|species the most | |
|imitation. |satisfactory yet stated.| |
| | | |
|Opposed |Inheritance of acquired | |Inheritance
|preformation |characters. | |of acquired
|views of | | |characters.
|Haller and |Instinct the result of | |
|Bonnet. |inherited habits. | |
| | | |
| |Opposed preformation | |
| |views; epigenesis | |
| |definitely stated and | |
| |adopted. | |
| | | |
-------------+-------------+------------------------+------------+------------

FOOTNOTES:

[179] [Cabanis.] _Rapp. du Phys. et du Moral de l'Homme_, pp. 38 a 39,
et 85.

[180] Lamarck's idea of the animal series was that of a branched one, as
shown by his genealogical tree on p. 193, and he explains that the
series begins at least by two special branches, these ending in
branchlets. He thus breaks entirely away from the old idea of a
continuous ascending series of his predecessors Bonnet and others.
Professor R. Hertwig therefore makes a decided mistake and does Lamarck
a great injustice in his "Zooelogy," where he states: "Lamarck, in
agreement with the then prevailing conceptions, regarded the animal
kingdom as a series grading from the lowest primitive animal up to man"
(p. 26); and again, on the next page, he speaks of "the theory of
Geoffroy St.-Hilaire and Lamarck" as having in it "as a fundamental
error the doctrine of the serial arrangement of the animal world"
(English Trans.). Hertwig is in error, and could never have carefully
read what Lamarck did say, or have known that he was the first to throw
aside the serial arrangement, and to sketch out a genealogical tree.

[181] The foregoing pages (283-286) are reprinted by the author from the
_Discours_ of 1803. See pp. 266-270.

[182] Perrier thus comments on this passage: "_Ici nous sommes bien
pres, semble-t-il, non seulement de la lutte pour la vie telle one la
concevra Darwin, mais meme de la s