Essays Upon Heredity and Kindred Biological Problems

In the same manner fourteen of the offspring of this second generation were put in cage No. 3 on May 1, 1888, and their tails were also cut off. Among their young, 152 in number, which had been produced by January 16, there was not a single one with an abnormal tail. Precisely the same result occurred in the fourth generation, which were bred in a fourth cage and treated in exactly the same manner. This generation produced 138 young with normal tails from April 23 to January 16.

The experiment was not concluded with the fourth generation; thirteen mice of the fifth generation were again isolated and their tails were amputated; by January 16, 1889 they had produced 41 young.

Thus 901 young were produced by five generations of artificially mutilated parents, and yet there was not a single example of a rudimentary tail or of any other abnormity in this organ. Exact measurement proved that there was not even a slight diminution in length. The tail of a newly-born mouse varies from 10.5 to 12 mm. in length, and not one of the offspring possessed a tail shorter than 10.5 mm. Furthermore there was no difference in this respect between the young of the earlier and later generations.

What do these experiments prove? Do they disprove once for all the opinion that mutilations cannot be transmitted? Certainly not, when taken alone. If this conclusion were drawn from these experiments alone and without considering other facts, it might be rightly objected that the number of generations had been far too small. It might be urged that it was probable that the hereditary effects of mutilation would only appear after a greater number of generations had elapsed. They might not appear by the fifth generation, but perhaps by the sixth, tenth, twentieth, or hundredth generation.

We cannot say much against this objection, for there are actual phenomena of variation which must depend upon such a gradual and at first imperceptible change in the germ-plasm, a change which does not become visible in the descendants until after the lapse of generations. The wild pansy does not change at once when planted in garden soil: at first it remains apparently unchanged, but sooner or later in the course of generations variations, chiefly in the colour and size of the flowers, begin to appear: these are propagated by seed and are therefore the consequence of variations in the germ. The fact that such variations never occur in the first generation proves that they must be prepared for by a gradual transformation of the germ-plasm.

It is therefore possible to imagine that the modifying effects of external influences upon the germ-plasm may be gradual and may increase in the course of generations, so that visible changes in the body (soma) are not produced until the effects have reached a certain intensity.

Thus no conclusive theoretical objections can be brought forward against the supposition that the hereditary transmission of mutilations requires (e. g.) 1000 generations before it can become visible. We cannot estimate a priori the strength of the influences which are capable of changing the germ-plasm, and experience alone can teach us the number of generations through which they must act before visible effects are produced.

If therefore mutilations really act upon the germ-plasm as the causes of variation, the possibility or even probability of the ultimate appearance of hereditary effects could not be denied.

Hence the experiments on mice, when taken alone, do not constitute a complete disproof of such a supposition: they would have to be continued to infinity before we could maintain with certainty that hereditary transmission cannot take place. But it must be remembered that all the so-called proofs which have hitherto been brought forward in favour of the transmission of mutilations assert the transmission of a single mutilation which at once became visible in the following generation. Furthermore the mutilation was only inflicted upon one of the parents, not upon both, as in my experiments with mice. Hence, contrasted with these experiments, all such ‘proofs’ collapse; they must all depend upon error.

It is for this reason important to consider those cases of habitual mutilation which have been continually repeated for numerous generations of men, and have not produced any hereditary consequences. With regard to the habitually amputated tails of cats and dogs I have already shown that there is only an apparently hereditary effect. Furthermore, the mutilations of certain parts of the human body, as practised by different nations from times immemorial, have, in not a single instance, led to the malformation or reduction of the parts in question. Such hereditary effects have been produced neither by circumcision[301 - It is certainly true that among nations which practise circumcision as a ritual, children are sometimes born with a rudimentary prepuce, but this does not occur more frequently than in other nations in which circumcision is not performed. Rather extensive statistical investigations have led to this result.], nor the removal of the front teeth, nor the boring of holes in the lips or nose, nor the extraordinary artificial crushing and crippling of the feet of Chinese women. No child among any of the nations referred to possesses the slightest trace of these mutilations when born: they have to be acquired anew in every generation.

