Aug., 1890. 
WEISMANN S THEORY OF GERM-PLASM. 
175 
organism could be communicated by transfusion of blood to 
the offspring of another. This was disproved by Mr. Francis 
Galton, who made a number of experiments upon rabbits for 
the purpose of ascertaining if this were the case. If not by 
the blood, bv what other system could such countless gem- 
mules, that are required by the theory, be transmitted in con¬ 
tinuous streams to the germ-cells ? In spite of this, however, 
this is still the simplest theory yet put forward to provide for 
the transmission of acquired variations. 
Much confusion arises from the various interpretations 
placed upon the term “ acquired character.” Any character 
which an adult shows that happens to be a purposeful one, 
and which was not apparent in its progenitors, is put down as 
“acquired;” whereas the term should be restricted to those 
traits that have slowly increased in the individual by a re¬ 
action of the organism to some influence of the environment. 
Other traits that make their appearance late in life are pro¬ 
bably potentially present in the germ. 
In his “ Principles of Biology,” Herbert Spencer devotes 
a few paragraphs to the subject, but does not venture to make 
more than a sketch of a possible theory. His suggestion of 
certain polarities impressed upon the germ-cells by the body 
of the organism brings us little further on our way to the 
solution of the question, as supposititious polarities are no 
more an explanation than are the guiding forces of the 
teleologists; besides which if it were possible that the 
organism can impress itself upon the germ, the resulting 
product could not in any conceivable way be made to repro¬ 
duce the structure that affected it, except by accident. 
Consider, how could an acquired character, such as the 
strengthening of the bone of a limb, even if it caused the 
re-organisation of the whole body and altered the supply of 
nourishment to the germ, affect it in such a manner that the 
tissue of the resulting offspring should be modified in 
exactly the same way. This is the crux of the whole matter. 
It is obvious that any change, however small, in the parent 
should affect the germ, but there is no reason to suppose 
that a disturbance of the nourishment should carry with it 
the likeness of a remote part. The disturbance experienced 
by the germ is not the same thing as the acquired character, 
and if it were, how is it conceivable that the homogeneous 
contents could be so altered by it that it should reproduce the 
cause of the disturbance in detail ? The sensation conveved 
V 
to the brain through the medium of a sense is not the same 
thing as the external object stimulating that sense ; similarly 
a physiological disturbance may have its proper effect, but 
