New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-12-17
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
REMEMBRANCE.

by Spencer and Darwin. BY william Pistt pail
I6mo PIP. 1876. Macmillan q Co
The questions dealt with in this VOLUME Aio
M, merely interesting from speculative point OF
y;eu but upon their solution depend social prop
lens Of the first importance. The views SET ioI,''
nv nh. author coincide in large measure WIN 'ne
,beorv NJ beredity advanced by Weismann an"
other recent investigators. According 70 spencer
and Darwin, acquired habits ana lacui'i'' q"
transmitted. The new school MAINTAIN u" '"e
contrary that this is not the case or u, ''',' u.
no sufficient evidence of it can be aduuceu' Az
first sight the later position may seem ~ ~ -
the face of experience for IL uleht w '"0"e"
that If acquired faculties ana hapi's WIZ NV
transmitted, the progress OF the huheh rao' "o",u
h. imnossibe In the case supposed 'ileic "o".u
~ 80 ro.son why each new generation should
NOT revert 20 the original savagelsm' b"t III i'c'
tho theory does not involve so wild suppose
~ &C. :; b.re ;,nplied What il signifies is that
~. ocourcd babits-the special accretlons or earn
;rns NJ hfe-time-are not transmitted lhlS
dos M. mean that traits Of character, tendeh-
c;~s etc. are not propagated by inheritance
What il asserts is that an athlete. for instance
who has developed certain muscles specially uoeS
mt transmit that acquired Developments 'na' u
great Greek scholar does not transmit his own
.couired facility in Greek; that Blondih uoe'
not transmit his acquired skill on the tlgh'rope,
Tho evidence for the view OF Spencer anu
Darwin. after analysis by DR. Ball, does ho' p''-
sent convincing aspect, II must DC saiu. H''
40 Knows from personal experience that the trans
mission of acquired habits is by no means ma
tor NJ common observation When the question
;s mt straiChtly-" Does individual improvement
transmit itself to descendants independently oil
,,o,sorol teaching and example pit will at once
be felt that the answer To 1t Is not ln''""'iN
forthcoming But if the fact he doubtful. OF IL
IL he possible TO show that the belief III such
transmission is erroneous the effect upon 'he plc-
yailing theories of phianthropic action Is se''o"'
and disturbing. For. as DR.. Ball puts Inc casc
If acquired notifications are impressed on '"'
offspring and on the race. the systematic 'ii'i
training of individuals will, in time. produce 4
copstitutionally moral race, and we may nope ~
improve mankind, even in Geiance OF 'ic ui'-
natural selection by which spurious but highly
popular philanthropy would sys'fma'lc"ilH l''o'
tho survival Of the unfttest and the rapid null
tipication Of the worst. But il acquired moolhca-
tions do not tend 10 be transmitted. II the use
or disusc of organs or faculties does not similarly
affect posteritv by inheritance. then 1t is evident
that no innate Improvement in the race can take
Mace without the aid of natural or artlhclai
selection" The argument of DR. Ball goes 10
show that most of the supposed evidence LOT
what lie calls use-inhcritancc is really capable
of very different Interpretation: that frequently
the facts cited may he fairly ascribed 10 natural
selection that moreover. so far as use-lnhcrltahce
can be established, il signifies the preparation OF
evil and not Of COED hut that IN" testimony Is
foo slight and too confused 10 warrant ailir1a-
tive conclusion.
"Usc-inhcritancc observes the author, would
pcrpetuatc various evils. We are taught, for IN
stance. that il perpetuatcs short-sight, inferior
n{fV
so forth 1t would apparently transmit the evil
effects of overcxcrton disuse, hardship, exposure,
disease and accident as we'll the defects OF
ace or immaturity" And elsewhere he says: In
MANY WAYS education and civilization foster
nervousness and weakness and undermine The rrde
natural health and spirits Of the human animal
Alcohol, tobacco. tea. coffee. extra brain Work.
late hours dissipation. ovcrwork, indoor lie. dlVl-
sion Of labor, preservation of the weak, and many
other causes. all help to injure the modern con
stituton so that the prospect of cumulative lnten
sfcation of these evils by the additional influence
Of use-inheritance is not an encouraging one Oh
course, no consideration of what would be best
can he admitted as legitimate in purely scientific
inquiry. The question 10 be determined Is net
what we should prefer, but what actually is In
inquiries of this kind the consequences must take
care of themselves for no matter which way the
determination of the facts may turn. it must re-
main true that the is one Of natural pho
pomena and laws. over which man can eAercis'
no applicable influence DR.. Ball does not con
tend that use and diSTsc have no effects, hut ONLY
that they have 10 such effects as Darwin aN'
Spencer have attributed 70 them His arsuIEen
tends 10 show that 80 slight is lis indepenaeh
mower that il seems 10 allow natural selection %
artificial selection or sexual selection TO modify OF
ranisms in sheer defiance Of IFS utI,.st oPpesi
ton. Just as readily as they modify organisms i
other directions with its utmost help.
II is. he asserts, often misclieveus, as well a
anomalous in its action, and he cites many sprcifi
instances Of this. His statement Of the case r.
Cnrding the ALLEGED Transmission Of mutations ar
pears 10 very strong. and the examples g
questionable use-inhcritancc arc striking and niue
to the point The whole subject is far TOO con
plex to be settled either way upon any singl
statement. and the weight of authority is at pre-
ent so divided that the public cannot be expecte
10 make up their minds BIT we inclined
think that few candid readers of DR.. Balls ccarl
reasoned and ingenious little book will fail
agree with him that, if the evils of usc-nhe riano
are what they appear 10 be, it would be bette
on the whole if each individual TOOL. fres
start as far as possible. on the advantageous typ
cal lines laid down by natural selection"