49 
[Jeffries. 
accepted laws of life. Yet the more evolved forms maybe subject 
to evolved laws producing the same result. 
The second law, that constant change of habit may produce per- 
manent change in animal organisms, has not as yet been proved, 
but may fairly be said to rest on the same kind of probability as 
natural selection ; indeed that natural selection rests upon it. Wi- 
dening the law to constant change of surrounding, or habit may pro- 
duce permanent change of organism, simply strengthens the law, 
includes changes due to habit and also direct changes. 
The third law, that constant change of surroundings produces 
permanent changes in plants by means of changes in nutrition (used 
in a very wide sense) , is supported by the same kind of reasoning 
as natural selection and apparently by experimental proof in the 
case of “weakened ” bacteria. 
If Lamarck’s law or the widened law that organisms take on 
hereditary changes owing to changes of condition be accepted, a 
change must be made back towards the old idea of species. The 
older naturalists held that there really were such things as species. 
The modern ones look to the individual in theory, the species in 
fact. Now as species occur in definite regions they must, if sub- 
ject to Lamarckian laws of varying from outside conditions, vary 
together. They are almost alike, and like things under like con- 
ditions must give like results. 
The more ample recognition of physico-chemical laws is by no 
means incompatible with Darwin’s views. Indeed the latter starts 
off from Lamarck’s two formulated laws, though he only mentions 
his name to condemn him. Natural selection, sexual selection, se- 
lection for protection, in short all kinds of selection, necessitate a 
basis of hereditary variation to work upon. The only question is 
the source of the variation. The objections previously pointed out 
negative the idea of their being inherent in life ; if not inherent, 
they must be due to extraneous causes. 
Do we not rank Darwinism, that is the principle of selection, too 
highly ? Have we not put the turtle on top of the world ? 
The paper was discussed with warmth by Professors Hyatt and 
Morse. 
Remarks were also made by the secretary on the importance of 
the observations. 
Prof. H. W. Haynes then spoke as follows on the “Palaeolithic 
PROCEEDINGS B. S. N. H. VOL. XXV 4 DECEMBER, 1890 . 
