SurelyifdisusecanbecreditedwiththevastpowersinvolvedinMr。Darwin’sstatementthatithasprobably\"beenthemainagentinrenderingorgansrudimentary，\"nolimitsareassignabletotheaccumulatedeffectsofhabit，providedtheeffectsofhabit，oruseanddisuse，aresupposed，asMr。Darwinsupposedthem，tobeinheritableatall。DarwinianshaveatlengthwokeuptothedilemmainwhichtheyareplacedbythemannerinwhichMr。Darwintriedtositonthetwostoolsofuseanddisuse，andnaturalselectionofaccidentalvariations，atthesametime。TheknellofCharles-DarwinismisrunginMr。Wallace’spresentbook，andinthegeneralperceptiononthepartofbiologiststhatwemusteitherassigntouseanddisusesuchapredominantshareinmodificationastomakeitthefeaturemostpropertobeinsistedon，ordenythatthemodifications，whetherofmindorbody，acquiredduringasinglelifetime，areevertransmittedatall。Iftheycanbeinheritedatall，theycanbeaccumulated。Iftheycanbeaccumulatedatall，theycanbeso，foranythingthatappearstothecontrary，totheextentofthespecificandgenericdifferenceswithwhichwearesurrounded。Theonlythingtodoistopluckthemoutrootandbranch：theyareasacancerwhich，ifthesmallestfibrebeleftunexcised，willgrowagain，andkillanysystemontowhichitisallowedtofasten。Mr。Wallace，therefore，maywellbeexcusedifhecastslongingeyestowardsWeismannism。
AndwhatwasMr。Darwin’ssystem？Whocanmakeheadortailoftheinextricablemuddleinwhichheleftit？The\"OriginofSpecies\"initslatestshapeisthereductionofhedgingtoanabsurdity。HowdidMr。Darwinhimselfleaveitinthelastchapterofthelasteditionofthe\"OriginofSpecies\"？Hewrote：-
\"Ihavenowrecapitulatedthefactsandconsiderationswhichhavethoroughlyconvincedmethatspecieshavebeenmodifiedduringalongcourseofdescent。Thishasbeeneffectedchieflythroughthenaturalselectionofnumerous，successive，slight，favourablevariations；aidedinanimportantmannerbytheinheritedeffectsoftheuseanddisuseofparts，andinanunimportantmanner——thatis，inrelationtoadaptivestructureswhetherpastorpresent——bythedirectactionofexternalconditions，andbyvariationswhichseemtousinourignorancetoarisespontaneously。ItappearsthatI
formerlyunderratedthefrequencyandvalueoftheselatterformsofvariation，asleadingtopermanentmodificationsofstructureindependentlyofnaturalselection。\"
The\"numerous，successive，slight，favourablevariations\"abovereferredtoareintendedtobefortuitous，accidental，spontaneous。
ItistheessenceofMr。Darwin’stheorythatthisshouldbeso。
Mr。Darwin’ssolemnstatement，therefore，ofhistheory，afterhehaddonehisbestorhisworstwithit，is，whenstrippedofsurplusage，asfollows：-
\"Themodificationofspecieshasbeenmainlyeffectedbyaccumulationofspontaneousvariations；ithasbeenaidedinanimportantmannerbyaccumulationofvariationsduetouseanddisuse，andinanunimportantmannerbyspontaneousvariations；Idonotevennowthinkthatspontaneousvariationshavebeenveryimportant，butIusedoncetothinkthemlessimportantthanIdonow。\"
Itisadiscouragingsymptomoftheagethatsuchasystemshouldhavebeensolongbelauded，anditisasignofreturningintelligencethatevenhewhohasbeenmoreespeciallythealteregoofMr。DarwinshouldhavefeltconstrainedtoclosethechapterofCharles-Darwinismasalivingtheory，andrelegateittotheimportantbutnotverycreditableplaceinhistorywhichitmusthenceforthoccupy。Itisastonishing，however，thatMr。Wallaceshouldhavequotedtheextractfromthe\"OriginofSpecies\"justgiven，ashehasdoneonp。412ofhis\"Darwinism，\"withoutbetrayinganysignthathehascaughtitsdriftlessness——fordrift，otherthanadesiretohedge，itassuredlyhasnotgot。Thebattlenowturnsonthequestionwhethermodificationsofeitherstructureorinstinctduetouseordisuseareeverinherited，orwhethertheyarenot。Cantheeffectsofhabitbetransmittedtoprogenyatall？
Weknowthatmoreusuallytheyarenottransmittedtoanyperceptibleextent，butwebelievealsothatoccasionally，andindeednotinfrequently，theyareinheritedandevenintensified。
Whatareourgroundsforthisopinion？ItwillbemyobjecttoputtheseforwardinthefollowingnumberoftheUniversalReview。
THEDEADLOCKINDARWINISM——PARTII{29}
Atthecloseofmyarticleinlastmonth’snumberoftheUniversalReview，IsaidIwouldinthismonth’sissueshowwhytheopponentsofCharles-Darwinismbelievetheeffectsofhabitsacquiredduringthelifetimeofaparenttoproduceaneffectontheirsubsequentoffspring，inspiteofthefactthatwecanrarelyfindtheeffectinanyonegeneration，oreveninseveral，sufficientlymarkedtoarrestourattention。
Iwillnowshowthatoffspringcanbe，andnotveryinfrequentlyis，affectedbyoccurrencesthathaveproducedadeepimpressionontheparentorganism——theeffectproducedontheoffspringbeingsuchasleavesnodoubtthatitistobeconnectedwiththeimpressionproducedontheparent。Havingthusestablishedthegeneralproposition，Iwillproceedtothemoreparticularone——thathabits，involvinguseanddisuseofspecialorgans，withthemodificationsofstructuretherebyengendered，producealsoaneffectuponoffspring，which，thoughseldomperceptibleasregardsstructureinasingle，oreveninseveralgenerations，isneverthelesscapableofbeingaccumulatedinsuccessivegenerationstillitamountstospecificandgenericdifference。IhavefoundthefirstpointasmuchasIcantreatwithinthelimitsofthispresentarticle，andwillavailmyselfofthehospitalityoftheUniversalReviewnextmonthtodealwiththesecond。
