![adjusted solely by the survival of the fittest, and especially where
the parts are numerous and the coöperation complex.”
Spencer illustrates his point by the case of the extinct Irish elk,
whose immensely developed horns weighed over a hundredweight.
The horns, together with the massive skull, could not have been
supported by the outstretched neck without many and great
changes of the muscles and bones of the neck and of the fore-part
of the body. Unless, for instance, the fore-legs had been also
strengthened, there would be failure in fighting and in locomotion.
Since “we cannot assume spontaneous increase of all these parts
proportionate to the additional strains, we cannot suppose them to
increase by variations one at once, without supposing the creature
to be disadvantaged by the weight and nutrition of the parts that
were for a time useless,—parts, moreover, which would revert to
their original sizes before the other needful variations occurred.”
The answer made to this argument was that coördinating parts
vary together. In reply to which Spencer points to the following
cases, which show that this is not so: The blind crayfish in the
Kentucky caves have lost their eyes, but not the stalks that carry
them. Again, the normal relation between the length of tongue and
of beak in some varieties of pigeons is lost. The greater decrease in
the jaws in some species of pet dogs than of the number of their
teeth has caused the teeth to become crowded.[18]
“I then argued
that if coöperative parts, small in number, and so closely associated
as these are, do not vary together, it is unwarrantable to allege that
coöperative parts, which are very numerous and remote from one
another, vary together.” Spencer puts himself here into the position
of seriously maintaining that, because some coöperative parts do not
vary together, therefore no coöperative parts have ever done so, and
he has taken this position in the face of some well-known cases in
which certain parts have been found to vary together.
18. It is curious that Spencer does not see that this case is as much against his
point as in favor of it, since the unused teeth did not also degenerate.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/1422-250420133316-4f9b3a07/85/Database-Systems-The-Complete-Book-2nd-Edition-Molina-Solutions-Manual-29-320.jpg)
![In this same connection Spencer brings up the familiar pièce de
résistance of the Lamarckian school, the giraffe. He recognizes that
the chief traits in the structure of this animal are the result of natural
selection, since its efforts to reach higher branches could not be the
cause of the lengthening of the legs. But “the coadaptation of the
parts, required to make the giraffe’s structure useful, is much greater
than at first appears.” For example, the bones and the muscles of
the hind-legs have been also altered, and Spencer argues that it is
“impossible to believe” that all parts of the hind-quarters could have
been coadapted to one another, and to all parts of the fore-quarters.
A lack of coadaptation of a single muscle “would cause fatal results
when high speed had to be maintained while escaping from an
enemy.”
Spencer claims that, since 1886, when he first published this
argument, nothing like an adequate response has been made; and I
think he might have added that an adequate answer is not likely to
be forthcoming, since nothing short of a demonstration of how the
giraffe really evolved is likely to be considered as sufficient. Wallace’s
reply, that the changes in question could have been brought about
by natural selection, since similar changes have been brought about
by artificial selection, is regarded as inadequate by Spencer, since it
assumes a parallel which does not exist. Nevertheless, Wallace’s
reply contains, in my opinion, the kernel of the explanation, in so far
as it assumes that congenital variation[19]
may suffice to account for
the origin of a form even as bizarre as that of the giraffe. The ancon
ram and the turnspit dog were marked departures from the normal
types, and yet their parts were sufficiently coördinated for them to
carry out the usual modes of progression. It would not have been
difficult, if we adopted Spencer’s mode of arguing, to show that
these new forms could not possibly have arisen as the result of
congenital variations.
19. Wallace assumes fluctuating variation to suffice, but in this I cannot agree
with him.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/1422-250420133316-4f9b3a07/85/Database-Systems-The-Complete-Book-2nd-Edition-Molina-Solutions-Manual-30-320.jpg)
Database Systems The Complete Book 2nd Edition Molina Solutions Manual
- 1. Database Systems The Complete Book 2nd Edition Molina Solutions Manual download https://testbankfan.com/product/database-systems-the-complete- book-2nd-edition-molina-solutions-manual/ Find test banks or solution manuals at testbankfan.com today!
- 2. We have selected some products that you may be interested in Click the link to download now or visit testbankfan.com for more options!. Fundamentals of Database Management Systems 2nd Edition Gillenson Solutions Manual https://testbankfan.com/product/fundamentals-of-database-management- systems-2nd-edition-gillenson-solutions-manual/ Fundamentals of Database Management Systems 2nd Edition Gillenson Test Bank https://testbankfan.com/product/fundamentals-of-database-management- systems-2nd-edition-gillenson-test-bank/ Fundamentals Of Database Systems 6th Edition Elmasri Solutions Manual https://testbankfan.com/product/fundamentals-of-database-systems-6th- edition-elmasri-solutions-manual/ World Regions in Global Context People Places and Environments 4th Edition Marston Test Bank https://testbankfan.com/product/world-regions-in-global-context- people-places-and-environments-4th-edition-marston-test-bank/
