FullReads

It is not as though the theory were unknown, or had been condemned by our leading men of science. Professor Ray Lankester introduced it to English readers in an appreciative notice of Professor Hering’s address, which appeared in Nature, July 18, 1876. He wrote to the Athenaeum, March 24, 1884, and claimed credit for having done so, but I do not believe he has ever said more in public about it than what I have here referred to. Mr. Romanes did indeed try to crush it in Nature, January 27, 1881, but in 1883, in his “Mental Evolution in Animals,” he adopted its main conclusion without acknowledgment. The Athenaeum, to my unbounded surprise, called him to task for this (March 1, 1884), and since that time he has given the Heringian theory a sufficiently wide berth. Mr. Wallace showed himself favourably enough disposed towards the view that heredity and memory are part of the same story when he reviewed my book “Life and Habit” in Nature, March 27, 1879, but he has never since betrayed any sign of being aware that such a theory existed. Mr. Herbert Spencer wrote to the Athenaeum (April 5, 1884), and claimed the theory for himself, but, in spite of his doing this, he has never, that I have seen, referred to the matter again. I have dealt sufficiently with his claim in my book, “Luck or Cunning.” {43} Lastly, Professor Hering himself has never that I know of touched his own theory since the single short address read in 1870, and translated by me in 1881. Every one, even its originator, except myself, seems afraid to open his mouth about it. Of course the inference suggests itself that other people have more sense than I have. I readily admit it; but why have so many of our leaders shown such a strong hankering after the theory, if there is nothing in it?

The deadlock that I have pointed out as existing in Darwinism will, I doubt not, lead ere long to a consideration of Professor Hering’s theory. English biologists are little likely to find Weismann satisfactory for long, and if he breaks down there is nothing left for them but Lamarck, supplemented by the important and elucidatory corollary on his theory proposed by Professor Hering. When the time arrives for this to obtain a hearing it will be confirmed, doubtless, by arguments clearer and more forcible than any I have been able to adduce; I shall then be delighted to resign the championship which till then I shall continue, as for some years past, to have much pleasure in sustaining. Heretofore my satisfaction has mainly lain in the fact that more of our prominent men of science have seemed anxious to claim the theory than to refute it; in the confidence thus engendered I leave it to any fuller consideration which the outline I have above given may incline the reader to bestow upon it.

[Footnote: {20} Published in the Universal Review, April, May, and June 1890.

{21} “Voyages of the Adventure and Beagle,” iii. p. 237.

{22} “Luck, or Cunning, as the main means of Organic Modification?” (Longmans), pp. 179, 180.

{23} Journals of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society (Zoology, vol. iii.), 1859, p. 61.

{24} “Darwinism” (Macmillan, 1889), p. 129.

{25} Longmans, 1890, p. 376.

{26} See Nature, March 6, 1890.

{27} “Origin of Species,” sixth edition, 1888, vol. i. p. 168.

{28} “Origin of Species,” sixth edition, 1888, vol. ii. p. 261.

{29} Mr. J. T. Cunningham, of the Marine Biological Laboratory, Plymouth, has called my attention to the fact that I have ascribed to Professor Ray Lankester a criticism on Mr. Wallace’s remarks upon the eyes of certain fiat-fish, which Professor Ray Lankester was, in reality, only adopting–with full acknowledgment–from Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Cunningham has left it to me whether to correct my omission publicly or not, but he would so plainly prefer my doing so that I consider myself bound to insert this note. Curiously enough I find that in my book “Evolution Old and New,” I gave what Lamarck actually said upon the eyes of flat-fish, and having been led to return to the subject, I may as well quote his words. He wrote:–

“Need–always occasioned by the circumstances in which an animal is placed, and followed by sustained efforts at gratification–can not only modify an organ–that is to say, augment or reduce it–but can change its position when the case requires its removal.

“Ocean fishes have occasion to see what is on either side of them, and have their eyes accordingly placed on either side of their head. Some fishes, however, have their abode near coasts on submarine banks and inclinations, and are thus forced to flatten themselves as much as possible in order to get as near as they can to the shore. In this situation they receive more light from above than from below, and find it necessary to pay attention to whatever happens to be above them; this need has involved the displacement of their eyes, which now take the remarkable position which we observe in the case of soles, turbots, plaice, etc. The transfer of position is not even yet complete in the case of these fishes, and the eyes are not, therefore, symmetrically placed; but they are so with the skate, whose head and whole body are equally disposed on either side a longitudinal section. Hence the eyes of this fish are placed symmetrically upon the uppermost side.”–Philosophie Zoologique, tom. i., pp. 250, 251. Edition C. Martins. Paris, 1873.

{30} “Essays on Heredity,” etc., Oxford, 1889, p. 171.

{31} “Essays on Heredity,” etc., Oxford, 1889, p. 266.

{32} “Darwinism,” 1889, p. 440.

{33} Page 83.

{34} Vol. i. p. 466, etc. Ed. 1885.

{35} “Darwinism,” p. 440.

{36} Longmans, 1890.

{37} Tom. iv. p. 383. Ed. 1753.

{38} Essays, etc., p. 447.

{39} “Zoonomia,” 1794, vol. i. p. 480.

{40} Longmans, 1890.

{41} Longmans, 1890.

{42} Longmans, 1890.

{43} Longmans, 1890.