ThepropositionwhichIhavetodefendisonewhichnoonetillrecentlywouldhavequestioned，andevennow，thosewholookmostaskanceatitdonotventuretodisputeitunreservedly；theyeverynowandthenadmititasconceivable，andeveninsomecasesprobable；neverthelesstheyseektominimiseit，andtomakeoutthatthereislittleornoconnectionbetweenthegreatmassofthecellsofwhichthebodyiscomposed，andthosecellsthatarealonecapableofreproducingtheentireorganism。Thetendencyistoassigntotheselastalifeoftheirown，apartfrom，andunconnectedwiththatoftheothercellsofthebody，andtocheapenallevidencethattendstoproveanyresponseontheirparttothepasthistoryoftheindividual，andhenceultimatelyoftherace。
ProfessorWeismannistheforemostexponentofthosewhotakethisline。HehasnaturallybeenwelcomedbyEnglishCharles-Darwinians；
forifhisviewcanbesustained，thenitcanbecontendedthatuseanddisuseproducenotransmissibleeffect，andthegroundiscutfromunderLamarck’sfeet；if，ontheotherhand，hisviewisunfounded，theLamarckianreaction，alreadystrong，willgainstillfurtherstrength。Theissue，therefore，isimportant，andisbeingfiercelycontestedbythosewhohaveinvestedtheirallofreputationfordiscernmentinCharles-Darwiniansecurities。
ProfessorWeismann’stheoryis，thatateverynewbirthapartofthesubstancewhichproceedsfromparentsandwhichgoestoformthenewembryoisnotusedupinformingthenewanimal，butremainsaparttogeneratethegerm-cells——orperhapsIshouldsay\"germ-
plasm\"——whichthenewanimalitselfwillinduecourseissue。
Contrastingthegenerallyreceivedviewwithhisown，ProfessorWeismannsaysthataccordingtothefirstofthese\"theorganismproducesgerm-cellsafreshagainandagain，andthatitproducesthementirelyfromitsownsubstance。\"Whilebythesecond\"thegerm-cellsarenolongerlookeduponastheproductoftheparent’sbody，atleastasfarastheiressentialpart——thespecificgerm-
plasm——isconcerned；theyareratherconsideredassomethingwhichistobeplacedincontrastwiththetoutensembleofthecellswhichmakeuptheparent’sbody，andthegerm-cellsofsucceedinggenerationsstandinasimilarrelationtooneanotherasaseriesofgenerationsofunicellularorganismsarisingbyacontinuedprocessofcell-division。\"{30}
Onanotherpagehewrites：-
\"Ibelievethathereditydependsuponthefactthatasmallportionoftheeffectivesubstanceofthegerm，thegerm-plasm，remainsunchangedduringthedevelopmentoftheovumintoanorganism，andthatthispartofthegerm-plasmservesasafoundationfromwhichthegerm-cellsoftheneworganismareproduced。Thereis，therefore，continuityofthegerm-plasmfromonegenerationtoanother。Onemightrepresentthegerm-plasmbythemetaphorofalongcreepingroot-stockfromwhichplantsariseatintervals，theselatterrepresentingtheindividualsofsuccessivegenerations。\"{31}
Mr。Wallace，whodoesnotappeartohavereadProfessorWeismann’sessaysthemselves，butwhoseremarksare，nodoubt，ultimatelyderivedfromthesequeltothepassagejustquotedfrompage266ofProfessorWeismann’sbook，contendsthattheimpossibilityofthetransmissionofacquiredcharactersfollowsasalogicalresultfromProfessorWeismann’stheory，inasmuchasthemolecularstructureofthegerm-plasmthatwillgotoformanysucceedinggenerationisalreadypredeterminedwithinthestillunformedembryoofitspredecessor；\"andWeismann，\"continuesMr。Wallace，\"holdsthattherearenofactswhichreallyprovethatacquiredcharacterscanbeinherited，althoughtheirinheritancehas，bymostwriters，beenconsideredsoprobableashardlytostandinneedofdirectproof。\"
{32}
ProfessorWeismann，inpassagestoonumeroustoquote，showsthatherecognisesthisnecessity，andacknowledgesthatthenon-
transmissionofacquiredcharacters\"formsthefoundationoftheviews\"setforthinhisbook，p。291。
ProfessorRayLankesterdoesnotcommithimselfabsolutelytothisview，butlendsitsupportbysaying（Nature，December12，1889）：
\"ItishardlynecessarytosaythatithasneveryetbeenshownexperimentallythatANYTHINGacquiredbyonegenerationistransmittedtothenext（puttingasidediseases）。\"
Mr。Romanes，writinginNature，March18，1890，andopposingcertaindetailsofProfessorWeismann’stheory，sofarsupportsitastosaythat\"thereisthegravestpossibledoubtlyingagainstthesuppositionthatanyreallyinheriteddecreaseisduetotheinheritedeffectsofdisuse。\"The\"gravestpossibledoubt\"shouldmeanthatMr。Romanesregardsitasamoralcertaintythatdisusehasnotransmittedeffectinreducinganorgan，anditshouldfollowthatheholdsusetohavenotransmittedeffectinitsdevelopment。
Thesequel，however，makesmeuncertainhowfarMr。Romanesintendsthis，andIwouldreferthereadertothearticlewhichMr。RomaneshasjustpublishedonWeismannintheContemporaryReviewforthiscurrentmonth。
TheburdenofMr。ThiseltonDyer’scontroversywiththeDukeofArgyll（seeNature，January16，1890，etseq。）wasthattherewasnoevidenceinsupportofthetransmissionofanyacquiredmodification。Theorthodoxyofscience，therefore，mustbeheldasgivingatanyrateaprovisionalsupporttoProfessorWeismann，butallofthem，includingevenProfessorWeismannhimself，shrinkfromcommittingthemselvestotheopinionthatthegerm-cellsofanyorganismsremaininallcasesunaffectedbytheeventsthatoccurtotheothercellsofthesameorganism，anduntiltheydothistheyhaveknockedthebottomoutoftheircase。
