ts surroundings a living form may be, the more likely it is
to outbreed its compeers. The world at large, again, needs not to be
told that the normal course is not unfrequently deflected through the
fortunes of war; nevertheless, according to Lamarckians and
Erasmus-Darwinians, habitual effort, guided by ever-growing
intelligence--that is to say, by continued increase of power in the
matter of knowing our likes and dislikes--has been so much the main
factor throughout the course of organic development, that the rest,
though not lost sight of, may be allowed to go without saying. According,
on the other hand, to extreme Charles-Darwinians and Weismannists, habit,
effort and intelligence acquired during the experience of any one life
goes for nothing. Not even a little fraction of it endures to the
benefit of offspring. It dies with him in whom it is acquired, and the
heirs of a man's body take no interest therein. To state this doctrine
is to arouse instinctive loathing; it is my fortunate task to maintain
that such a nightmare of waste and death is as baseless as it is
repulsive.

The split in biological opinion occasioned by the deadlock to which
Charles-Darwinism has been reduced, though comparatively recent, widens
rapidly. Ten years ago Lamarck's name was mentioned only as a byword for
extravagance; now, we cannot take up a number of _Nature_ without seeing
how hot the contention is between his followers and those of Weismann.
This must be referred, as I implied earlier, to growing perception that
Mr. Darwin should either have gone farther towards Lamarckism or not so
far. In admitting use and disuse as freely as he did, he gave
Lamarckians leverage for the overthrow of a system based ostensibly on
the accumulation of fortunate accidents. In assigning the lion's share
of development to the accumulation of fortunate accidents, he tempted
fortuitists to try to cut the ground from under Lamarck's feet by denying
that the effects of use and disuse can be inherited at all. When the
public had once got to understand what Lamarck had intended, and wherein
Mr. Charles Darwin had differed from him, it became impossible for
Charles-Darwinians to remain where they were, nor is it easy to see what
course was open to them except to cast about for a theory by which they
could get rid of use and disuse altogether. Weismannism, therefore, is
the inevitable outcome of the straits to which Charles-Darwinians were
reduced th