28 
The Ohio Naturalist. 
[Vol. IV, No. 2 , 
cells, its acquired characters are inherited; but when we begin to 
consider that it may be affected in a larger way b}- remoter por- 
tions of the body, either through pangens or some other means, 
the question takes another turn. Is it not difficult to imagine 
how some specific change in a remote portion of the body can be 
registered on the germ-cdl with the result that the offspring has 
reproduced in it the .same specific modification ? Of course, incon- 
ceivabilit}’ can never be advanced as an argument, ]>ro or con, 
imless an easier explanation is at hand, and in this ca.se many 
think there is. 
Let us turn now to another phase of the subject. Breeders and 
fanciers have long insisted that their produce show case after case 
of the inheritance of acquired modifications. Xaj-, indeed are not 
our social institutions themselves built on this assumption ? Edu- 
cate the father and the child will profit thereby. Raise the man 
of the slums and thereby better his offspring. What teacher that 
will not on first thouglit answer that the child of an educated 
jiarent learns more easih' than that of an ignorant and illiterate 
father? And so we may read in the stock journals and the fanciers 
journals of the tramsmission of acquired traits and an outbreak of 
discussion is probable at any time. Of discussions on this topic 
the most noteworthy is the Spencer-Weismann controversy that 
was carried on in the pages of the Con feiiipomrv Review in 1893. 
The discussion aro.se from an article b}’ Herbert Spencer entitled 
“The Inadequacy of Natural Selection.’’ In it he attempted to 
.show that coadaptation of the various parts of the body of an 
organism could be explained far ea.sier by admitting the transmis- 
sion of functional changes than by the theory of Natural Selec- 
tion. From the law of probabilit>’ he attempted to show that the 
chance of two characters that were mutually adapted arising in 
the .same individual was almost infinite. As a concrete examjde he 
took the case of the stag with its antlers weighing pounds. Now 
in an adult stag we find the mo.st beautiful coadaptation of parts 
to parts. The shoulder muscles are immense, the front legs are 
much .stronger than the hinder pair, there is an increa.sed blood 
suppl}’ to these parts, etc. How, he asks, can we assume that all 
these adaptations arose simultaneously in the same individual as 
variations, so that from the other less favorable conditions these 
were selected by natural .selection? How much easier, he .says, 
is the transmission hypothesis to be applied here! 
In answering this and admitting the force of the argument, 
W'eismann submits that if one case could be shown whereby there 
is no po.ssibility of the tramsmission of acquired characters the 
burden of proof would fall to the transmi,ssionists. As such a 
case he brings forward that of the worker bee. It is well known 
that the worker bee as well as the soldier termite produce no off- 
spring, as in their development the organs of generation atroplu'. 
