To meet the conditions laid down in Professor Thomson’s Canon I propose to describe certain phenomena which are adduced as instances of modifications in certain mammals whose structure and mode of life are intimately known, and whose ancestry is little in dispute.[33] The most convincing of these lines of evidence are those which are shown to be outside the range of any form of selection, as well as the distributional factors of Mendel and de Vries. It is well to enumerate here the six different factors in organic evolution which might claim a share in the produc­tion of such humble phenomena as form the subject-matter of this volume—they are:

1. Personal Selection of Darwin.
2. Sexual Selection.
3. Histonal or Cellular Selection of Roux.
4. Germinal Selection.
5. Inheritance according to Mendelian principles.
6. Inheritance of Mutations.

There is a somewhat severe and ill-defined condition attached to the formula in question for it demands that such modifications as will satisfy the neo-Darwinians shall not be correlated with any useful character.[34] If such a conditio sine quâ non were taken too literally it would at once foreclose the case as to the possibility of transmission of modifications at all, the questions of issue ought in that case never to have been raised—and, cadit quæstio. This cannot be the intention of the biologist who propounds the formula. It could not reasonably be carried so far as to insist that a modifica­tion arising from a certain habit, active or passive, in an animal, and which on that account, and on paper, may loosely be said to be ‘correlated’ with it, is to be ruled out. That would be tantamount to saying for example, that, because an animal must lie down in a certain attitude when it rests, or walk or run in a certain manner, in other words that it is useful to exist, certain modifications claimed to be due to these fundamental parts of existence must be excluded from the inquiry. The neo-Darwinian is not a critic easy to be entreated, but that he would not claim. Let me take one example of what I mean. A short-haired dog will spend a considerable part of its daily life, and presumably a long line of ancestors did so too, lying with its forelegs planted in front of its chest and its head either raised in the air when awake or resting on the upper surface of the forelegs (of course the familiar attitude of a dog with its body and head curled up and fore-legs doubled is not referred to here). If the hairy coat be examined over its neck and jaw, which lie in this attitude, on and against the forelegs, a remarkable reversal of the direction of the hairs is found and the outline of this forms an accurate mould of the surface applied to the forelegs. This is transmitted of course from previous generations of domestic dogs. A precisely analogous reversal of the hairs is found on the under or extensor surfaces of the forelegs, matching with wonderful exactness the area of pressure of these on the ground, and anyone can see it who has a canine friend of the fox-terrier type. Long-haired dogs display it less neatly outlined. An instance such as this cannot be excluded from the evidence forthcoming because it is correlated with the useful “character” of lying in a certain attitude. Such a phenomenon, many similar to which will be seen later, had at any rate an origin de novo at some time in the ancestral stock, and in some way. To discover these is part of my business. The boldest neo-Darwinian will not claim that this arrangement of a dog’s hair arose by selectional processes within the germ either in the initial or completed stages.

Correlation.

The term “correla­tion” is somewhat scornfully said by Weismann to be “unquestionably a fine word,” and it has indeed in biological writings a very varied set of meanings. I will not vex the reader with a reference to our old friend Mesopotamia, but mention what Dr. Vernon in Variation in Animals and Plants says of the term, referring to the relation between stature and head-index in man: “Such a statement must vary according to the notion of the observer as to what does and what does not constitute correla­tion.”[35] The most approved and precise meaning of the loose term in question is that associated with the work of the biometricians, and a few examples from Dr. Vernon’s book will show how far this concep­tion of correla­tion is removed from the literal applica­tion of Professor Thomson’s formula. Dr. Vernon treats of such phenomena as the correla­tion of the long heads of greyhounds with length of legs, contrasting them with the shortened heads and legs of bull-dogs. He describes also the correla­tion in man between the stature and length of forearm from elbow to tip of middle finger, correlated measurements of crabs, of external structures of prawns, the tufts of Polish fowls correlated with perforations in the skull, also certain constitutional peculiarities with colour of skin. These few cases are enough to give an idea of the more precise and fairer accepta­tion of the term, but while these form a useful subject for minute study it may be remarked that they agree also with Lamarckian factors as to their origin and development. They are much more in line with Darwin’s use of the word and are strangely reminiscent of the well-known example of the Irish elk with its great head and horns which was brought forward in favour of Lamarckism by Herbert Spencer. They breathe an atmosphere of physiology rather than anatomy, or function than form.

Enough has been said here by way of defining the terms of the issue. The negative we have to sustain is that the following facts and observations declare that certain small modifications cannot be governed by selection and are not correlated with useful characters. It will be shown later that Professor Thomson’s stringent condition is not in all of them compiled with, but that, in spite of this, the probability of their being valid examples of Lamarckism in practice is immense.

CHAPTER IV.
INITIAL VARIATIONS AND TOTAL EXPERIENCE.

The present chapter is on a priori lines and will perhaps be dismissed with a wave of the hand or hurriedly skimmed over, but I pray the reader at least to read the two or three last pages of it. It is at any rate suggestive, and perhaps I may anticipate the comments of the neo-Darwinian and throw myself on his mercy by mentioning a remark of the late Sir Andrew Clark, prince of physicians and genial cynic, which he made to a patient in my presence. A lady not distinguished for depth of thought asked him a rather silly question in medicine. As if offended he drew himself up, holding in his hand a cup of tea which he was enjoying, and replied at once “Madam, you must get a younger and more inexperienced man than I am to answer you that question.”