FromamongthepassagesinwhichProfessorWeismannhimselfshowsadesiretohedgeImaytakethefollowingfrompage170ofhisbook：-
\"Iamalsofarfromassertingthatthegerm-plasmwhich，asIhold，istransmittedasthebasisofheredityfromonegenerationtoanother，isabsolutelyunchangeableortotallyuninfluencedbyforcesresidingintheorganismwithinwhichitistransformedintogerm-cells。Iamalsocompelledtoadmititasconceivablethatorganismsmayexertamodifyinginfluenceupontheirgerm-cells，andeventhatsuchaprocessistoacertainextentinevitable。Thenutritionandgrowthoftheindividualmustexercisesomeinfluenceuponitsgerm-cells……\"
ProfessorWeismanndoesindeedgoontosaythatthisinfluencemustbeextremelyslight，butwedonotcarehowslightthechangesproducedmaybeprovidedtheyexistandcanbetransmitted。Onanearlierpage（p。101）hesaidinregardtovariationsgenerallythatweshouldnotexpecttofindthemconspicuous；theirfrequencywouldbeenough，iftheycouldbeaccumulated。Thesameapplieshere，ifstirringeventsthatoccurtothesomaticcellscanproduceanyeffectatallonoffspring。Averysmalleffect，provideditcanberepeatedandaccumulatedinsuccessivegenerations，isallthateventhemostexactingLamarckianwillaskfor。
HavingnowmadethereaderacquaintedwiththepositiontakenbytheleadingCharles-Darwinianauthorities，IwillreturntoProfessorWeismannhimself，whodeclaresthatthetransmissionofacquiredcharacters\"atfirstsightcertainlyseemsnecessary，\"andthat\"itappearsrashtoattempttodispensewithitsaid。\"Hecontinues：-
\"Manyphenomenaonlyappeartobeintelligibleifweassumethehereditarytransmissionofsuchacquiredcharactersasthechangeswhichweascribetotheuseordisuseofparticularorgans，ortothedirectinfluenceofclimate。Furthermore，howcanweexplaininstinctashereditaryhabit，unlessithasgraduallyarisenbytheaccumulation，throughheredity，ofhabitswhichwerepractisedinsucceedinggenerations？\"{33}
ImaysayinpassingthatProfessorWeismannappearstosupposethattheviewofinstinctjustgivenispartoftheCharles-Darwiniansystem，foronpage889ofhisbookhesays\"thatmanyobservershadfollowedDarwininexplainingthem[instincts]asinheritedhabits。\"
ThiswasnotMr。Darwin’sownviewofthematter。Hewrote：-
\"Ifwesupposeanyhabitualactiontobecomeinherited——andIthinkitcanbeshownthatthisdoessometimeshappen——thentheresemblancebetweenwhatoriginallywasahabitandaninstinctbecomessocloseasnottobedistinguished……Butitwouldbethemostseriouserrortosupposethatthegreaternumberofinstinctshavebeenacquiredbyhabitinonegeneration，andthentransmittedbyinheritancetosucceedinggenerations。Itcanbeclearlyshownthatthemostwonderfulinstinctswithwhichweareacquainted，namely，thoseofthehive-beeandofmanyants，couldnotpossiblyhavebeenthusacquired。\"——[\"OriginofSpecies，\"ed。，1859，p。209。]
Againweread：\"Domesticinstinctsaresometimesspokenofasactionswhichhavebecomeinheritedsolelyfromlong-continuedandcompulsoryhabit，butthis，Ithink，isnottrue。\"——Ibid。，p。214。
Again：\"Iamsurprisedthatnoonehasadvancedthisdemonstrativecaseofneuterinsects，againstthewell-knowndoctrineofinheritedhabit，asadvancedbyLamarck。\"——[\"OriginofSpecies，\"ed。1872，p。
283。]
IamnotawarethatLamarckadvancedthedoctrinethatinstinctisinheritedhabit，buthemayhavedonesoinsomeworkthatIhavenotseen。
Itistrue，asIhavemorethanoncepointedout，thatinthelatereditionsofthe\"OriginofSpecies\"itisnolonger\"theMOST
serious\"errortoreferinstinctsgenerallytoinheritedhabit，butitstillremains\"aseriouserror，\"andthisslightrelaxationofseveritydoesnotwarrantProfessorWeismanninascribingtoMr。
Darwinanopinionwhichheemphaticallycondemned。Histone，however，issooffhand，thatthosewhohavelittleacquaintancewiththeliteratureofevolutionwouldhardlyguessthatheisnotmuchbetterinformedonthissubjectthanthemselves。
Returningtotheinheritanceofacquiredcharacters，ProfessorWeismannsaysthatthishasneverbeenprovedeitherbymeansofdirectobservationorbyexperiment。\"Itmustbeadmitted，\"hewrites，\"thatthereareinexistencenumerousdescriptionsofcaseswhichtendtoprovethatsuchmutilationsasthelossoffingers，thescarsofwounds，&c。，areinheritedbytheoffspring，butinthesedescriptionstheprevioushistoryisinvariablyobscure，andhencetheevidencelosesallscientificvalue。\"
TheexperimentsofM。Brown-SequardthrowsomuchlightuponthequestionatissuethatIwillquoteatsomelengthfromthesummarygivenbyMr。Darwininhis\"VariationofAnimalsandPlantsunderDomestication。\"{34}Mr。Darwinwrites：-
\"Withrespecttotheinheritanceofstructuresmutilatedbyinjuriesoralteredbydisease，itwasuntillatelydifficulttocometoanydefiniteconclusion。\"[Thenfollowseveralcasesinwhichmutilationspractisedformanygenerationsarenotfoundtobetransmitted。]\"Notwithstanding，\"continuesMr。Darwin，\"theaboveseveralnegativecases，wenowpossessconclusiveevidencethattheeffectsofoperationsaresometimesinherited。Dr。Brown-Sequardgivesthefollowingsummaryofhisobservationsonguinea-pigs，andthissummaryissoimportantthatIwillquotethewhole：-
