they exercise what we may term a homœopathic influence on the germinal substance can the accommodation they have learnt be transmitted in inheritance. By a homœopathic influence is here meant one that is of such a nature as to communicate to the germinal substance, the seeds of similar changes of structure or function. And of the occurrence of any such homœopathic influence there is no convincing evidence.
Logically contrasted with the modifications of the tissues, dependent on organic plasticity, are the variations which arise from the nature and constitution of the reproductive cells. How they arise cannot here be discussed. But they are, it is believed, subject to the influence of natural selection, which has guided them, throughout the ages of organic evolution, in the directions they have taken; disadvantageous variations having been eliminated, and favourable variations surviving in the struggle for existence. Such modes of behaviour as are congenital and are due to hereditary transmission are therefore the outcome of variations which have been selected generation after generation. And the fit adjustment of this congenital behaviour to the needs of life is termed adaptation. It is here assumed that modifications of behaviour in one generation are not inherited, and therefore contribute nothing to the store of adaptive behaviour in the next generation.
It must not, however, be supposed that the provisional acceptance of this conclusion involves the denial of all connection of any sort between accommodation and adaptation. When we remember that plastic modification and germinal variation have been working together, in close association, all along the line of organic evolution to reach the common goal of adjustment to the circumstances of life, it is difficult to believe that they have been throughout the whole process altogether independent of each other. Granted that acquired modifications, as such, are not directly inherited, they may none the less afford the conditions under which coincident variations escape elimination. By coincident variations I mean those the direction of which coincides with that taken by modification. The survival of an animal depends on its adjustment to the circumstances of its life, no matter how this adjustment is secured. And this survival would in the long run be better secured, we may suppose, where the two methods of adjustment were coincident and not conflicting;[15] just as a man who not only acquires by his own exertions a fortune but also inherits one, is better off than his neighbour, of equal business capacity, who is entirely dependent on his own exertions. The inheritance of a small capital may, indeed, make just the difference between success and failure. Even with it, if he had no power of acquiring more, he might remain a poor man. Inheritance and acquisition combined may best lead to survival in competition. Thus modification may supply the conditions under which coincident variations are favoured, and, given time, to reach step by step, through natural selection, a fully adaptive level. If this be so we may accept many of the facts adduced by the transmissionist in favour of the direct inheritance of acquired characters, and at the same time interpret them on selectionist principles.
If, however, acquired characters are not hereditary the method of natural selection in racial progress is curiously indirect. Apart from the preservation of their fecundity, the cells on which the continuity of life, in all the higher animals, depends, have themselves taken little part in the struggle for existence. Just as in the forest tree, the firmly implanted roots, the sturdy stem, and the strong branches have to bear the stress of the winter storm, that the flowers of spring may ripen the seeds which contain the potentiality of all this strength; so do muscle, sinew, and brain secure the survival of the animal, that his descendants may carry on the struggle. One may liken the cellular constituents of the animal to a hive of bees with fertile drones and queen, and sterile workers. It is on the exertions of the latter that, in the struggle for existence, the continued existence of the swarm depends, while it is by the pairing of the fertile drone and queen that the continuity of the race is secured. No worker can transmit the qualities which are so essential to the well-being of the community. But in the eggs of their sister the queen-mother these qualities lie dormant. And since the race is one race, the workers by their exertions contribute indirectly to the maintenance of those hereditary aptitudes to which they are unable to contribute directly. For it is essential to bear in mind that they not only work for their own generation, but they determine the course of heredity. Picture two such communities set in an environment which intensifies the struggle for existence. The one is strong, healthy, and vigorous; the other in all respects the reverse. The incidence of the battle of life falls mainly on the workers. If they succumb in the one group their fertile queen either perishes, or gives rise to a poor stock, certain in the long run to be eliminated. But the vigorous workers in the other group survive and secure, too, the survival of their queen, who, since she is also their sister, bears, in her ovaries, the good seed from which a new generation of vigorous workers shall be developed. Thus though the sterile bees contribute nothing directly to the heredity of the race, they indirectly determine the direction which that heredity shall take. So, too, in the higher animals, the reproductive cells are the fertile sisters of a host of sterile body cells, on which the main incidence of the struggle for existence falls. Their sterility precludes their directly contributing to the success of future cell-generations; but in protecting their fertile sisters, the reproductive cells, they are really determining the lines along which the evolution of the race shall continue.
Acquired characters may thus be regarded as the results of those accidents, fortunate or the reverse as the case may be, which happen to the body, and more or less modify its outward form or hidden structure, and its modes of organic behaviour; but which, as such, have no direct effects for better or worse on the germinal substance. All that the plant or animal can be is due to heredity; all that it is, to heredity and circumstance. Even the ability to yield to circumstance is part of heredity’s dower. Fortunate, then, the plant or animal that inherits such definiteness of structure and behaviour as may fit it to its station, together with such plasticity as may enable it to accommodate itself to those changes of environing conditions which may fall to its lot.
One more point must be noticed in connection with this difficult and puzzling subject. The acceptance of the conclusion that acquired modes of behaviour are not hereditary nowise commits us to the belief that heredity has nothing whatever to do with them. Though what is acquired may not be transmitted, what one may term the acquisitiveness is unquestionably inherited. Though this, that, or the other acquired mode of behaviour may have no direct descendants, the power of acquiring any one of them under the appropriate circumstances is handed on as an invaluable legacy. Just as the mirror which has reflected a fleeting scene retains no lasting image of the bygone events, so heredity may retain no impress of acquired characters; but just as the mirror keeps its power of reflecting such scenes, so does heredity transmit the power of acquiring such characters. As the leaves of the oak are renewed each successive spring, so may acquired modes of behaviour be repeated in each successive generation if only the requisite conditions recur in due season.
From what has preceded it may, therefore, be inferred that organic behaviour may arise either through modifications occurring in the plastic tissues, or through variations having their origin in the germinal substance. Broadly speaking, however, we may regard as predominantly due to adaptation those congenital modes of behaviour and those organic responses which on their first occurrence are relatively definite in character, and which are directed to a biological end, for whose attainment the tissues have had no preparatory training; and we may regard as predominantly due to accommodation those responses which are, so to speak, learnt by the tissues in the course of individual life. Both are dependent on heredity, but in different ways. What the animal owes to heredity may, indeed, as I have elsewhere said,[16] be classified under two heads. Under the first will fall those relatively definite modes of behaviour which fit the animal to deal at once, on their first occurrence, with certain essential or frequently recurring conditions of the environment. Under the second head will fall the power of dealing with special circumstances as they arise in the course of a varied life. The former may be likened to the inheritance of specific drafts for definite needs which are sure to arise in the conduct of life; the latter to the inheritance of a legacy which may be drawn upon for any purpose as occasion may demand. If the need becomes habitual the animal may, so to speak, instruct his banker to set aside a specific sum to meet it as it arises. But this arrangement is a purely individual matter, dictated by experience, and in no wise enjoined by the original terms of the bequest. And both types are fostered by natural selection which develops (a) such congenital definiteness of response,