It seems to us that a fatal objection to all these Neo-Lamarckian theories of evolution is that they are based on the assumption that acquired characters are inherited, whereas all the evidence goes to show that such characters are not inherited. In these days, when scientific knowledge is so widely diffused, it is scarcely necessary to say that all the characteristics which an organism displays are either congenital or inborn, or acquired by the organism during its lifetime. Thus a man may have naturally a large biceps muscle, and this is a congenital character; or he may by constant exercise develop or greatly increase the size of the biceps. The large biceps, in so far as it has been increased by exercise, is said to be an acquired character, for it was not inherited by its possessor, but acquired by him in his lifetime. We must bear in mind that the period in the life history of an organism at which a character appears, is not necessarily a test as to whether it is congenital or acquired, for a great many congenital characters, such as a man’s beard, do not appear until some years after birth. As we have seen, the Neo-Lamarckians believe that it is possible for an organism to transmit to its offspring characters which it has acquired during the course of its existence. But, as we have already said, the evidence goes to show that such characters are not inherited. For example, the tail of the young fox-terrier is not shorter than that of other breeds of dogs, notwithstanding the fact that its ancestors have for generations had the greater portion of their caudal appendage removed shortly after birth.
We do not propose to discuss at any great length the vexed question of the inheritance of acquired characters, for the simple reason that the Neo-Lamarckians have not brought forward a single instance which indubitably proves that such characters are inherited.
Mr J. T. Cunningham, in a paper of great value and interest, entitled “The Heredity of Secondary Sexual Characters in relation to Hormones: a Theory of the Heredity of Somatogenic Characters,” which appeared in vol. xxvi., No. 3, of the _Archiv für Entwicklungsmechanik des Organismen_, states: “The dogma that acquired characters cannot be inherited . . . is founded not so much on evidence, or the absence of evidence, as on _a priori_ reasoning, on the supposed difficulty or impossibility of conceiving a means by which such inheritance could be effected.” Such appears certainly to be true of some zoologists, but we trust that Mr Cunningham will do us the justice to believe that our opinion that the inheritance of acquired characters does not play an important part in the evolution of, at any rate, the higher animals, is based, not on the ground of _a priori_ reasoning, but on facts. All the evidence seems to show that such characteristics are not inherited. If, as Mr Cunningham thinks, all secondary sexual characters are due to the inheritance of the effects of use, etc., how is it that no Neo-Lamarckian is able to bring forward a clear case of the inheritance of a well-defined acquired character? If such characteristics are habitually inherited, countless examples should be forthcoming. Fanciers in their endeavours are constantly “doctoring” the animals they keep for show purposes; and it seems to us certain that if acquired characters are inherited, breeders would long ago have discovered this and acted upon the discovery. If Neo-Darwinians are charged with refusing to believe that acquired characters are inherited because they “cannot conceive the means by which it could be effected,” may it not be said with equal justice that many Neo-Lamarckians believe that acquired characters are inherited, not on evidence thereof, but because if such characters are not inherited it is very difficult to account for many of the phenomena presented by the organic world?