\"’1st。Appearanceofepilepsyinanimalsbornofparentshavingbeenrenderedepilepticbyaninjurytothespinalcord。
\"’2nd。Appearanceofepilepsyalsoinanimalsbornofparentshavingbeenrenderedepilepticbythesectionofthesciaticnerve。
\"’3rd。Achangeintheshapeoftheearinanimalsbornofparentsinwhichsuchachangewastheeffectofadivisionofthecervicalsympatheticnerve。
\"’4th。Partialclosureoftheeyelidsinanimalsbornofparentsinwhichthatstateoftheeyelidshadbeencausedeitherbythesectionofthecervicalsympatheticnerveortheremovalofthesuperiorcervicalganglion。
\"’5th。Exophthalmiainanimalsbornofparentsinwhichaninjurytotherestiformbodyhadproducedthatprotrusionoftheeyeball。
ThisinterestingfactIhavewitnessedagoodmanytimes，andIhaveseenthetransmissionofthemorbidstateoftheeyecontinuethroughfourgenerations。Intheseanimalsmodifiedbyheredity，thetwoeyesgenerallyprotruded，althoughintheparentsusuallyonlyoneshowedexophthalmia，thelesionhavingbeenmadeinmostcasesonlyononeofthecorporarestiformia。
\"’6th。Haematomaanddrygangreneoftheearsinanimalsbornofparentsinwhichtheseear-alterationshadbeencausedbyaninjurytotherestiformbodynearthenibofthecalamus。
\"’7th。Absenceoftwotoesoutofthethreeofthehindleg，andsometimesofthethree，inanimalswhoseparentshadeatenuptheirhind-legtoeswhichhadbecomeanaestheticfromasectionofthesciaticnervealone，orofthatnerveandalsoofthecrural。
Sometimes，insteadofcompleteabsenceofthetoes，onlyapartofoneortwoorthreewasmissingintheyoung，althoughintheparentnotonlythetoesbutthewholefootwasabsent（partlyeatenoff，partlydestroyedbyinflammation，ulceration，organgrene）。
\"’8th。Appearanceofvariousmorbidstatesoftheskinandhairoftheneckandfaceinanimalsbornofparentshavinghadsimilaralterationsinthesameparts，aseffectsofaninjurytothesciaticnerve。’
\"ItshouldbeespeciallyobservedthatBrown-Sequardhasbredduringthirtyyearsmanythousandguinea-pigsfromanimalswhichhadnotbeenoperatedupon，andnotoneofthesemanifestedtheepileptictendency。Norhasheeverseenaguinea-pigbornwithouttoes，whichwasnottheoffspringofparentswhichhadgnawedofftheirowntoesowingtothesciaticnervehavingbeendivided。Ofthislatterfactthirteeninstanceswerecarefullyrecorded，andagreaternumberwereseen；yetBrown-Sequardspeaksofsuchcasesasoneoftherarerformsofinheritance。Itisastillmoreinterestingfact，’thatthesciaticnerveinthecongenitallytoelessanimalhasinheritedthepowerofpassingthroughallthedifferentmorbidstateswhichhaveoccurredinoneofitsparentsfromthetimeofthedivisiontillafteritsreunionwiththeperiphericend。Itisnot，therefore，simplythepowerofperforminganactionwhichisinherited，butthepowerofperformingawholeseriesofactions，inacertainorder。’
\"InmostofthecasesofinheritancerecordedbyBrown-Sequardonlyoneofthetwoparentshadbeenoperateduponandwasaffected。Heconcludesbyexpressinghisbeliefthat’whatistransmittedisthemorbidstateofthenervoussystem，’duetotheoperationperformedontheparents。\"
Mr。Darwinproceedstogiveotherinstancesofinheritedeffectsofmutilations：-
\"Withthehorsethereseemshardlyadoubtthatexostosesonthelegs，causedbytoomuchtravellingonhardroads，areinherited。
Blumenbachrecordsthecaseofamanwhohadhislittlefingerontherighthandalmostcutoff，andwhichinconsequencegrewcrooked，andhissonshadthesamefingeronthesamehandsimilarlycrooked。Asoldier，fifteenyearsbeforehismarriage，losthislefteyefrompurulentophthalmia，andhistwosonsweremicrophthalmiconthesameside。\"
ThelateProfessorRolleston，whosecompetenceasanobservernooneislikelytodispute，gaveMr。Darwintwocasesashavingfallenunderhisownnotice，oneofamanwhosekneehadbeenseverelywounded，andwhosechildwasbornwiththesamespotmarkedorscarred，andtheotherofonewhowasseverelycutuponthecheek，andwhosechildwasbornscarredinthesameplace。Mr。Darwin’sconclusionwasthat\"theeffectsofinjuries，especiallywhenfollowedbydisease，orperhapsexclusivelywhenthusfollowed，areoccasionallyinherited。\"
LetusnowseewhatProfessorWeismannhastosayagainstthis。Hewrites：-
\"Theonlycasesworthyofdiscussionarethewell-knownexperimentsuponguinea-pigsconductedbytheFrenchphysiologist，Brown-
Sequard。Buttheexplanationofhisresultsis，inmyopinion，opentodiscussion。Inthesecaseswehavetodowiththeapparenttransmissionofartificiallyproducedmalformations……Alltheseeffectsweresaidtobetransmittedtodescendantsasfarasthefifthorsixthgeneration。
\"Butwemustinquirewhetherthesecasesarereallyduetoheredity，andnottosimpleinfection。Inthecaseofepilepsy，atanyrate，itiseasytoimaginethatthepassageofsomespecificorganismthroughthereproductivecellsmaytakeplace，asinthecaseofsyphilis。Weare，however，entirelyignorantofthenatureoftheformerdisease。Thissuggestedexplanationmaynotperhapsapplytotheothercases；butwemustrememberthatanimalswhichhavebeensubjectedtosuchsevereoperationsuponthenervoussystemhavesustainedagreatshock，andiftheyarecapableofbreeding，itisonlyprobablethattheywillproduceweakdescendants，andsuchasareeasilyaffectedbydisease。Sucharesultdoesnot，however，explainwhytheoffspringshouldsufferfromthesamediseaseasthatwhichwasartificiallyinducedintheparents。Butthisdoesnotappeartohavebeenbyanymeansinvariablythecase。Brown-