Similar cases can be proved to occur among animals. Professor Kühn of Halle pointed out to me that, for practical reasons, the tail in a certain race of sheep has been cut off, during the last hundred years, but that according to Nathusius, a sheep of this race without a tail or with only a rudimentary tail has never been born. This is all the more important because there are other races of sheep in which the shortness of the tail is a distinguishing peculiarity. Thus the nature of the sheep’s tail does not imply that it cannot disappear.

A very good instance is mentioned by Settegast, although perhaps with another object in view. The various species of crows possess stiff bristle-like feathers round the opening of the nostrils and the base of the beak: these are absent only in the rook. The latter, however, possesses them when young, but soon after it has left the nest they are lost and never reappear. The rook digs deep into the earth in searching for food, and in this way the feathers at the base of the beak are rubbed off and can never grow again because of the constant digging. Nevertheless this peculiarity, which has been acquired again and again from times immemorial, has never led to the appearance of a newly hatched individual with a bare face.

Thus there is no reason for the assumption that such a result would occur in the case of the mice even if the experiments had been continued through hundreds or thousands of generations. The supposition of the accumulative effect of mutilation is entirely visionary, and cannot be supported except by the fact that accumulative transformations of the germ-plasm occur; but of course this fact does not imply that mutilations belong to those influences which are capable of changing the germ-plasm. All the ascertained facts point to the conclusion that they have not this effect. The transmission is all the more improbable because of the striking form of the mutilation in all cases which are relied upon as evidence. The only objection which can be raised is to suppose that the absence of the tail is less easily transmitted than other mutilations, or that mice possess smaller hereditary powers than other animals. But there is not the slightest evidence in favour of either of these suggestions; the supporters of the Lamarckian principle have, on the contrary, always pointed to the transmission of mutilated tails as one of their principal lines of evidence.

The opinion has often been expressed that such transmission need not occur in every case, but may happen now and then under quite exceptional conditions with which we are unacquainted: for this reason it might be urged that all negative experiments and every refutation of the ‘proofs’ of the transmission of mutilations are not conclusive. Only recently, a clever young zoologist said in reference to Kant’s statements upon the subject, that perhaps the most decided opponent of the transmission of mutilations would not venture nowadays to maintain his view with such certainty, ‘for it must be admitted that the transmission of acquired characters may take place at any rate as a rare exception.’ Similar opinions are often expressed, especially in conversation, and yet they can mean nothing except that the transmission of acquired characters has been proved; for if such transmission can take place at all, it exists, and it does not make the least difference theoretically whether it occurs in rare cases or more frequently. Sometimes heredity has been called capricious, and in a certain sense this is true. Heredity appears to be capricious because we cannot penetrate into its depths: we cannot predict whether any peculiar character in the father will reappear in the child, and still less whether it will reappear in the first, second, or one of the later children: we cannot predict whether a child will possess the nose of his father or mother or one of the grandparents. But this certainly does not imply that the results are due to chance: no one has the right to doubt that everything is brought about by the operation of certain laws, and that, with the fertilization of the egg, the shape of the nose of the future child has been determined. The co-operation of the two tendencies of development contained in the two conjugating germ-cells produces of necessity a certain form of nose. The observed facts enable us to know something of the laws under which such events take place. Thus, for instance, among a large number of children of the same parents some will always have the form of the nose of the mother or of the mother’s family; others will have the nose of the father’s family, and so on.

