Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 45.djvu/571

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.



Editor Popular Science Monthly:

Dear Sir: In your issue of this month is an article by Prof. Lester F. Ward entitled Weismann's Concessions. In this Prof. Ward endeavors to show that Prof. Weismann has virtually acknowledged his own hypothesis on the inheritance of acquired characters to be untenable. But Prof. Ward's reasoning is vitiated by a thread of error that runs through the whole article, viz., the assumption that, in showing that Weismann concedes modification of the germ-plasm by agencies outside itself, with consequent variety in inheritance, he has shown that Weismann concedes the "inheritance of acquired characters" in the sense in which this expression is used by Weismann, Romanes, Lankester, and most other biologists of note. By the expression "inheritance of acquired characters," as used by Weismann and Romanes, is meant the acquirement de novo of characters by the somatoplasm of an individual (not characters that the somatoplasm has acquired in consequence of a modification of the germ-plasm) which, in some way, so modify that individual's germ-plasm that its descendants inherit the characters that it originally acquired. This is obviously very different from a modification of the germ-plasm by agencies external to it, that causes the development of new characters in the individuals developed from this germ-plasm and in their descendants. This last is not inconsistent with Weismann's theory of the continuity of the germ-plasm, while the "inheritance of acquired characters" (in the sense used by Weismann) is. Prof. Ward also speaks of the Lamarckian law as if he thought what is generally meant by "Lamarckianism" was different from "inheritance of acquired characters" (in Weismann's sense). He makes another obvious mistake where he criticises Weismann's statement on the inheritance of syphilis, and, if my memory serves me, he makes a great deal more out of his quotation from Romanes than Prof. Romanes ever meant, or the context of the words quoted justifies.

Weismann, while one of the clearest reasoners among biologists, is at times a little hard to understand on account of his style, and I think if Prof. Ward will reread his works he will see that he has not done Prof. Weismann justice.

I do not mean to pose as a supporter of all Weismann's views, but he seems to me to have a clearer conception of the problem of inheritance of acquired characters and of the nature of the proof necessary to solve it than almost any other man. At the same time there is hardly an author who is more misquoted and misrepresented—he is one of Darwin's chief rivals in this respect.

Yours very truly,F. R. Welsh.
328 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia,
June 9, 1894.



WHEN men and women come to saying ungracious things of one another in a kind of hostile rivalry, the situation is not pleasant, and bodes no good to the coming generation. The evil may be a limited one, yet it is, as far as it exists, a real one, and is already embittering and unsettling a good many lives. Well would it be, therefore, if some one could come forward with an eirenicon that would still the unnatural jarring which is a decided feature of today's civilization.

It is the women today who are in the main on the aggressive. In fiction and essay they are employing their newfound intellectual powers in demonstrating how poor a creature is man. According to some, it would appear as if man had been the great imposture of the ages, and that a certain instinct of preservation had led him to deny culture to woman, lest he should be found out, and the bubble of his reputation eternally collapse. One recent writer, who, however, assumes a man's name, has it that if Nature had not implanted a trou-