Sequardhimselfsays：’Thechangesintheeyeoftheoffspringwereofaveryvariablenature，andwereonlyoccasionallyexactlysimilartothoseobservedintheparents。’
\"Thereisnodoubt，however，thattheseexperimentsdemandcarefulconsideration，butbeforetheycanclaimscientificrecognition，theymustbesubjectedtorigidcriticismastotheprecautionstaken，thenatureandnumberofthecontrolexperiments，&c。
\"Uptothepresenttimesuchnecessaryconditionshavenotbeensufficientlyobserved。Therecentexperimentsthemselvesareonlydescribedinshortpreliminarynotices，which，asregardstheiraccuracy，thepossibilityofmistake，theprecautionstaken，andtheexactsuccessionofindividualsaffected，affordnodataonwhichascientificopinioncanbefounded\"（pp。81，82）。
ThelineProfessorWeismanntakes，therefore，istodiscreditthefacts；yetonalaterpagewefindthattheexperimentshavesincebeenrepeatedbyObersteiner，\"whohasdescribedtheminaveryexactandunprejudicedmanner，\"andthat\"thefact\"——（IimaginethatProfessorWeismannintends\"thefacts\"）——\"cannotbedoubted。\"
Onastilllaterpage，however，weread：-
\"If，forinstance，itcouldbeshownthatartificialmutilationspontaneouslyreappearsintheoffspringwithsufficientfrequencytoexcludeallpossibilitiesofchance，thensuchproof[i。e。，thatacquiredcharacterscanbetransmitted]wouldbeforthcoming。Thetransmissionofmutilationshasbeenfrequentlyasserted，andhasbeenevenrecentlyagainbroughtforward，butallthesupposedinstanceshavebrokendownwhencarefullyexamined\"（p。390）。
Here，then，wearetoldthatproofoftheoccasionaltransmissionofmutilationswouldbesufficienttoestablishthefact，butonp。267
wefindthatnosinglefactisknownwhichreallyprovesthatacquiredcharacterscanbetransmitted，\"FORTHEASCERTAINEDFACTS
WHICHSEEMTOPOINTTOTHETRANSMISSIONOFARTIFICIALLYPRODUCED
DISEASESCANNOTBECONSIDEREDASPROOF\"[Italicsmine。]Perhaps；
butitwasmutilationinmanycasesthatProfessorWeismannpracticallyadmittedtohavebeentransmittedwhenhedeclaredthatObersteinerhadverifiedBrown-Sequard’sexperiments。
ThatProfessorWeismannrecognisesthevitalimportancetohisowntheoryofthequestionwhetherornomutilationscanbetransmittedunderanycircumstances，isevidentfromapassageonp。425ofhiswork，onwhichhesays：\"Itcanhardlybedoubtedthatmutilationsareacquiredcharacters；theydonotarisefromanytendencycontainedinthegerm，butaremerelythereactionofthebodyundercertainexternalinfluences。Theyare，asIhaverecentlyexpressedit，purelysomatogeniccharacters——viz。，characterswhichemanatefromthebody（soma）only，asopposedtothegerm-cells；theyare，therefore，charactersthatdonotarisefromthegermitself。
\"Ifmutilationsmustnecessarilybetransmitted\"[whichnoonethatIknowofhasmaintained]，\"oreveniftheymightoccasionallybetransmitted\"[whichcannot，Iimagine，bereasonablyquestioned]，\"apowerfulsupportwouldbegiventotheLamarckianprinciple，andthetransmissionoffunctionalhypertrophyoratrophywouldthusbecomehighlyprobable。\"
IhavenotfoundanyfurtherattemptinProfessorWeismann’sbooktodealwiththeevidenceadducedbyMr。Darwintoshowthatmutilations，iffollowedbydiseases，aresometimesinherited；andI
mustleaveittothereadertodeterminehowfarProfessorWeismannhasshownreasonforrejectingMr。Darwin’sconclusion。Idonot，however，dwelluponthesefactsnowasevidenceofatransmittedchangeofbodilyform，orofinstinctduetouseanddisuseorhabit；whattheyproveisthatthegerm-cellswithintheparent’sbodydonotstandapartfromtheothercellsofthebodysocompletelyasProfessorWeismannwouldhaveusbelieve，butthat，asProfessorHering，ofPrague，hasaptlysaid，theyechowithmoreorlessfrequencyandforcetotheprofounderimpressionsmadeuponothercells。
ImaysaythatProfessorWeismanndoesnotmorecavalierlywaveasidethemassofevidencecollectedbyMr。Darwinandahostofotherwriters，totheeffectthatmutilationsaresometimesinherited，thandoesMr。Wallace，whosaysthat，\"asregardsmutilations，itisgenerallyadmittedthattheyarenotinherited，andthereisampleevidenceonthispoint。\"Itisindeedgenerallyadmittedthatmutilations，whennotfollowedbydisease，areveryrarely，ifever，inherited；andMr。Wallace’sappealtothe\"ampleevidence\"whichheallegestoexistonthishead，ismuchasthoughheshouldsaythatthereisampleevidencetoshowthatthedaysarelongerinsummerthaninwinter。\"Nevertheless，\"hecontinues，\"afewcasesofapparentinheritanceofmutilationshavebeenrecorded，andthese，iftrustworthy，aredifficultiesinthewayofthetheory。\"……\"Theoften-quotedcaseofadiseaseinducedbymutilationbeinginherited（Brown-Sequard’sepilepticguinea-pigs）
hasbeendiscussedbyProfessorWeismannandshowntobenotconclusive。Themutilationitself——asectionofcertainnerves——wasneverinherited，buttheresultingepilepsy，orageneralstateofweakness，deformity，orsores，wassometimesinherited。Itis，however，possiblethatthemereinjuryintroducedandencouragedthegrowthofcertainmicrobes，which，spreadingthroughtheorganism，sometimesreachedthegerm-cells，andthustransmittedadiseasedconditiontotheoffspring。\"{35}