If we apply this argument to the supposed transmission of mutilations, such transmission, if possible at all, must occur a certain number of times in a certain number of cases: it must occur more readily when both parents are mutilated in the same way, or when the mutilation has been repeated in many generations, etc. It is extremely improbable that it would suddenly occur in a case where it was least expected, while it did not occur in 900 cases of the most favourable kind. Those who recognise in the doubtful cases of transmission of a single mutilation present in only one of the parents, proofs of the existence of the disputed operation of heredity, quite forget that the transmission presupposes a very marvellous and extremely complex apparatus which if present at all ought, under certain conditions, to become manifest regularly, and not only in extremely exceptional cases. Nature does not create complex mechanisms in order to leave them unused: they exist by use and for use. We can readily imagine how complex the apparatus for the transmission of mutilations or acquired characters generally must be, as I have tried to show in another place. The transmission of a scar to the offspring e. g. presupposes first of all that each mechanical alteration of the body (soma) produces an alteration in the germ-cells: this alteration cannot consist in mere differences of nutrition, only affecting an increased or decreased growth of the cells: it must be of such a kind that the molecular structure of the germ-plasm would be changed. But such a change could not in the least resemble that which occurred at the periphery of the body in the formation of the scar: for there is neither skin nor the preformed germ of any of the adult organs in the germ-plasm, but only a uniform molecular structure which, in the course of many thousand stages of transformation, must tend to the formation of a soma including a skin. The change in the germ-plasm which would lead to the transmission of the scar, must therefore be of such a kind as to influence the course of ontogeny in one of its later stages, so that an interruption of the normal formation of skin, and the intercalation of the tissue of the scar, would occur at a certain part of the body. I do not maintain that equally minute changes of the germ-plasm could not occur: on the contrary, individual variation shows us that the germ-plasm contains potentially all the minutest peculiarities of the individual; but I have in vain tried to understand how such minute changes of the germ-plasm in the germ-cells could be caused by the appearance of a scar or some other mutilation of the body. In this respect I think that Blumenbach’s condition is nearly fulfilled: he was inclined to declare himself against the transmission of mutilations, but only if it were proved that such transmission was impossible. Although this cannot be strictly proved, it can nevertheless be shown that the apparatus presupposed by such transmission must be so immensely complex, nay! so altogether inconceivable, that we are quite justified in doubting the possibility of its existence as long as there are no facts which prove that it must be present. I therefore do not agree with the recent assertion[302 - See Brock, ‘Biolog. Centralblatt,’ Bd. VIII. p. 497, 1888.] that Blumenbach’s condition cannot be fulfilled to-day, just as it was impossible at the time when it was first brought forward. But if nevertheless such a mysterious mechanism existed between the parts of the body and the germ-cells, by means of which each change in the former could be reproduced in a different manner in the latter, the effects of this marvellous mechanism would certainly be perceptible and could be subjected to experiment.

But at present we have no evidence of the existence of any such effects; and the experiments described above disprove all the cases of the supposed transmission of single mutilations.

Of course, I do not maintain that such cases are to be always explained by want of sufficient observation. In order to make my position clear, I propose to discuss two further classes of observations. First of all, there are very many cases of the apparent transmission of mutilations in which it was not the mutilation or its consequences which was transmitted, but the predisposition of the part in question to become diseased. Richter[303 - W. Richter, ‘Zur Vererbung erworbener Charaktere,’ Biolog. Centralblatt, Bd. VIII. 1888, p. 289.] has recently pointed out that arrests of development, so slight as to be externally invisible, frequently occur, and that such arrests exhibit a tendency to lead to the visible degeneration of parts in which they occur, as the result of slight injuries. Since therefore the predisposition towards such arrest is transmitted by the germ—occasionally even in an increased degree—the appearance of a transmitted injury may arise. In this way Richter explains, for instance, the frequently quoted case of the soldier who lost his left eye by inflammation fifteen years before he was married, and who had two sons with left eyes malformed (microphthalmic). Microphthalmia is an arrest of development. The soldier did not lose his eye simply because it was injured, but because it was predisposed to become diseased from the beginning and readily became inflamed after a slight injury. He did not transmit to his sons the injury or its results, but only microphthalmia, the predisposition towards which was already innate in him, but which led in his sons from the beginning, and without any obvious external injury, to the malformation of the eye. I am inclined to explain the case which Darwin in a similar manner adduced, during the later years of his life, in favour of the transmission of acquired characters, and which seemed to prove that a malformation of the thumb produced by chilblains can be transmitted. The skin of a boy’s thumbs had been badly broken by chilblains associated with some skin disease. The thumbs became greatly swollen and remained in this state for a long time; when healed they were malformed, and the nails always remained unusually narrow, short, and thick. When this man married and had a family, two of his children had similarly malformed thumbs, and even in the next generation two daughters had malformed thumbs on both hands. The case is too imperfectly known to admit of adequate criticism; but one may perhaps suggest that the skin of different individuals varies immensely in its susceptibility to the effects of cold, and that many children have chilblains readily and badly, while others are not affected in this way. Sometimes members of the same family vary in this respect, and the greater or less predisposition towards the formation of chilblains corresponds with a different constitution of the skin, in which some children follow the father and others follow the mother. In Darwin’s instance a high degree of susceptibility of the skin of the thumb was obviously innate in the father, and this susceptibility was certainly transmitted, and led to the similar malformation of the thumbs of the children, perhaps very early and after the effect of a comparatively slight degree of cold[304 - This case was not observed by Darwin himself, but was communicated to him by J. P. Bishop of Perry, in North America (see ‘Kosmos,’ vol. ix. p. 458). Quite apart from the fact that it is by no means certain whether the father did not already possess an innate malformation of the thumb, exact data are wanting as to the time during which the thumb was diseased, and as to the time when the malformation of the thumb was first observed in the children and the grandchildren; whether at birth or at a later period. For a thorough criticism it would also be necessary to have figures of the thumbs. I should not have alluded to this case, because of its incomplete history, if it had not appeared to me to illustrate the ideas mentioned above. Of course I do not maintain that I have suggested the right explanation in this particular case. It is possible that the father possessed an inherent malformation of the thumb which he had forgotten by the time that he came to have children and grandchildren, and was struck by the abnormality of their thumbs.].