- 3. Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism 6th Edition Kotler Test Bank https://testbankfan.com/product/marketing-for-hospitality-and- tourism-6th-edition-kotler-test-bank/ Operations Management Processes and Supply Chains 12th Edition Krajewski Solutions Manual https://testbankfan.com/product/operations-management-processes-and- supply-chains-12th-edition-krajewski-solutions-manual/ Quantitative Methods for Business 13th Edition Anderson Test Bank https://testbankfan.com/product/quantitative-methods-for- business-13th-edition-anderson-test-bank/ Horizons Exploring the Universe 14th Edition Seeds Test Bank https://testbankfan.com/product/horizonsexploring-the-universe-14th- edition-seeds-test-bank/ Financial Accounting IFRS 3rd Edition Weygandt Test Bank https://testbankfan.com/product/financial-accounting-ifrs-3rd-edition- weygandt-test-bank/
- 4. CFIN 5th Edition Besley Solutions Manual https://testbankfan.com/product/cfin-5th-edition-besley-solutions- manual/
- 5. Database Systems: The Complete Book ▼ Chapter 16 ▼ Section 1 ▼ 1 • a <Query> ::= SELECT <SelList> FROM <FromList> WHERE <Condi- tion> <SelList> ::= DISTINCT <Attribute> • b <Query> ::= SELECT <SelList> FROM <FromList> WHERE <Condi- tion> GROUP BY <GBList> HAVING <Condition> <GBList> ::= <Attribute> , <GBList> <GBList> ::= <Attribute> • c <Query> ::= SELECT <SelList> FROM <FromList> WHERE <Condi- tion> ORDER BY <OBList> <OBList> ::= <Attribute> , <OBList> <OBList> ::= <Attribute> • d <Query> ::= SELECT <SelList> FROM <FromList> ▼ 2 • a <Condition> ::= <Condition> OR <Condition> <Condition> ::= NOT <Condition> • b <Condition> ::= <Attribute> > <Attribute> <Condition> ::= <Attribute> >= <Attribute> <Condition> ::= <Attribute> < <Attribute> <Condition> ::= <Attribute> <= <Attribute> • c <Condition> ::= ( <Condition> ) • d <Condition> ::= EXISTS ( <Query> ) ▼ 3 • a
- 6. • b ▼ Section 2 • 1 σc(R∩S) and there is an index on S. Assuming that there C attributes in both R and S, the options are: σc(R∩S) -- Larger intermediate set to select, likely to scan more data doing intersect, then selection on the intermediate result (no index available). σc(R)∩σc(S) -- Smaller set to intersect. ▼ 2 • a πL(R∪S) ≠ πL(R)∪πL(S) R(C1, C2) = {(1,1) (1,2) (1,2)} S(C1, C2) = {(1,3) (1,4) (1,5)} L = C1 • b πL(R-S) ≠ πL(R)-πL(S) R(C1, C2) = {(1,1) (1,2) (1,5)} S(C1, C2) = {(1,1) (1,3) (1,4)} L = C1 • c δ(πL(R) ≠ πL(δ(R) R(C1, C2) = {(1,1) (1,2) (2,3) (3,4) (1,1)} L = C1 • d δ(R∪BS) ≠ δ(R)∪Bδ(S) R(C1, C2) = {(1,1) (1,2)} S(C1, C2) = {(1,1) (1,3)} • 3 πL(R∪BS) = πL(R)∪BπL(S) Attributes eliminated do not appear in results. Attributes eliminated are not used in operators above, and their absence does not affect the results (by definition of bag union). ▼ 4
- 7. • a Counterexample: R(C1) = {1} • b Every record in R has a corresponding record in R. The intersection is the same. • c Same as 16.2.4b • d Adding the elements from R before or after ∩B doesn't matter. If ap- plied to both S and T, they will appear in both intermediate sets, and appear in the results. ▼ 5 • a If R ⊆ S, then R ∪ S = S True. Every R element has a corresponding S element that appear at least more times than the R element. Thus, the U operator does not add anything to the S set. • b If R ⊆ S, then R ∩ S = R True. Every R element has a corresponding S element that appear at least as many times as the R element. Any excess element will not be included in the intersection, leaving only R. • c If R ⊆ S and S ⊆ R, then R = S True. Every R element has a corresponding S element that appears as many times as the R element, and vice versa. This leaves the only possibility that the sets are equal. ▼ 6 • a πL(πb,c(R) JOIN πb,c,d(S)) • b πL(R JOIN πb,c,d(S)) • 7 Push the aggregation before the join. ▼ 8 • a Counterexample: R(a,b) = {(1,50) (1,50) (2,100) (2,100)} • b Counterexample: R(a,b) = {(1,50) (1,50) (2,100) (2,100) (3,100) (3,150) (4,100)} ▼ 9 • a True. Any records eliminated by the selection can be done before or after the semi-join. Doing it before will reduce the intermediate result. • b Counterexample: R(C1,C2) = {(1,2) (1,3)} S(C1,C3) = {(1,2) (2,3)} • c True. The record selected could be: 1. Dangling: Will still be dangling if selection is pushed down. 2. Matched. Will still be a match if selection is pushed down. Conditions for match or dangle haven't changed. • d Counterexample: R(C1,C2) = {(1,2) (1,3) (3,3)} S(C1,C3) = {(1,2) (2,2)} • e Counterexample: R(C1,C2) = {(1,2) (1,3) (2,2)} S(C1,C3) = {(1,2) (2,2)} • fTrue. Full outer join is associative. No data is lost.
- 8. • g True. Full outer join is commutative. No data is lost. • h Counterexample: R(C1,C2) = {(1,2) (1,3) (2,2)} S(C1,C3) = {(1,3)} • i Counterexample: R(C1,C2) = {(1,2) (2,2)} S(C1,C3) = {(1,3)} • 10 The SUM function will skip over null values. Let ak = null. SUM(a1,a2,...,an). a1 + a2 + ... + an = null. The law doesn't hold. ▼ Section 3 ▼ 1 • a ( (πa,b,c( R(a,b) JOIN R.b = S.b S(b,c)) ) JOIN S.c = T.c T(c,d) ) • b πa,b,c,d,e( (πa,b,c -> x( R(a,b) JOIN R.b = S.b S(b,c) ) ) JOIN x.c = y.c ( πc,d,e -> y( T(c,d) JOIN T.d = U.d U(d,e) ) ) ) • c πa,b,c,d( (πa,b,c -> x( R(a,b) JOIN R.b = S.b S(b,c) ) ) JOIN x.a = y.a ( πa,c,d -> y( T(c,d) JOIN T.d = U.d U(a,d) ) ) ) ▼ 2 • a πa,c( R JOIN S) • b πa( σ( R(1), (<Attr> IN πa( R(2) JOIN S ) ) ) πa( R JOIN (δ (πa( R(2) JOIN S ) )) ▼ 3 • a πR(σcount( R CROSS JOIN ɣcount(<Query>))) • b πR( R JOIN δ(πa(<Query>)) ) • c σcount(a)=1( R JOIN ɣ(δ(πa(<Query>)))) ▼ 4 • a πR(σcount>0(ɣcount(R CROSS JOIN <Query>))) • b πa,b,c(δ(πa(R JOIN <Query>))) • c σcount(a)=1(δ(πa(R JOIN <Query>))) • 5 4! x 3! x 4! x 3! ▼ Section 4 ▼ 1 • a 8000 • b 5 • c 6 • d 48 • e 30000 • f133 • g 0 • h 2 • i 20000 • 2 0 • 3 T(R)/V(S) • 4 V(R,a) = 100. V(S,a) = 100.
