; but the 
idea is not even suggested that all such material may be only grist for _ 
the Darwinian mill. Moreover, a strange inconsistency runs through 
much of this chapter, for Dr. Packard seems to think that by 
pointing out the weaknesses of Darwinism, he is strengthening 
Lamarckism. This leads him to give numerous quotations from 
the works of eminent biologists who were keen enough to expose 
some of the weak points in natural selection, but who did not per- 
ceive that by so doing they were ranking themselves Neolamarckians. 
The last quotations in criticism of natural selection are taken from 
discit ; had a few been drawn from Darwin the proof would have 
been complete. The real question, however, is not whether 
ee ae is true and Darwinism untrue, — for these theories are 
|. not necessarily incompatible, — but what are the factors of evolu- 
. tion; and on this point Dr. Packard has not much to say, though in 