The last class of cases which I should wish to consider, refer to observations in which the mutilation of the parent was certain, and in which a malformation similar to the mutilation had appeared in the child, but in which exact investigation shows that the malformations in parent and child do not in reality correspond to each other.

In this class I include an instance which has only become known during the present year (1888), and which has been observed as exactly as possible by an anthropologist and physician, who has worked up the history of the case. Dr. Emil Schmidt communicated to this year’s meeting of the German Anthropologists’ Association at Bonn a case which indeed seems at first sight to prove that mutilations of the human ear can be transmitted. As Dr. Schmidt has been kind enough to place at my disposal all the material which he collected upon the subject, I have been able to examine it more minutely than is generally possible in such cases; and I will discuss it in detail, as it seems to me to be of fundamental importance in the history of human errors upon this subject.

In a most respectable and thoroughly trustworthy family, the mother possesses a cleft ear-lobe upon one side. She quite distinctly remembers that when playing, between the ages of six and ten years, another child tore out her ear-ring, and that the wound healed so that the cleft remained. Later on a new hole was made in the posterior part of the lobe. She had seven children, and the second of these, who is now a full-grown man, has a cleft ear-lobe on the same side as the mother. It is not known whether the mother possessed an innate malformation of the ear before it was mutilated, but, judging from the present appearance of the ear, this is extremely improbable. Furthermore, the existence of an innate cleft in the ear-lobe has never been previously observed. The parents of the mother did not possess any malformation of the ear. The conclusion seemed to be therefore inevitable that the transmission of an artificial cleft in the ear-lobe had really taken place.

But we must not be too hasty in forming an opinion. When we compare the figures I. and II., representing the two ears, we are first of all struck by the fact that the malformation of the ear of the son has an entirely different appearance from that of the mother. The ear-lobe of the latter is quite normally formed; it is broad and well-developed, and only exhibits a median vertical furrow which is the result of the mutilation. The ear-lobe of the son, on the other hand, is extremely minute, one might even maintain that it is completely wanting. In my opinion a cleft is not present at all, but the far higher posterior corner of the ear forms the end of its posterior margin—the so-called helix. But even if another opinion were pronounced with regard to the interpretation of this part, there is one other circumstance to be taken into account, which appears to me to be absolutely conclusive, and which completely excludes the interpretation of this malformation as the transmission of a mutilation.

Fig. I. H. Helix. Cr. Ah. Crura anthelicis. Ah. Anthelix. Cch. Concha. Hl

. and Hl

. Holes 1 and 2 for ear-rings. Lob. Ear-lobe. Sp. H. Spina helicis. Inc. Incisura intertragica. Tr. Tragus. Atr. Antitragus.