- 9. ▼ Section 5 • 1 245. This is a more accurate estimate. • 2 56842 ▼ 3 • a Better than (b) as long as: 50000/max(V(R,b),200) > 100000/max(V(R,b),200) • b Same as (a) ▼ 4 • a 832 • b 12 • c R,S,T,V • d R,S,T,V ▼ 5 • a 700 • b 100 • c R,S,T,V • d R,S,T,V • 6 The query plan that uses the fewest I/O's is highlighted in yellow. • 7 The best plan for E or F may not provide sorted output, but the join method selected (e.g. SMJ) may required sorted input. ▼ Section 6
- 10. • 1 • 2 • 3 ▼ 4 • a ((SR)T)U). Cost: 10000. • b Optimal: ((RS)(TU)). Cost: 2000. ▼ 5 • a 7! x (T(1)T(7) + T(2)T(6) + T(3)T(5) + T(4)T(4) + T(5)T(3) + T(6)T(2) + T(7)T(1) Left-deep: 7! Right-deep: 7! • b 8! x (T(1)T(8) + T(2)T(7) + T(3)T(6) + T(4)T(5) + T(5)T(4) + T(6)T(3) + T(7)T(2) + T(8)T(1)
- 11. Left-deep: 8! Right-deep: 8! ▼ 6 • a B(R JOIN S) + B((R JOIN S) JOIN U) • b B(R JOIN S) + B(T JOIN U) • c B(T JOIN U) + B(S JOIN (T JOIN U)) • 7 Left deep only: k! All: 2k x k! ▼ Section 7 ▼ 1 • a access method: index on b • b access method: index on b • c access method: index on a ▼ 2 • a T(R)/V(R,x) < T(R)/V(R,y) • b R(T)/V(R,x) < B(R)/V(R,y) • c T(R)/V(R,x) < B(R)/3 ▼ 3 • a 100 buckets. 2 blocks per bucket. Pipelining OK. • b 100 buckets. 100 blocks per bucket. Pipelining not possible. • c 2 buckets. 50 blocks per bucket. Pipelining OK. ▼ 4 • a B(T) <= 99 • b B(T) >= 100
- 12. Random documents with unrelated content Scribd suggests to you:
- 13. remarkable case observed by Brown-Séquard in guinea-pigs of the inherited effects of operations should make us cautious in denying this tendency.” The wingless condition of several insects inhabiting oceanic islands has come about, Darwin thinks, through disuse. The ostrich also, owing to its increase in size, made less use of its wings and more use of its legs, with the result that its wings degenerated and its legs got stronger. The rudimentary condition of the eyes of the mole is the result of disuse, “aided perhaps by natural selection.” Many of the animals inhabiting the caves of Kentucky and of Carniola are blind, and this is ascribed to disuse. “As it is difficult to imagine that the eyes, though useless, could be in any way injurious to animals living in darkness, their loss may be attributed to disuse.” The long neck of the giraffe Darwin attributes partly to natural selection and partly to use. These references will suffice to show that Darwin is in full accord with the main argument of Lamarck. In fact, the curious hypothesis of pangenesis that Darwin advanced was invented partly to account for the inheritance of acquired characters. Despite the hesitancy that Darwin himself felt in advancing this view, and contrary to Huxley’s advice, he at last published his provisional hypothesis of pangenesis in the twenty-seventh chapter of his “Animals and Plants under Domestication.”
- 14. Darwin’s Hypothesis of Pangenesis The study of bud variation, of the various forms of inheritance, and of reproduction and of the causes of variation, led him, Darwin says, to the belief that these subjects stand in some sort of relation to each other. He says: “I have been led, or rather forced, to form a view which to a certain extent connects these facts by a tangible method. Every one would wish to explain to himself, even in an imperfect manner, how it is possible for a character possessed by some remote ancestor suddenly to reappear in the offspring; how the effects of increased or decreased use of a limb can be transmitted to the child; how the male sexual element can act not solely on the ovules, but occasionally on the mother form; how a hybrid can be produced by the union of the cellular tissue of two plants independently of the organs of generation; how a limb can be reproduced on the exact line of amputation, with neither too much nor too little added; how the same organism may be produced by such widely different processes, as budding and true seminal generation; and, lastly, how of two allied forms, one passes in the course of its development through the most complex metamorphoses, and the other does not do so, though when mature both are alike in every detail of structure. I am aware that my view is merely a provisional hypothesis or speculation; but, until a better one be advanced, it will serve to bring together a multitude of facts which are at present left disconnected by any efficient cause.” In presenting the hypothesis of pangenesis Darwin begins by enumerating the different kinds of sexual and asexual processes of reproduction, for which he hopes to offer a provisional explanation. Here we find mentioned various methods of budding and self- division, regeneration, parthenogenesis, sexual reproduction, and the inheritance of acquired characters. It is with the last only that we are here chiefly concerned; in fact, the need of an hypothesis of this sort to explain the other kinds of inheritance is by no means
- 15. evident. There are, however, two other phenomena, besides that of the supposed inheritance of acquired characters, to which the hypothesis of pangenesis might appear to apply specially, namely, the effect of foreign pollen on the tissues of the mother plant, and the supposed influence of the union with the first male on the subsequent young (telegony). It is, however, far from being shown that any influence of this latter kind really occurs, despite the fact that it is generally believed in by breeders. It is important to observe that Darwin proposes to explain on the hypothesis of pangenesis, not only the inheritance of characters acquired through use, but also the decrease of structures through disuse; and this applies, not only to the structure, but to function as well, as when the intelligence of the dog is explained through his association with man, and the tameness of the domestic rabbits through their long confinement. In the following quotation these points are referred to: “How can the use or disuse of a particular limb or of the brain affect a small aggregate of reproductive cells, seated in a distant part of the body, in such a manner that the being developed from these cells inherits the characters of either one or both parents? Even an imperfect answer to this question would be satisfactory.” Coming now to the theory, we find that it consists of one chief assumption and several minor ones. “It is universally admitted that the cells or units of the body increase by self-division or proliferation, retaining the same nature, and that they ultimately become converted into the various tissues and substances of the body. But besides this means of increase I assume that the units throw off minute granules which are dispersed throughout the whole system; that these, when supplied with proper nutriment, multiply by self- division, and are ultimately developed into units like those from which they were originally derived. These granules may be called gemmules. They are collected from all parts of the system to constitute the sexual elements, and their development in the next generation forms a new being; but they are likewise capable of transmission in a dormant state to future generations, and may then
- 16. be developed.... Gemmules are supposed to be thrown off by every unit, not only during the adult state, but during each stage of development of every organism; but not necessarily during the continued existence of the same unit. Lastly, I assume that the gemmules in their dormant state have a mutual affinity for each other, leading to their aggregation into buds, or into the sexual elements. Hence, it is not the reproductive organs, or buds, which generate new organisms, but the units of which each individual is composed. These assumptions constitute the provisional hypothesis which I have called Pangenesis.” It will be noticed that the first assumption is that the cells throw off minute gemmules or granules. The second assumption is that these are collected in the reproductive organs, or in buds, or in regenerating parts; the third assumption is that the gemmules may lie dormant through several generations; the fourth, that the development of the reproductive cells is not so much the development of the cell itself, but of the gemmules that have collected in it. The fifth assumption is that the gemmules are thrown off at all stages of development; the sixth, that in their dormant state they have a mutual affinity for each other; the seventh, that there may be a sort of continual competition in the germ-cells between the original gemmules and the new ones, and, according to which win, the old or the new form develops. Thus we see on closer analysis that the pangenesis hypothesis is made up of a goodly number of different assumptions. At least half a dozen imaginary properties are ascribed to the imaginary gemmules, and these attributes are all essential to the working of the hypothesis. Some of the more obvious objections to the hypothesis have been stated by Darwin himself. Such, for instance, as our ignorance at what stage in their history the body-cells are capable of throwing off gemmules, and whether they collect only at certain times in the reproductive organs, as the increased flow of blood to these organs at certain seasons might seem to indicate. Nor have we any evidence that they are carried by the blood at all. The experiment of Galton, of transfusing the blood of one animal into another, and