Isupposeamicrobewhichmadeguinea-pigseattheirtoesoffwascommunicatedtothegerm-cellsofanunfortunateguinea-pigwhichhadbeenalreadymicrobedbyit，andmadetheoffspringbiteitstoesofftoo。Themicrobehasagooddealtoanswerfor。
OnthecaseofthedeteriorationofhorsesintheFalklandIslandsafterafewgenerations，ProfessorWeismannsays：-
\"Insuchacasewehaveonlytoassumethattheclimatewhichisunfavourable，andthenutrimentwhichisinsufficientforhorses，affectnotonlytheanimalasawholebutalsoitsgerm-cells。Thiswouldresultinthediminutioninsizeofthegerm-cells，theeffectsupontheoffspringbeingstillfurtherintensifiedbytheinsufficientnourishmentsuppliedduringgrowth。Butsuchresultswouldnotdependuponthetransmissionbythegerm-cellsofcertainpeculiaritiesduetotheunfavourableclimate，whichonlyappearinthefull-grownhorse。\"
ButProfessorWeismanndoesnotlikesuchcases，andadmitsthathecannotexplainthefactsinconnectionwiththeclimaticvarietiesofcertainbutterflies，except\"bysupposingthepassiveacquisitionofcharactersproducedbythedirectinfluenceofclimate。\"
Neverthelessinhisnextparagraphbutonehecallssuchcases\"doubtful，\"andproposesthatforthemomenttheyshouldbeleftaside。Heaccordinglyleavesthem，butIhavenotyetfoundwhatothermomentheconsideredauspiciousforreturningtothem。Hetellsusthat\"newexperimentswillbenecessary，andthathehashimselfalreadybeguntoundertakethem。\"Perhapshewillgiveustheresultsoftheseexperimentsinsomefuturebook——forthattheywillprovesatisfactorytohimcanhardly，Ithink，bedoubted。Hewrites：-
\"Leavingononeside，forthemoment，thesedoubtfulandinsufficientlyinvestigatedcases，wemaystillmaintainthattheassumptionthatchangesinducedbyexternalconditionsintheorganismasawholearecommunicatedtothegerm-cellsafterthemannerindicatedinDarwin’shypothesisofpangenesis，iswhollyunnecessaryfortheexplanationofthesephenomena。Stillwecannotexcludethepossibilityofsuchatransmissionoccasionallyoccurring，forevenifthegreaterpartoftheeffectsmustbeattributabletonaturalselection，theremightbeasmallerpartincertaincaseswhichdependsonthisexceptionalfactor。\"
IrepeatedlytriedtounderstandMr。Darwin’stheoryofpangenesis，andsooftenfailedthatIlongsincegavethematterupindespair。
IdidsowiththelessunwillingnessbecauseIsawthatnooneelseappearedtounderstandthetheory，andthatevenMr。Darwin’swarmestadherentsregardeditwithdisfavour。IfMr。Darwinmeansthateverycellofthebodythrowsoffminuteparticlesthatfindtheirwaytothegerm-cells，andhenceintothenewembryo，thisisindeeddifficultofcomprehensionandbelief。Ifhemeansthattherhythmsorvibrationsthatgoonceaselesslyineverycellofthebodycommunicatethemselveswithgreaterorlessaccuracyorperturbation，asthecasemaybe，tothecellsthatgotoformoffspring，andthatsincethecharacteristicsofmatteraredeterminedbyvibrations，incommunicatingvibrationstheyineffectcommunicatematter，accordingtotheviewputforwardinthelastchapterofmybook\"LuckorCunning，\"{36}thenwecanbetterunderstandit。Ihavenothing，however，todowithMr。Darwin’stheoryofpangenesisbeyondavoidingthepretencethatIunderstandeitherthetheoryitselforwhatProfessorWeismannsaysaboutit；
allIamconcernedwithisProfessorWeismann’sadmission，madeimmediatelyafterwards，thatthesomaticcellsmay，andperhapssometimesdo，impartcharacteristicstothegerm-cells。
\"Acompleteandsatisfactoryrefutationofsuchanopinion，\"hecontinues，\"cannotbebroughtforwardatpresent\"；soIsupposewemustwaitalittlelonger，butinthemeantimewemayagainremarkthat，ifweadmitevenoccasionalcommunicationofchangesinthesomaticcellstothegerm-cells，wehaveletinthethinendofthewedge，asMr。Darwindidwhenhesaidthatuseanddisusedidagooddealtowardsmodification。Buffon，inhisfirstvolumeontheloweranimals，{37}dwellsontheimpossibilityofstoppingthebreachoncemadebyadmissionofvariationatall。\"Ifthepoint，\"hewrites，\"wereoncegained，thatamonganimalsandvegetablestherehadbeen，Idonotsayseveralspecies，butevenasingleone，whichhadbeenproducedinthecourseofdirectdescentfromanotherspecies；if，forexample，itcouldbeonceshownthattheasswasbutadegenerationfromthehorse——thenthereisnofartherlimittobesettothepowerofNature，andweshouldnotbewronginsupposingthatwithsufficienttimeshecouldhaveevolvedallotherorganisedformsfromoneprimordialtype。\"Sowithuseanddisuseandtransmissionofacquiredcharacteristicsgenerally——onceshowthatasinglestructureorinstinctisduetohabitinprecedinggenerations，andwecanimposenolimitontheresultsachievablebyaccumulationinthisrespect，norshallwebewronginconceivingitaspossiblethatallspecialisation，whetherofstructureorinstinct，maybedueultimatelytohabit。
Howfarthiscanbeshowntobeprobableis，ofcourse，anothermatter，butIamnotimmediatelyconcernedwiththis；allIamconcernedwithnowistoshowthatthegerm-cellsnotunfrequentlybecomepermanentlyaffectedbyeventsthathavemadeaprofoundimpressionuponthesomaticcells，insofarthattheytransmitanobviousreminiscenceoftheimpressiontotheembryoswhichtheygosubsequentlytowardsforming。Thisisallthatisnecessaryformycase，andIdonotfindthatProfessorWeismann，afterall，disputesit。
