indubitably proves that such characters are inherited.

Mr J. T. Cunningham, in a paper of great value and interest, entitled “The Heredity of Secondary Sexual Characters in relation to Hormones: a Theory of the Heredity of Somatogenic Characters,” which appeared in vol. xxvi., No. 3, of the Archiv für Entwicklungsmechanik des Organismen, states: “The dogma that acquired characters cannot be inherited . . . is founded not so much on evidence, or the absence of evidence, as on a priori reasoning, on the supposed difficulty or impossibility of conceiving a means by which such inheritance could be effected.” Such appears certainly to be true of some zoologists, but we trust that Mr Cunningham will do us the justice to believe that our opinion that the inheritance of acquired characters does not play an important part in the evolution of, at any rate, the higher animals, is based, not on the ground of a priori reasoning, but on facts. All the evidence seems to show that such characteristics are not inherited. If, as Mr Cunningham thinks, all secondary sexual characters are due to the inheritance of the effects of use, etc., how is it that no Neo-Lamarckian is able to bring forward a clear case of the inheritance of a well-defined acquired character? If such characteristics are habitually inherited, countless examples should be forthcoming. Fanciers in their endeavours are constantly “doctoring” the animals they keep for show purposes; and it seems to us certain that if acquired characters are inherited, breeders would long ago have discovered this and acted upon the discovery. If Neo-Darwinians are charged with refusing to believe that acquired characters are inherited because they “cannot conceive the means by which it could be effected,” may it not be said with equal justice that many Neo-Lamarckians believe that acquired characters are inherited, not on evidence thereof, but because if such characters are not inherited it is very difficult to account for many of the phenomena presented by the organic world?

In many of the lower animals, as, for example, the hydra, the germinal material is diffused through the organism, so that a complete individual can be developed from a small portion of the creature. In such circumstances it seems not improbable that the external environment may act directly on the germinal substance, and induce changes in it which may perhaps be transmitted to the offspring. If this be so, it would seem that some acquired characters may be inherited in such organisms. Very many plants can be propagated from cuttings, buds, etc., so that we might reasonably expect some acquired characters to be hereditary in them. The majority of botanists appear to hold Lamarckian views; but on the evidence at present available, it is doubtful whether such views are the correct ones.

Plants are so plastic, so protean, so sensitive to their environment that their external structure appears to be determined by the external conditions in which they find themselves quite as much as by their inherited tendencies. In this respect they differ very considerably from the higher animals. The peacock, for example, presents the same outward appearance[1] whether bred and reared in Asia or Europe, in a hot or cold, a damp or a dry climate. The same plant, on the other hand, differs greatly in outward appearance according as it is grown in a dry or a damp soil, a hot or a cold country. In his recent book The Heredity of Acquired Characters in Plants, the Rev. G. Henslow cites several examples of the celerity with which plants react to their environment. On page 32 he writes: “The following is an experiment I made with the common rest-harrow (Ononis spinosa, L.) growing wild in a very dry situation by a roadside. I collected some seeds, and also took cuttings. These I planted in a garden border, keeping this well moist with a hand-light over it, and a saucer of water, so that the air should be thoroughly moist as well. Its natural conditions were thus completely reversed. They all grew vigorously. The new branches of the first year’s growth bore spines, proving their hereditary character, but instead of their being long and stout, they were not an inch long, and like needles. This proved the spines to be a hereditary feature. In the second year there were none at all; moreover, the plants blossomed, and, taken altogether, there was no appreciable difference from O. repens, L.”

From this experiment Professor Henslow draws the inference that acquired characters tend to be inherited in plants. In our opinion the experiment affords strong evidence against the Lamarckian doctrine. Here we have a plant which has, perhaps, for thousands of generations developed spines owing to its dry environment. If acquired characters are inherited we should have expected this spiny character to have become fixed and persisted under changed conditions, for some generations at any rate. But what do we find? By the second year the thorns have entirely disappeared. All the years during which the plant was exposed to a dry environment have left no stamp upon it. The fact that the new branches of the first year’s growth bore small spines is not, as Professor Henslow asserts, proof of their hereditary character. It merely shows that the initial stimulus to their development occurred while the plant was still in its dry surroundings.

In the same way all other so-called proofs of the heredity of acquired characters break down when critically examined.

In our opinion “not proven” is the proper verdict on the question of the possibility of the inheritance of acquired characters in the higher animals. One thing is certain, and that is that acquired characters are not commonly inherited in those organisms in which there is a sharp distinction between the germinal and the somatic cells.

It is nothing short of a misfortune that Haeckel’s History of Creation, which seems to be so widely read in England, should be built on a fallacious foundation. It seems to us that this work is calculated to mislead rather than to teach.

Our attitude is not quite that of the Wallaceian school, which denies the possibility of the inheritance of acquired characters. In practice, however, the attitude we adopt is as fatal to Lamarckism in all its forms as the dogmatic assertions of the Wallaceians. It matters not whether acquired characters are very rarely or never inherited. In either case their inheritance cannot have played an important part in evolution. All those theories which rely on use-inheritance as a factor in evolution are therefore in our opinion worthless, being opposed to facts. Our attitude, then, is that the inheritance of acquired characteristics, if it does occur, is so rare as to be a negligible quantity in organic evolution.

We may add that the position which we occupy will not be affected even if the Lamarckians do succeed eventually in proving that some acquired characters are really inherited. Such proof would merely help to elucidate some of the problems which confront the biologist. Thus the question of the inheritance of acquired characters, while full of interest, has no very important bearing on the question of the making of species.

The Wallaceian School

The Wallaceians hold the doctrines which have been set forth above as those of the Neo-Darwinian school. It is incorrect to call those who pin their faith to the all-sufficiency of natural selection Neo-Darwinians, because Darwin at no time