- 17. finding that this produced no effect on the young that were born later, might be interpreted to mean that gemmules are not transported by the blood; but this kind of experiment is inconclusive, especially in the light of recent results on the effect of the blood of one animal on that of another. A part of the evidence on which Darwin relied to support his theory has been shown to be incorrect by later work. Thus the assumption that more than a single pollen grain, or more than one spermatozoon, is necessary in some cases for fertilization, is certainly wrong. In most cases, in fact, the entrance of more than one spermatozoon into the egg is disastrous to the development. The cases referred to by Darwin can probably be explained by the difficulty that some of the pollen grains, or spermatozoa, may have in penetrating the egg, or to the immaturity or impotence of some of the male germ-cells, and not to the need of more than one to accomplish the true fertilization. Darwin’s idea that the small number of gemmules in the unfertilized egg may account for the lack of power of such eggs to develop until they are fertilized, has been shown to be incorrect by recent results in experimental embryology. We now know that many different kinds of stimuli have the power to start the development of the egg. Moreover, we also know that if a single spermatozoon is supplied with a piece of egg-protoplasm without a nucleus, it suffices to cause this piece of protoplasm to develop. In the case of regeneration, which Darwin also tries to explain on the pangenesis hypothesis, we find that there is no need at all for an hypothesis of this sort; and there are a number of facts in connection with regeneration that are not in harmony with the hypothesis. For instance, when a part is cut off, the same part is regenerated; but under these circumstances it cannot be imagined that the part removed supplies the gemmules for the new part. Darwin tries to meet this objection by the assumption that every part of the body contains gemmules from every other part. But it has been shown that if a limb of the newt is completely extirpated, a
- 18. new limb does not regenerate; and there is no reason why it should not do so on Darwin’s assumption that germs of the limb exist throughout the body. The best-authenticated cases of the influence of the male on the tissues of the female are those in plants, where one species, or variety, is fertilized by another. Thus, if the orange is fertilized by the pollen of the lemon, the fruit may have the color and flavor of the lemon. Now the fruit is a product of the tissues of the ovary of the female, and not a part of the seedling that develops in the fruit from the cross-fertilized egg-cell. Analogous cases are recorded for the bean, whose pods may have their color influenced by fertilizing the flower with pollen of another variety having pods of a different color. In these cases we do not know whether the color of the fruit is influenced directly by the foreign pollen, or whether the influence is through the embryo that develops from the egg-cell. The action may appear to be the same, however, in either case; but because it seems probable here that there is some sort of influence of one tissue on another, let us not too readily conclude that this is brought about through any such imaginary bodies as gemmules. It may be directly caused, for instance, by some chemical substance produced in the young hybrid plant. If this is the case, the result would not be different in kind from that of certain flowers whose color may be influenced by certain chemical substances in the soil. In the cases amongst animals, where the maternal tissues are believed to be influenced by a previous union with the male, as in the oft-cited case of Lord Morton’s mare, a reëxamination of the evidence by Ewart has shown that the case is not demonstrated, and not even probable. Several years ago I tried to test this view in the case of mice. A white mouse was first bred to a dark male house- mouse, and the next time to a white mouse, but none of the offspring from the second union showed any trace of black. If the spermatozoa of the dark mouse are hypodermically injected into the body-cavity of the female, the subsequent young from a white male show no evidence that the male cells have had any influence on the ovary.
- 19. The following facts, spoken of by Darwin himself, are not in favor of his hypothesis of pangenesis: “But it appears at first sight a fatal objection to our hypothesis that a part of an organ may be removed during several successive generations, and if the operation be not followed by disease, the lost part reappears in the offspring. Dogs and horses formerly had their tails docked during many generations without any inherited effect; although, as we have seen, there is some reason to believe that the tailless conditions of certain sheep- dogs is due to such inheritance.” The answer that Darwin gives is that the gemmules themselves, that were once derived from the part, are still present in other parts of the body, and it is from these that the organs in the next generation may be derived. But Darwin fails to point out that, if this were the case, it must also be true for those cases in which an organ is no longer used. Its decrease in size in successive generations cannot be due to its disuse, for the rest of the body would supply the necessary gemmules to keep it at its full state of development. Thus, in trying to meet an obvious objection to his hypothesis, Darwin brings forward a new view that is fatal to another part of his hypothesis. The following cases, also given by Darwin, are admitted by him to be inexplicable on his hypothesis: “With respect to variations due to reversion, there is a similar difference between plants propagated from buds and seeds. Many varieties can be propagated securely by buds, but generally or invariably revert to their parent forms by seed. So, also, hybridized plants can be multiplied to any extent by buds, but are continually liable to reversion by seed,—that is, to the loss of their hybrid or intermediate character. I can offer no satisfactory explanation of these facts. Plants with variegated leaves, phloxes with striped flowers, barberries with seedless fruit, can all be securely propagated by buds taken from the stem or branches; but buds from the roots of these plants almost invariably lose their character and revert to their former condition. This latter fact is also inexplicable, unless buds developed from the roots are as distinct from those on the stem, as is one bud on the stem from another, and we know that these latter behave like independent organisms.”
- 20. As Darwin here states, these facts appear to be directly contradictory to his hypothesis, and he makes no effort to account for them. The entire question of the possibility of the inheritance of acquired characters is itself at present far from being on a satisfactory basis, as we shall try to show; and Darwin’s attempt at an explanation, in his chapter on pangenesis, does not put the matter in a much more satisfactory condition.
