Lamarck and Darwin 



283 



LAMARCK AND DARWIN. 



From the same review which we have quoted we take 

 the following clear exposition of the relative position of 

 the two great speculative naturalists, Lamarck and Darwin. 

 It is hardly necessary to say that more recent investigations, 

 whilst modifying the opinions of both, have welded them 

 together. We now believe in the transmission by inheritance 

 of both accidental and purposeful acquisitions : — 



"The author, Sir Charles Lyell, who, be it known, is an 

 advocate of Mr. Darwin's doctrine, gives a brief sketch of 

 the hypothesis first framed by Lamarck. The latter, who 

 may be said to have been the first who openly denied the 

 truth of the theory of the creation of species, came to the 

 conclusion that none of the plants and animals which now 

 exist upon the globe were primordially created, but had 

 descended from pre-existing types. This variation he believed 

 to be due to various external causes, such as soil, climate, 

 temperature, &c, and he explained the continuance of the 

 original forms from which the new ones were derived on the 

 supposition that the germs of living things were constantly 

 making their appearance upon the globe. He accounted for 

 modifications of form by saying, that just as some organs 

 become strong and others weak, so may certain portions of 

 the body become obsolete and others attain a superior develop- 

 ment. Lamarck did not stop here, but, as our author re- 

 marks, ' not satisfied with such legitimate speculations, the 

 French philosopher conceived that, by repeated acts of 

 volition, animals might acquire new organs and attributes ; 

 and that in plants, which could not exert a will of their own, 

 certain subtle fluids or organising forces might operate so as 

 to work out analogous effects.' Herein we see that Lamarck 

 went a step too far, and herein lies the great line of distinc- 

 tion between his hypothesis and that originated by Mr. 

 Darwin. There has been an outcry raised against the theory 

 of the latter, on the ground that it was the same as Lamarck's ; 



