" {252b}
So that Mr. Darwin, according to Mr. Allen, is clean out of it. Truly
when Mr. Allen makes stepping-stones of his dead selves, he jumps upon
them to some tune. But then Mr. Darwin is dead now. I have not heard of
his having given Mr. Allen any manuscripts as he gave Mr. Romanes. I
hope Mr. Herbert Spencer will not give him any. If I was Mr. Spencer and
found my admirers crowning me with Lamarck's laurels, I think I should
have something to say to them.
What are we to think of a writer who declares that the theory that
specific and generic changes are due to use and disuse "explains _all the
facts_ with transparent lucidity"?
Lamarck's hypothesis is no doubt a great help and a great step toward
Professor Hering's; it makes a known cause underlie variations, and thus
is free from those fatal objections which Professor Mivart and others
have brought against the theory of Messrs. Darwin and Wallace; but how
does the theory that use develops an organism explain why offspring
repeat the organism at all? How does the Lamarckian hypothesis explain
the sterility of hybrids, for example? The sterility of hybrids has been
always considered one of the great _cruces_ in connection with any theory
of Evolution. How again does it explain reversion to long-lost
characters and the resumption of feral characteristics? the phenomena of
old age? the principle that underlies longevity? the reason why the
reproductive system is generally the last to arrive at maturity, and why
few further developments take place in any organism after this has been
fully developed? the sterility of many animals under captivity? the
development in both males and females, under certain circumstances, of
the characteristics of the opposite sex? the latency of memory? the
unconsciousness with which we develop, and with which instinctive actions
are performed? How does any theory advanced either by Lamarck, Mr.
Pages:
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289