- 21. The Neo-Lamarckian School Let us now turn our attention to a school that has grown up in modern times, the members of which call themselves Neo- Lamarckians. Let us see if they have supplied the essential evidence that is required to establish the Lamarckian view, namely, that characters acquired by the individual are transmitted to the offspring. Lamarck’s views were adopted by Herbert Spencer, and play an important rôle in his “Principles of Biology” (1866-1871), and even a more conspicuous part in his later writings. In the former he cites, amongst other cases, that of “a puppy taken from its mother at six weeks old who, although never taught ‘to beg’ (an accomplishment his mother had been taught), spontaneously took to begging for everything he wanted when about seven or eight months old.” If tricks like this are inheritable is it not surprising that more puppies do not stand on their hind-legs? The larger hands of the laboring classes in England are supposed to be inherited by their children, and the smaller hands of the leisure classes are supposed to be the result of the disuse of the hands by their ancestors; but even if these statements in regard to size are true, there are many other conceivable causes that may have led to this result. Short-sightedness appears more often, it is said, in those classes of society that make most use of their eyes in reading and in writing; but if we ask for experimental evidence to show that this is due to inheritance, and not due to the children spoiling their eyes at school, there is none forthcoming. The problem is by no means so simple as the uninitiated may be led to believe. Spencer thinks that “some of the best illustrations of functional heredity are furnished by mental characteristics.” He cites the
- 22. musical faculty as one that could not have been acquired by natural selection, and must have arisen through the inheritance of acquired modifications. The explanation offered is “that the habitual association of certain cadences of speech with certain emotions has clearly established in the race an organized and inherited connection between such cadences and such emotions, ... and that by the continued hearing and practice of melody there has been gained and transmitted an increasing musical sensibility.” But a statement that the results have been acquired in this way does not supply the proof which the theory is in need of; neither does it follow that, because the results cannot be explained by the theory of natural selection, therefore, they must be explained by the Lamarckian theory. The clearest proofs that Spencer finds of the inheritance of acquired characters are in the well-known experiments of Brown- Séquard. These experiments will be more fully discussed below. Amongst the other morbid processes that Spencer thinks furnish evidence in favor of this view, are cases of a tendency to gout, the occurrence of mental tricks, musical prodigies, liability to consumption, in all of which cases the fundamental distinction between the inheritance of an acquired character and the inherited tendency toward a particular malady is totally ignored. Twenty-seven years later (in 1893) Spencer took up the open challenge of the anti-Lamarckian writers, and by bringing forward a number of new arguments attempted to reinstate the principle of the inheritance of acquired characters. His first illustration is drawn from the distribution of the sense of touch in different parts of our bodies. Weber’s experiments have shown that if the sharp points of a pair of compasses are applied to the tips of the forefingers, the sensation of two separate points is given when the points are only one-twelfth of an inch apart, and if the points are moved nearer together, they give the sensation of only one point. The inner surfaces of the second joints of the fingers can only distinguish two points when they are one-sixth of an inch apart. The innermost joints are less discriminating, and are about equal in the power of discrimination to the tip of the nose. The end of the big toe, the palm of the hand,
- 23. and the cheek discriminate only about one-fifth as well as do the tips of the fingers. The back of the hand and the top of the head distinguish only about one-fifteenth as well as the finger-tips. The front of the thigh, near the knee, is somewhat less sensitive than the back of the hand. On the breast the points of the compasses must be separated by more than an inch and a half in order to give two sensations. In the middle of the back the points must be separated by two and a half inches, or more, in order to give two separate impressions. What is the meaning of these differences, Spencer asks. If natural selection has brought about the result, then it must be shown that “these degrees of endowment have advantaged the possessor to such an extent that not infrequently life has been directly or indirectly preserved by it.” He asks if this, or anything approaching this, result could have occurred. That the superior perceptiveness of the forefinger-tip might have arisen through selection is admitted by Spencer, but how could this have been the case, he asks, for the middle of the back, and for the face? The tip of the nose has three times more power of discrimination than the lower part of the forehead. Why should the front of the thigh near the knee be twice as perceptive as in the middle of the thigh; and why should the middle of the back and of the neck and the middle of the forearm and of the thigh stand at such low levels? Is it possible, Spencer asks again, that natural selection has determined these relations, and if not, how can they be explained? His reply is that the differences can all be accounted for on the theory of the inheritance of use, for it is evident that “these gradations in tactile perceptiveness correspond with the gradations in the tactual exercise of the parts.” Except from contact with the clothing the body receives hardly any touch sensations from outside, and this accounts for its small power of discrimination. The greater sensitiveness of the chest and abdomen, as compared with the back, is due to these regions being more frequently touched by the hands, and is also owing to inheritance from more remote ancestors, in which the lower surface of the body was more likely to
- 24. have come in contact with foreign objects than was the back. The middle of the forearm and of the thigh are also less exposed than the knee and the hand, and have correspondingly the power of tactile discrimination less well developed. Weber showed that the tip of the tongue is more sensitive than any other part of the body, for it can distinguish between two points only one twenty-fourth of an inch apart. Obviously, Spencer says, natural selection cannot account for such extreme delicacy of touch, because, even if it were useful for the tongue to distinguish objects by touch, this power could never be of vital importance to the animal. It cannot even be supposed that such delicacy is necessary for the power of speech. The sensitiveness of the tongue can be accounted for, however, Spencer claims, as the result of the constant use of the tongue in exploring the cavity of the mouth. It is continually moving about, and touching now one part, and now another, of the mouth cavity. “No advantage is gained. It is simply that the tongue’s position renders perpetual exploration almost inevitable.” No other explanation of the facts seemed possible to Spencer. Two questions will at once suggest themselves. First, can it be shown that the sensitiveness to touch in various parts of the body is the result of individual experience? Have we learned to discriminate in those parts of the body that are most often brought into contact with surrounding objects? Even the power of discrimination in the tips of the fingers can be improved, as Spencer himself has shown, in the case of the blind, and of skilled compositors. Can we account in this way for the power of discrimination in various parts of the body? In other words, if, beginning in infancy, the middle of the back constantly came into contact with surrounding objects, would this region become as sensitive as the tips of the fingers? The experiment has not, of course, been carried out, but it is not probable that it would succeed. I venture this opinion on the ground of the relative number of the nerves and of the organs of touch on the back, as compared with those of the finger-tips. But, it will be