Buthere，again，comesthedifficultyofsayingwhatProfessorWeismanndoes，andwhathedoesnot，dispute。OnemomenthegivesallthatiswantedfortheLamarckiancontention，thenexthedeniescommon-sensethebarenecessariesoflife。ForamoreexhaustiveanddetailedcriticismofProfessorWeismann’sposition，IwouldreferthereadertoanadmirablycleararticlebyMr。SidneyH。
Vines，whichappearedinNature，October24，1889。IcanonlysaythatwhilereadingProfessorWeismann’sbook，IfeelasIdowhenI
readthoseofMr。Darwin，andofagoodmanyotherwritersonbiologywhomIneednotname。Ibecomelikeaflyinawindow-pane。
Iseethesunshineandfreedombeyond，andbuzzupanddowntheirpages，everhopefultogetthroughthemtothefreshairwithout，buteverkeptbackbyamysterioussomething，whichIfeelbutcannoteithergrasporsee。ItwasnotthuswhenIreadBuffon，ErasmusDarwin，andLamarck；itisnotthuswhenIreadsucharticlesasMr。Vines’sjustreferredto。Loveofself-display，andthewantofsinglenessofmindthatitinevitablyengenders——these，Isuppose，arethesinsthatglazethecasementsofmostmen’sminds；andfromthese，nomatterhowhardhetriestofreehimself，norhowmuchhedespisesthem，whoisaltogetherexempt？
Finally，then，whenweconsidertheimmensemassofevidencereferredtobriefly，butsufficiently，byMr。CharlesDarwin，andreferredtowithoutother，forthemostpart，thanoff-handdismissalbyProfessorWeismanninthelastoftheessaysthathavebeenrecentlytranslated，Idonotseehowanyonewhobringsanunbiasedmindtothequestioncanhesitateastothesideonwhichtheweightoftestimonyinclines。ProfessorWeismanndeclaresthat\"thetransmissionofmutilationsmaybedismissedintothedomainoffable。\"{38}Ifso，then，whomcanwetrust？WhatistheuseofscienceatalliftheconclusionsofamanascompetentasIreadilyadmitMr。Darwintohavebeen，ontheevidencelaidbeforehimfromcountlesssources，istobesetasidelightlyandwithoutgivingtheclearestandmostcogentexplanationofthewhyandwherefore？Whenweseeaperson\"ostrichising\"theevidencewhichhehastomeet，asclearlyasIbelieveProfessorWeismanntobedoing，weshallinninecasesoutoftenberightinsupposingthatheknowstheevidencetobetoostrongforhim。
THEDEADLOCKINDARWINISM——PARTIII
Nowletmereturntotherecentdivisionofbiologicalopinionintotwomainstreams——LamarckismandWeismannismBothLamarckiansandWeismannists，nottomentionmankindingeneral，admitthatthebetteradaptedtoitssurroundingsalivingformmaybe，themorelikelyitistooutbreeditscompeers。Theworldatlarge，again，needsnottobetoldthatthenormalcourseisnotunfrequentlydeflectedthroughthefortunesofwar；nevertheless，accordingtoLamarckiansandErasmus-Darwinians，habitualeffort，guidedbyever-
growingintelligence——thatistosay，bycontinuedincreaseofpowerinthematterofknowingourlikesanddislikes——hasbeensomuchthemainfactorthroughoutthecourseoforganicdevelopment，thattherest，thoughnotlostsightof，maybeallowedtogowithoutsaying。According，ontheotherhand，toextremeCharles-DarwiniansandWeismannists，habit，effortandintelligenceacquiredduringtheexperienceofanyonelifegoesfornothing。Notevenalittlefractionofitendurestothebenefitofoffspring。Itdieswithhiminwhomitisacquired，andtheheirsofaman’sbodytakenointeresttherein。Tostatethisdoctrineistoarouseinstinctiveloathing；itismyfortunatetasktomaintainthatsuchanightmareofwasteanddeathisasbaselessasitisrepulsive。
ThesplitinbiologicalopinionoccasionedbythedeadlocktowhichCharles-Darwinismhasbeenreduced，thoughcomparativelyrecent，widensrapidly。TenyearsagoLamarck’snamewasmentionedonlyasabywordforextravagance；now，wecannottakeupanumberofNaturewithoutseeinghowhotthecontentionisbetweenhisfollowersandthoseofWeismann。Thismustbereferred，asIimpliedearlier，togrowingperceptionthatMr。DarwinshouldeitherhavegonefarthertowardsLamarckismornotsofar。Inadmittinguseanddisuseasfreelyashedid，hegaveLamarckiansleveragefortheoverthrowofasystembasedostensiblyontheaccumulationoffortunateaccidents。Inassigningthelion’sshareofdevelopmenttotheaccumulationoffortunateaccidents，hetemptedfortuitiststotrytocutthegroundfromunderLamarck’sfeetbydenyingthattheeffectsofuseanddisusecanbeinheritedatall。WhenthepublichadoncegottounderstandwhatLamarckhadintended，andwhereinMr。CharlesDarwinhaddifferedfromhim，itbecameimpossibleforCharles-Darwinianstoremainwheretheywere，norisiteasytoseewhatcoursewasopentothemexcepttocastaboutforatheorybywhichtheycouldgetridofuseanddisusealtogether。Weismannism，therefore，istheinevitableoutcomeofthestraitstowhichCharles-Darwinianswerereducedthroughthewayinwhichtheirleaderhadhaltedbetweentwoopinions。
ThisiswhyCharles-Darwinians，fromProfessorHuxleydownwards，havekeptthedifferencebetweenLamarck’sopinionsandthoseofMr。
Darwinsomuchinthebackground。UnwillingnesstomakethisunderstoodisnowheremanifestedmoreclearlythaninDr。FrancisDarwin’slifeofhisfather。InthisworkLamarckissneeredatonceortwice，andtoldtogoaway，butthereisnoattempttostatethetwocasessidebyside；fromwhich，asfromnotalittleelse，I
concludethatDr。FrancisDarwinhasdescendedfromhisfatherwithsingularlylittlemodification。
Proceedingtotheevidenceforthetransmissionsofacquiredhabits，Iwillquotetworecentlyadducedexamplesfromamongthemanythathavebeencrediblyattested。ThefirstwascontributedtoNature（March14，1889）byProfessorMarcusM。Hartog，whowrote：-