If we compare the ears with each other, that of the mother with that of the son, not only the anatomist but every trained observer will at once be struck by the fact that they are totally different in their outlines as well as in every detail. The upper margin of the ear is very broad in the mother, in the son it is quite pointed: the so-called crura anthelicis are normally developed in the mother, in the son they can hardly be distinguished and open in an anterior direction, while in the mother they are directed upwards. The concha itself, the incisura intertragica, in short everything in the two ears, is as different as it can possibly be in the ears of two individuals.

But this fact obviously proves that the son does not possess the ear of his mother, but probably that of his father or grandfather. Unfortunately the father and grandfather have been now dead for a long time, so that we cannot obtain certain evidence upon this point. At all events, the son does not possess the ear of his mother, and it would be very rash to suppose that he has inherited the ear from the father, but the malformation of the ear-lobe from the mother—a malformation which, as it seems to me, is certainly quite different from that of his mother’s ear. I said that this case was of fundamental importance chiefly because it shows very distinctly, on the one hand, how difficult it is to bring together the material which is absolutely necessary for the correct understanding of a single case, and on the other hand, how carefully the abnormalities must be compared and examined if we wish to escape wrong conclusions. Such precautions have hitherto been rarely taken with the necessary accuracy; people are in most cases satisfied with the knowledge that an abnormality is present in the child on the same part which had been malformed by mutilation in the parent.

But if we are to speak of the transmission of a mutilation, it must be shown, before everything else, that the malformation of the child corresponds precisely to the mutilation of the parent.

For this reason the older observations upon this subject are, in most cases, entirely valueless.

The readiness with which we may be deceived is shown by the fact that I myself nearly became a victim during the past year (1888). A friend of mine, in order to convince me of the transmission of mutilations, called my attention to a linear scar on his left ear, which extended from the upper margin of the helix for some distance upon the posterior part of the anthelix, giving it the appearance of a small, rather sharp ridge. The scar had been caused by a cut from a duelling sword, which the gentleman had received during his residence at the University. Strangely enough, the left ear of his daughter, who is five years old, exhibits a similar peculiarity. The posterior part of the anthelix forms a rather sharp and narrow ridge like that of the father, although the scar itself is wanting.

I must admit that I was at first rather puzzled by this fact, but the mystery was soon solved in a very simple manner. I asked the father to show me his right ear, and I then saw that this ear possessed a similar ridge on the posterior part of the anthelix. Only the scar was absent, which in the left ear brought the crest of the ridge into still greater prominence. The ridge was therefore only an individual peculiarity in the formation of the ear of the father,—a peculiarity which had been transmitted to one ear of the child. No transmission of the mutilation had taken place.

In the same manner, many of the so-called proofs of the transmission of mutilations would be shown, by a careful examination, to be deceptive. We must not expect to succeed in all of them, for in most cases the investigation cannot be completed, chiefly because the condition of the part in question in the ancestors is not known or is only known in an insufficient manner. This is the reason why fresh examples of such so-called proofs continue to appear from time to time,—proofs which do not admit of a searching criticism because something, and in most cases very much, is invariably wanting. But it will be admitted that even a very large number of incomplete proofs do not make a single complete one. On the other hand, it may be asserted that a single instance of coincidence between a mutilation in the parent and a malformation in the offspring, even if well established, would not constitute a proof of the transmission of mutilations. Not every post hoc is also a propter hoc. Nothing illustrates this better than a comparison between the ‘proofs’ which are even now brought forward in favour of the transmission of mutilations and the ‘proofs’ which supported the belief in the efficacy of so-called ‘maternal impressions’ during pregnancy, a belief which was universally maintained up to the middle of the present century. Many of those ‘proofs’ were simply old wives’ fables, and were based upon all kinds of subsequent inventions and alterations. But it cannot be denied that there are a few undoubtedly genuine observations upon cases in which some character in the child reminds us in a striking manner of a deep psychical impression by which the mother was strongly affected during pregnancy.