- 25. asked, will not the number of the sense-organs become greater if a part is continually used by the individual? It is improbable that much improvement could be brought about in this way. The improvement that takes place through experience is probably not so much the result of the development of more sense-organs, as of better discrimination in the sensation, because the increased power can be very quickly acquired. An examination of the relative abundance of touch-spots in the skin shows that they are much more numerous in regions of greater sensitiveness. The following table, taken from Sherrington’s account of sense-organs in Schaefer’s “Textbook of Physiology,” gives the smallest distance that two points, simultaneously applied, can be recognized as such (and not simply as one impression) in different regions. Mm. Tip of tongue 1.1 Volar surface of ungual phalanx of finger 2.3 Red surface of lip 4.5 Volar face of second phalanx 4.5 Dorsal face of third phalanx 6.8 Side of tongue 9.0 Third line of tongue, 27 mm. from tip 9.0 Plantar face of ungual phalanx of first toe 11.3 Palm 11.3 Back of second phalanx of finger 11.3 Forehead 22.6 Back of ankle 22.6 Back of hand 31.6 Forearm, leg 40.6 Dorsum of foot 40.6
- 26. Outer sternum 45.1 Back of neck 54.1 Middle of back 67.1 Upper arm, thigh 67.1 The great difference in the sensitiveness of the skin in the different regions is very striking, and if, as seems probable, about the same proportionate difference is found at birth, then the degree of sensibility of the different regions is inborn, and is not the result of each individual experience. Until it can be shown that more of the sense-organs develop in any special part, as the result of the increased use of the part, we have no real basis on which to establish, even as probable, the Lamarckian view. But, after all, is the distribution of the sense-organs exactly that which we should expect on the Lamarckian theory? Has not Spencer taken too much for granted in this direction? The lower part of the forearm (represented by 15) we should expect to be more sensitive than the protected surface of the eyelid (11.3), but this is not the case. The forehead (22.6) is much less sensitive than the forearm, and only half as sensitive as the eyelid. The knee (36.1) is still less sensitive than any of these other parts, and this does not in the least accord with the theory, since in its constant moving forward it must be continually coming into contact with foreign bodies. The fact that the back is as insensitive as the upper arm (67.7) can hardly be accredited in favor of the theory. The great difference between the lower third of the forearm on the ulnar surface (15) and the upper arm (67.7) seems out of all proportion to what we should expect on the theory. And is it not a little odd that the end of the nose should be so highly sensitive? There is another point that we cannot afford to neglect in this connection. It is known that in addition to touch-spots there are warm and cold spots in the skin, which produce, when touched, the sensation of warmth, or of cold, respectively, and not the sensation
- 27. of touch. The degree of sensitiveness of different regions of the body throws an interesting side-light on Spencer’s argument. The warm spots are much fewer than the cold spots. The spots are arranged in short lines radiating from centres which coincide with hairs. The number of these spots varies a good deal, even in the same region of the skin. If the sensitiveness of the skin is tested, the following results will be obtained. The list includes twelve grades of sensitiveness, beginning with the places giving the lowest maximum of intensity. About one hundred square areas were tested in each region. COLD SENSATIONS 1. Tips of fingers and toes, malleoli, ankle. 2. Other parts of digits, tip of nose, olecranon. 3. Glabella, chin, palm, gums. 4. Occiput, patella, wrist. 5. Clavicle, neck, forehead, tongue. 6. Buttocks, upper eyelid. 7. Lower eyelid, popliteal space, sole, cheek. 8. Inner aspect of thigh, arm above elbow. 9. The intercostal spaces along axillary line. 10. Mammary areola. 11. Nipple, flank. 12. Certain areas of the loins and abdomen. WARMTH SENSATIONS
- 28. 0. Lower gum, mucosa of cheek, cornea. 1. Tips of fingers and toes, cavity of mouth, conjunctiva, and patella. 2. Remaining surface of digits, middle of forehead, olecranon. 3. Glabella, chin, clavicle. 4. Palm, buttock, popliteal space. 5. Neck. 6. Back. 7. Lower eyelid, cheek. 8. Nipple, loin. These two tables show the great differences in the range of sensitiveness to cold and to warmth in different parts of the body. I doubt if any one will attempt to show that these differences of range of sensation can be accounted for either by natural selection or by the Lamarckian hypothesis. Of course, it does not necessarily follow that, because this is true for the warm and cold spots, that it must also be true for the tactile organs; but I think that the fact of such a great difference in the responsiveness to cold and to warmth in different parts of the body should put us on our guard against a too ready acceptation of Spencer’s argument. More especially is this seen to be necessary, when, as has been shown above, the distribution of the touch- organs themselves by no means closely corresponds to what we should expect, if they have developed in response to contact, as Spencer maintains. The other main argument advanced by Spencer to fortify the theory of the inheritance of acquired characters, and at the same time to show the inadequacy of the theory of natural selection, is based on the idea of what he calls the “coöperation of the parts” that is required in order to carry out any special act. Spencer contends that “the relative powers of coöperative parts cannot be
- 29. adjusted solely by the survival of the fittest, and especially where the parts are numerous and the coöperation complex.” Spencer illustrates his point by the case of the extinct Irish elk, whose immensely developed horns weighed over a hundredweight. The horns, together with the massive skull, could not have been supported by the outstretched neck without many and great changes of the muscles and bones of the neck and of the fore-part of the body. Unless, for instance, the fore-legs had been also strengthened, there would be failure in fighting and in locomotion. Since “we cannot assume spontaneous increase of all these parts proportionate to the additional strains, we cannot suppose them to increase by variations one at once, without supposing the creature to be disadvantaged by the weight and nutrition of the parts that were for a time useless,—parts, moreover, which would revert to their original sizes before the other needful variations occurred.” The answer made to this argument was that coördinating parts vary together. In reply to which Spencer points to the following cases, which show that this is not so: The blind crayfish in the Kentucky caves have lost their eyes, but not the stalks that carry them. Again, the normal relation between the length of tongue and of beak in some varieties of pigeons is lost. The greater decrease in the jaws in some species of pet dogs than of the number of their teeth has caused the teeth to become crowded.[18] “I then argued that if coöperative parts, small in number, and so closely associated as these are, do not vary together, it is unwarrantable to allege that coöperative parts, which are very numerous and remote from one another, vary together.” Spencer puts himself here into the position of seriously maintaining that, because some coöperative parts do not vary together, therefore no coöperative parts have ever done so, and he has taken this position in the face of some well-known cases in which certain parts have been found to vary together. 18. It is curious that Spencer does not see that this case is as much against his point as in favor of it, since the unused teeth did not also degenerate.