\"A。B。ismoderatelymyopicandveryastigmaticinthelefteye；
extremelymyopicintheright。Asthelefteyegavesuchbadimagesfornearobjects，hewascompelledinchildhoodtomaskit，andacquiredthehabitofleaninghisheadonhisleftarmforwriting，soastoblindthateye，orofrestingthelefttempleandeyeonthehand，withtheelbowonthetable。Attheageoffifteentheeyeswereequalisedbytheuseofsuitablespectacles，andhesoonlostthehabitcompletelyandpermanently。Heisnowthefatheroftwochildren，aboyandagirl，whosevision（testedrepeatedlyandfully）isemmetropicinbotheyes，sothattheyhavenotinheritedthecongenitalopticaldefectoftheirfather。Allthesame，theyhavebothoftheminheritedhisearlyacquiredhabit，andneedconstantwatchfulnesstopreventtheirhidingthelefteyewhenwriting，byrestingtheheadontheleftforearmorhand。Imitationisherequiteoutofthequestion。
\"Consideringthateveryhabitinvolveschangesintheproportionaldevelopmentofthemuscularandosseoussystems，andhenceprobablyofthenervoussystemalso，theimportanceofinheritedhabits，naturaloracquired，cannotbeoverlookedinthegeneraltheoryofinheritance。IamfullyawarethatIshallbeaccusedofflatLamarckism，butanicknameisnotanargument。\"
TothisProfessorRayLankesterrejoined（Nature，March21，1889）：-
\"Itisnotunusualforchildrentoresttheheadontheleftforearmorhandwhenwriting，andIdoubtwhethermuchvaluecanbeattachedtothecasedescribedbyProfessorHartog。Thekindofobservationwhichhislettersuggestsis，however，likelytoleadtoresultseitherfororagainstthetransmissionofacquiredcharacters。Anoldfriendofminelosthisrightarmwhenaschoolboy，andhaseversincewrittenwithhisleft。Hehasalargefamilyandgrandchildren，butIhavenotheardofanyofthemshowingadispositiontoleft-handedness。\"
FromNature（March21，1889）ItakethesecondinstancecommunicatedbyMr。J。Jenner-Weir，whowroteasfollows：-
\"Mr。MarcusM。Hartog’sletterofMarch6th，insertedinlastweek’snumber（p。462），isaveryvaluablecontributiontothegrowingevidencethatacquiredcharactersmaybeinherited。Ihavelongheldtheviewthatsuchisoftenthecase，andIhavemyselfobservedseveralinstancesofthe，atleastImaysay，apparentfact。
\"ManyyearsagotherewasaveryfinemaleoftheCapramegacerosinthegardensoftheZoologicalSociety。Torestrainthisanimalfromjumpingoverthefenceoftheenclosureinwhichhewasconfined，along，andheavychainwasattachedtothecollarroundhisneck。Hewasconstantlyinthehabitoftakingthischainupbyhishornsandmovingitfromonesidetoanotheroverhisback；indoingthishethrewhisheadverymuchback，hishornsbeingplacedinalinewiththeback。Thehabithadbecomequitechronicwithhim，andwasverytiresometolookat。Iwasverymuchastonishedtoobservethathisoffspringinheritedthehabit，andalthoughitwasnotnecessarytoattachachaintotheirnecks，Ihaveoftenseenayoungmalethrowinghishornsoverhisbackandshiftingfromsidetosideanimaginarychain。Theactionwasexactlythesameasthatofhisancestor。ThecaseofthekidofthisgoatappearstometobeparalleltothatofchildandparentgivenbyMr。Hartog。IthinkatthetimeImadethisobservationIinformedMr。Darwinofthefactbyletter，andhedidnotaccusemeof’flatLamarckism。’\"
Tothislettertherewasnorejoinder。Itmaybesaid，ofcourse，thattheactionoftheoffspringineachofthesecaseswasduetoaccidentalcoincidenceonly。Anythingcanbesaid，butthequestionturnsnotonwhatanadvocatecansay，butonwhatareasonablyintelligentanddisinterestedjurywillbelieve；grantedtheymightbemistakeninacceptingtheforegoingstories，buttheworldofscience，likethatofcommerce，isbasedonthefaithorconfidence，whichbothcreatesandsustainsthem。Indeedtheuniverseitselfisbutthecreatureoffaith，forassuredlyweknowofnootherfoundation。Thereisnothingsogenerallyandreasonablyaccepted——
notevenourowncontinuedidentity——butquestionsmayberaisedaboutitthatwillshortlyproveunanswerable。Wecannotsotesteverysixpencegivenusinchangeastobesurethatwenevertakeabadone，andhadbettersometimesbecheatedthanreducecautiontoanabsurdity。Moreover，wehaveseenfromtheevidencegiveninmyprecedingarticlethatthegerm-cellsissuingfromaparent’sbodycan，anddo，respondtoprofoundimpressionsmadeonthesomatic-
cells。Thisbeingso，whatimpressionsaremoreprofound，whatneedsengagemoreassiduousattentionthanthoseconnectedwithself-protection，theprocuringoffood，andthecontinuationofthespecies？Ifthemereanxietyconnectedwithanill-healingwoundinflictedonbutonegenerationissometimesfoundtohavesoimpressedthegerm-cellsthattheyhanddownitsscarstooffspring，howmuchmoreshallnotanxietiesthathavedirectedactionofallkindsfrombirthtilldeath，notinonegenerationonlybutinalongerseriesofgenerationsthanthemindcanrealisetoitself，modify，andindeedcontrol，theorganisationofeveryspecies？
IseeProfessorS。H。Vines，inthearticleonWeismann’stheoryreferredtoinmyprecedingarticle，saysMr。Darwin\"heldthatitwasnotthesuddenvariationsduetoalteredexternalconditionswhichbecomepermanent，butthoseslowlyproducedbywhathetermed’theaccumulativeactionofchangedconditionsoflife。’\"NothingcanbemoresoundlyLamarckian，andnothingshouldmoreconclusivelyshowthat，whateverelseMr。Darwinwas，hewasnotaCharles-