Thus a trustworthy person told me of the following case. A well-known medical authority cut his leg above the ankle with a knife: his wife was present at the time and was much frightened. She was then in the third month of pregnancy: the child when born was found to have an unusual mark upon the same place above the ankle. People almost forget nowadays the tenacity with which the idea of maternal impressions was kept up until the middle of this century; but it is only necessary to read the received German text-book on physiology of fifty years ago, viz. that of Burdach, in order to be convinced of the accuracy of this statement. Not only does Burdach give a number of ‘conclusive’ cases in man and even in animals (cows and deer), but he also attempts to construct a theoretical explanation of the supposed process. This is undertaken in the following manner,—‘Imagination influences the function of organs;’ but the function of the embryo is the ‘tendency towards development, and hence the influence [of maternal imagination] can make itself felt only as variations in the mode of development.’ Thus by exchanging the conception of function for that of the development of organs, Burdach comes to the conclusion that ‘homologous organs of the mother and the embryo are in such connexion’ that when the former are disturbed a corresponding ‘change in the formation of the latter may arise.’

It seems to be not without value for the appreciation of the questions with which we are dealing to remember that the idea of ‘maternal impressions’ was only comparatively recently believed to be a scientific theory, and that the proofs in support of it were brought forward in form and language as scientific proofs. In Burdach’s book we even meet with detailed ‘proofs’ that violent mental shocks produced by maternal impressions may not only exercise their influence upon one but even upon several children born successively, although with diminishing strength. ‘A young wife received a shock during her first pregnancy upon seeing a child with a hare-lip, and she was constantly haunted with the idea that her child might have the same malformation. She was delivered of a child with a typical hare-lip: her next child had an upper lip with a less-marked cleft; while the third possessed a red mark instead of a cleft.’

Now what can be said about such ‘proofs’? We may probably rightly conjecture that Burdach, who was in other respects a clever physiologist, was in this subject somewhat credulous: but there are also instances about which there is not the slightest doubt. I may remind the reader of a case which has been told by no other than the celebrated embryologist, Carl Ernst von Baer[305 - See Burdach, ‘Lehrbuch der Physiologie,’ Bd. II, 1835-40, p. 128.].

‘A lady was very much upset by a fire, which was visible at a distance, because she believed that it was in her native place. As the latter was seven German miles distant, the impression had lasted a long time before it was possible to receive any certain intelligence, and this long delay affected the mind of the lady so greatly, that for some time afterwards she said that she constantly saw the flames before her eyes. Two or three months afterwards she was delivered of a daughter who had a red patch on the forehead in the form of a flame. This patch did not disappear until the child was seven years old.’ Von Baer added, ‘I mention this case because I am well acquainted with it, for the lady was my own sister, and because she complained of seeing flames before her eyes before the birth of the child, and did not invent it afterwards as the “cause” of the strange appearance.’

Here then we have a case which is absolutely certain. Von Baer’s name is a guarantee for absolute accuracy. Why then has science, in spite of this, rejected the whole idea of the efficacy of ‘maternal impressions’ ever since the appearance of the treatises by Bergmann and Leuckart[306 - See Handwörterbuch der Physiologie von Rud. Wagner, Artikel ‘Zeugung,’ von Rud. Leuckart.]?

Science has rejected this idea for many and conclusive reasons, all of which I am not going to repeat here. In the first place, because our maturer knowledge of the physiology of the body shows that such a causal connexion between the peculiar characters of the child and, if I may say so, the corresponding psychical impressions of the mother, is a supposition which cannot be admitted; but also and chiefly because a single coincidence of an idea of the mother with an abnormality in the child does not form the proof of a causal connexion between the two phenomena.

I do not doubt that among the many thousands of present and past students in German Universities, whose faces are covered with scars, there may be one with a son who exhibits a birth-mark on the spot where the father possesses a scar. All sorts of birth-marks occur, and why should they not sometimes have the appearance of a scar? Such a case, if it occurred, would be acceptable to the adherents of the theory of the transmission of acquired characters; it would in their opinion completely upset the views of their opponents.

But how could such a case, if it were really established, be capable of proving the supposed form of hereditary transmission, any more than von Baer’s case could prove the theory of the efficacy of ‘maternal impressions’?