- 30. In this same connection Spencer brings up the familiar pièce de résistance of the Lamarckian school, the giraffe. He recognizes that the chief traits in the structure of this animal are the result of natural selection, since its efforts to reach higher branches could not be the cause of the lengthening of the legs. But “the coadaptation of the parts, required to make the giraffe’s structure useful, is much greater than at first appears.” For example, the bones and the muscles of the hind-legs have been also altered, and Spencer argues that it is “impossible to believe” that all parts of the hind-quarters could have been coadapted to one another, and to all parts of the fore-quarters. A lack of coadaptation of a single muscle “would cause fatal results when high speed had to be maintained while escaping from an enemy.” Spencer claims that, since 1886, when he first published this argument, nothing like an adequate response has been made; and I think he might have added that an adequate answer is not likely to be forthcoming, since nothing short of a demonstration of how the giraffe really evolved is likely to be considered as sufficient. Wallace’s reply, that the changes in question could have been brought about by natural selection, since similar changes have been brought about by artificial selection, is regarded as inadequate by Spencer, since it assumes a parallel which does not exist. Nevertheless, Wallace’s reply contains, in my opinion, the kernel of the explanation, in so far as it assumes that congenital variation[19] may suffice to account for the origin of a form even as bizarre as that of the giraffe. The ancon ram and the turnspit dog were marked departures from the normal types, and yet their parts were sufficiently coördinated for them to carry out the usual modes of progression. It would not have been difficult, if we adopted Spencer’s mode of arguing, to show that these new forms could not possibly have arisen as the result of congenital variations. 19. Wallace assumes fluctuating variation to suffice, but in this I cannot agree with him.
- 31. Again, it might be argued that the large, powerful dray-horse could not have arisen through a series of variations from the ordinary horse, because, even if variations in the right direction occurred in the fore-quarters, it is unlikely that similar variations would occur in the hind-quarters, etc. Yet the feat has been accomplished, and while it is difficult to prove that the inheritance of acquired characters has not had a hand in the process, it is improbable that this has been the case, but rather that artificial selection of some kind of variations has been the factor at work. So long as the Lamarckian theory is supported by arguments like these, it can never hope to be established with anything more than a certain degree of probability. If it is correct, then its demonstration must come from experiment. This brings us to a consideration of the experimental evidence which has been supposed by some writers to give conclusive proof of the validity of the theory. The best direct evidence in favor of the Lamarckian argument is that furnished by the experiments of Brown-Séquard. He found, as the result of injury to the nervous system of guinea-pigs, that epilepsy appeared in the adult animal, and that young born from these epileptic parents became also epileptic. Still more important was his discovery that, after an operation on the nerves, as a result of which certain organs, the ear or the leg, for instance, are affected, the same affection appears in the young born from such parents. These results of Brown-Séquard have been vouched for by two of his assistants, and his results in regard to the inheritance of epilepsy have been confirmed by Obersteiner, and by Luciani on dogs. Equally important is their later confirmation, as far as the main facts go, by Romanes. Brown-Séquard gives the following summary of his results. I follow Romanes’ translation in his book on “Darwin and after Darwin,” where there is also given a careful analysis of Brown-Séquard’s results, as well as the outcome of the experiments of Romanes himself. The summary is as follows:—
- 32. 1. “Appearance of epilepsy in animals born of parents which had been rendered epileptic by an injury to the spinal cord. 2. Appearance of epilepsy also in animals born of parents which had been rendered epileptic by section of the sciatic nerve. 3. A change in the shape of the ear in animals born of parents in which such a change was the effect of a division of the cervical sympathetic nerve. 4. Partial closure of the eyelids in animals born of parents in which that state of the eyelids had been caused either by section of the cervical sympathetic nerve, or the removal of the superior cervical ganglion. 5. Exophthalmia in animals born of parents in which an injury to the restiform body had produced that protrusion of the eyeball. This interesting fact I have witnessed a good many times, and seen the transmission of the morbid state of the eye continue through four generations. In these animals modified by heredity, the two eyes generally protruded, although in the parents usually only one showed exophthalmia, the lesion having been made in most cases only on one of the corpora restiformia. 6. Hæmatoma and dry gangrene of the ears in animals born of parents in which these ear alterations had been caused by an injury to the restiform body near the nib of the calamus. 7. Absence of two toes out of the three of the hind-leg, and sometimes of the three, in animals whose parents had eaten up their hind-leg toes, which had become anæsthetic from a section of the sciatic nerve alone, or of that nerve and also of the crural. Sometimes, instead of complete absence of the toes, only a part of one or two or three was missing in the young, although in the parent not only the toes, but the whole foot was absent (partly eaten off, partly destroyed by inflammation, ulceration, or gangrene). 8. Appearance of various morbid states of the skin and hair of the neck and face in animals born of parents having had similar
- 33. alterations in the same parts as effects of an injury to the sciatic nerve.” Romanes, who later went over the same ground, in part under the immediate direction of Brown-Séquard himself, has made some important observations in regard to these results, many of which he was able to confirm. He did not repeat the experiment of cutting the cord, but he found that, to produce epilepsy, it was only necessary to cut the sciatic nerve. The “epileptiform habit” does not appear in the animal until some time after the operation; it lasts for some weeks or months, and then disappears. The attacks are not brought on spontaneously, but by “irritating a small area of the skin behind the ear on the same side of the body as that on which the sciatic nerve had been divided.” The attack lasts for only a few minutes, and during it the animal is convulsed and unconscious. Romanes thinks that the injury to the sciatic nerve, or to the spinal cord, produces some sort of a change in the cerebral centres, “and that it is this change—whatever it is, and in whatever part of the brain it takes place—which causes the remarkable phenomena in question.” In regard to Brown-Séquard’s statements, made in the 3d and the 4th paragraphs, in respect to the results of the operation of cutting the cervical sympathetic, Romanes had not confirmed the results when his manuscript went to press; but soon afterward, after Romanes’ death, a note was printed in Nature by Dr. Hill, announcing that two guinea-pigs from Romanes’ experiment had been born, “both of which exhibited a well-marked droop of the upper eyelid. These guinea-pigs were the offspring of a male and female in both of which I had produced for Dr. Romanes, some months earlier, a droop of the left upper eyelid by division of the left cervical sympathetic nerve. This result is a corroboration of the series of Brown-Séquard experiments on the inheritance of acquired characters.” Romanes states that he also found that injury to a particular spot of the restiform bodies is quickly followed by a protrusion of the eye
- 34. on the same side, and further, that he had “also had many cases in which some of the progeny of parents thus affected have shown considerable protrusion of the eyeballs of both sides, and this seemingly abnormal protrusion has occasionally been transmitted to the next generation. Nevertheless, I am far from satisfied that this latter fact is anything more than an accidental coincidence.” This reservation is made on the ground that the protrusion in the young is never so great as in the parents, and also because there is amongst guinea-pigs a considerable amount of individual variation in the degree of prominence of the eyeballs. Romanes, while unwilling to deny that an “obviously abnormal amount of protrusion, due to the operation, may be inherited in lesser degree,” is also unwilling to affirm so important a conclusion on the basis of these experiments alone. In regard to Brown-Séquard’s 6th statement, Romanes found after injury to the restiform body that hæmatoma and dry gangrene may supervene, either several weeks after the operation, or at any subsequent time, even many months afterward. The disease usually affects the upper parts of both ears, and may then gradually extend downward until nearly the whole ear is involved. “As regards the progeny of animals thus affected in some cases, but by no means in all, a similarly morbid state of the ears may arise apparently at any time in the life history of the individual. But I have observed that in cases where two or more individuals of the same litter develop this diseased condition, they usually do so at about the same time, even though this may be months after birth, and therefore after the animals are fully grown.” Moreover, the morbid process never extends so far in the young as it does in the parents, and “it almost always affects the middle third of the ear.” Several of the progeny from this first generation, which had apparently inherited the disease, but had not themselves been directly operated upon, showed a portion of the ear consumed apparently by the same disease. Romanes then gives the following significant analysis of this result. Since a different part of the ear of the progeny is affected, and also a “very much less quantity thereof,” it might seem that the
- 35. result was due either to a mere coincidence, or to the transmission of microbes. But he goes on to say, that he fairly well excluded both of these possibilities, for, in the first place, he has never observed “the very peculiar process in the ears, or in any other parts of guinea-pigs which have neither themselves had the restiform bodies injured, nor been born of parents thus mutilated.” In regard to microbes, Romanes tried to infect the ears of normal guinea-pigs by first scarifying these parts, and then rubbing them with the diseased surfaces of the ears of affected guinea-pigs. In not a single case was the disease produced. Romanes concludes that these “results in large measure corroborate the statements of Brown-Séquard; and it is only fair to add that he told me they were the results which he had himself obtained most frequently, but that he had also met with many cases where the diseased condition of the ears in parents affected the same parts in their progeny and also occurred in more equal degrees.” We come now to the remarkable conclusion given in Brown- Séquard’s 7th statement, in regard to the absence of toes in animals whose parents had eaten off their own hind toes and even parts of their legs. Romanes got neuroses in the animals operated upon, and found that the toes might be eaten off; but none of the young showed any defect in these parts. Furthermore, Romanes repeated the same operation upon the descendants through six successive generations, so as to produce, if possible, a cumulative effect, but no inheritance of the mutilation was observed. “On the other hand, Brown-Séquard informed me that he had observed this inherited absence of toes only in about one or two per cent of cases.” It is possible, therefore, Romanes adds, that his own experiments were not sufficiently numerous to have obtained such cases. In this connection I may give an account of some observations that I made while carrying out some experiments in telegony with mice. I found in one litter of mice that when the young came out of the nest they were tailless. The same thing happened again when
- 36. the second litter was produced, but this time I made my observations sooner, and examined the young mice immediately after birth. I found that the mother had bitten off, and presumably eaten, the tails of her offspring at the time of birth. Had I been carrying on a series of experiments to see if, when the tails of the parents were cut off, the young inherit the defect, I might have been led into the error of supposing that I had found such a case in these mice. If this idiosyncrasy of the mother had reappeared in any of her descendants, the tails might have disappeared in succeeding generations. This perversion of the maternal instincts is not difficult to understand, when we recall that the female mouse bites off the navel-string of each of her young as they are born, and at the same time eats the afterbirth. Her instinct was carried further in this case, and the projecting tail was also removed. Is it not possible that something of this sort took place in Brown- Séquard’s experiment? The fact that the adults had eaten off their own feet might be brought forward to indicate the possibility of a perverted instinct in this case also. At least my observation shows a possible source of error that must be guarded against in future work on this subject. In regard to the 8th statement of Brown-Séquard, as to various morbid states of the skin, Romanes did not test this, because the facts which it alleges did not seem of a sufficiently definite character. These experiments of Brown-Séquard, and of those who have repeated them, may appear to give a brilliant experimental confirmation of the Lamarckian position; yet I think, if I were a Lamarckian, I should feel very uncomfortable to have the best evidence in support of the theory come from this source, because there are a number of facts in the results that make them appear as though they might, after all, be the outcome of a transmitted disease, as Weismann claims, rather than the inheritance of an acquired character. Until we know more of the pathology of epilepsy, it may be well not to lay too great emphasis on these experiments. It should not be overlooked that during the long time that the
- 37. embryo is nourished in the uterus of the mother, there is ample opportunity given for the transmission of material, or possibly even of bacteria. If it should prove true that epilepsy is due to some substance present in the nervous system, such substances could get there during the uterine life of the embryo. Even if this were the case, it may be claimed that it does not give an explanation of the local reappearance of the disease in the offspring. But here also we must be on our guard, for it is possible that only certain regions of the body are susceptible to a given disease; and it has by no means been shown that the local defect itself is inherited, but only the disease. Romanes insists that a very special operation is necessary to bring about certain forms of transmission. It is well also to keep in mind the fact, that if this sort of effect is inherited, then we must be prepared to accept as a possibility that other kinds of injury to the parent may be transmitted to the offspring. It would be of great disadvantage to animals if they were to inherit the injuries that their parents have suffered in the course of their lives. In fact, we might expect to find many plants and animals born in a dreadful state of mutilation as a result of inheritances of this sort. Thus, while the Lamarckians try to show that, on their principle, characters for the good of the species may be acquired, they must also be prepared, if they accept this kind of evidence, to grant that immense harm may also result from its action. I do not urge this as an argument against the theory itself, but point it out simply as one of the consequences of the theory. It has been shown quite recently, by Charrin, Delamare, and Moussu, that when, after the operation of laparotomy on a pregnant rabbit or guinea-pig, the kidney or the liver has become diseased, the offspring sometimes show similar affections in the corresponding organs (kidney or liver). The result is due, the authors think, to some substance set free from the diseased kidney of the parent that affects the kidney of the young in the uterus. By injecting into the blood of a pregnant animal fresh extracts from the kidney of another animal, the authors believe that the kidney of the young are also affected. It will be observed that this transmission of an acquired
- 38. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! testbankfan.com