I am of opinion that the extraordinary rarity of such cases strongly enforces the fact that we have to do with an accidental and not a causal coincidence. If scars could be really transmitted, we should expect very frequently to find birth-marks which correspond to scars upon the face of the father,—viz. in almost all cases in which the son had inherited the type of face possessed by the father. If this were so we should have to be seriously concerned about the beauty of the next generation in Germany, as so many of our undergraduates follow the fashion of decorating their faces with as many of these ‘honourable scars’ as possible.

I have spoken of ‘maternal impressions’ because I wished to show that, until quite recently, distinguished and acute scientific men have adhered to an idea, and believed that they possessed the proof of an idea, which has now been completely and for ever abandoned by science. But in addition to this, there is a very close connexion between the theory of the efficacy of maternal impressions and that of the transmission of acquired characters, and sometimes they are even confounded together.

Last year a popular scientific journal quoted the following case as a proof of the transmission of mutilations. I do not, however, wish to imply that the editor must be held responsible for the errors of a correspondent. ‘In November, 1864, a pregnant merino sheep broke its right fore-leg, about two inches above the knee-joint; the limb was put in splints and healed a long time before the following March, when the animal produced young. The lamb possessed a ring of black wool from two to three inches in breadth round the place at which the mother’s leg had been broken, and upon the same leg.’ Now if we even admitted that a ring of black wool could be looked upon as a character which corresponds to the fracture of the mother’s leg, the case could not possibly be interpreted as the transmission of a mutilation, but as an instance of the efficacy of maternal impressions; for the ewe was already pregnant when she fractured her leg. The present state of biological science teaches us that, with the fusion of egg and sperm-cell, potential heredity is determined[307 - See V. Hensen, ‘Physiologie der Zeugung.’ Leipzig, 1881.]. Such fusion determines the future fate of the egg-cell and the individual with all its various tendencies.

Such tales, when quoted as ‘remarkable facts which prove the transmission of mutilations,’ thoroughly deserve the contempt with which they have been received by Kant and His. When the above-mentioned instance was told me, I replied, ‘It is a pity that the black wool was not arranged in the form of the inscription “To the memory of the fractured leg of my dear mother.”’

The tales of the efficacy of ‘maternal impressions’ and of the transmission of mutilations are closely connected, and break down before the present state of biological science. No one can be prevented from believing such things, but they have no right to be looked upon as scientific facts or even as scientific questions. The first was abandoned in the middle of the present century, and the second may be given up now; when once discarded we need not fear that it will ever again be resuscitated.

It is hardly necessary to say that the question as to the transmission of acquired characters is not completely decided by the unconditional rejection of the transmission of mutilations. Although I am of opinion that such transmission does not take place, and that we can explain the phenomena presented by the transformation of species without this supposition, I am far from believing that the question is settled, simply because the transmission of mutilations may be dismissed into the domain of fable. But at all events we have gained this much,—that the only facts which appear to directly prove a transmission of acquired characters have been refuted, and that the only firm foundation on which this hypothesis has been hitherto based has been destroyed. We shall not be obliged, in future, to trouble about every single so-called proof of the transmission of mutilations, and investigation may be concentrated upon the domain in which lies the true decision as to the Lamarckian principle, it may be concerned with the explanation of the observed phenomena of transformation.

If, as I believe, these phenomena can be explained without the Lamarckian principle, we have no right to assume a form of transmission of which we cannot prove the existence. Only if it could be shown that we cannot now or ever dispense with the principle, should we be justified in accepting it. I do not think that I can represent the state of the subject better than by again referring to the metaphor of the ship. We see it moving along with all sails set, we can discern the presence of neither paddles nor screw, and as far as we can judge there is no funnel, nor any other sign of an engine. In such a case we shall not be justified in concluding that an engine is present and has some share in the movement of the vessel, unless the movement is of such a kind that it is impossible to explain it as due to the unaided action of the wind, the current, and the rudder. Only if the phenomena presented by the progress of organic evolution are proved to be inexplicable without the hypothesis of the transmission of acquired characters, shall we be justified in retaining such an hypothesis.

notes

1

Humboldt’s ‘Ausichten der Natur.’

2