about　it　that　will　shortly　prove　unanswerable。　　We　cannot　so　test
  every　sixpence　given　us　in　change　as　to　be　sure　that　we　never　take　a
  bad　one；　and　had　better　sometimes　be　cheated　than　reduce　caution　to
  an　absurdity。　　Moreover；　we　have　seen　from　the　evidence　given　in　my
  preceding　article　that　the　germ…cells　issuing　from　a　parent's　body
  can；　and　do；　respond　to　profound　impressions　made　on　the　somatic…
  cells。　　This　being　so；　what　impressions　are　more　profound；　what
  needs　engage　more　assiduous　attention　than　those　connected　with
  self…protection；　the　procuring　of　food；　and　the　continuation　of　the
  species？　　If　the　mere　anxiety　connected　with　an　ill…healing　wound
  inflicted　on　but　one　generation　is　sometimes　found　to　have　so
  impressed　the　germ…cells　that　they　hand　down　its　scars　to　offspring；
  how　much　more　shall　not　anxieties　that　have　directed　action　of　all
  kinds　from　birth　till　death；　not　in　one　generation　only　but　in　a
  longer　series　of　generations　than　the　mind　can　realise　to　itself；
  modify；　and　indeed　control；　the　organisation　of　every　species？
  I　see　Professor　S。　H。　Vines；　in　the　article　on　Weismann's　theory
  referred　to　in　my　preceding　article；　says　Mr。　Darwin　〃held　that　it
  was　not　the　sudden　variations　due　to　altered　external　conditions
  which　become　permanent；　but　those　slowly　produced　by　what　he　termed
  'the　accumulative　action　of　changed　conditions　of　life。'〃　　Nothing
  can　be　more　soundly　Lamarckian；　and　nothing　should　more　conclusively
  show　that；　whatever　else　Mr。　Darwin　was；　he　was　not　a　Charles…
  Darwinian；　but　what　evidence　other　than　inferential　can　from　the
  nature　of　the　case　be　adduced　in　support　of　this；　as　I　believe；
  perfectly　correct　judgment？　　None　know　better　than　they　who　clamour
  for　direct　evidence　that　their　master　was　right　in　taking　the
  position　assigned　to　him　by　Professor　Vines；　that　they　cannot
  reasonably　look　for　it。　　With　us；　as　with　themselves；　modification
  proceeds　very　gradually；　and　it　violates　our　principles　as　much　as
  their　own　to　expect　visible　permanent　progress；　in　any　single
  generation；　or　indeed　in　any　number　of　generations　of　wild　species
  which　we　have　yet　had　time　to　observe。　　Occasionally　we　can　find
  such　cases；　as　in　that　of　Branchipus　stagnalis；　quoted　by　Mr。
  Wallace；　or　in　that　of　the　New　Zealand　Kea　whose　skin；　I　was　assured
  by　the　late　Sir　Julius　von　Haast；　has　already　been　modified　as　a
  consequence　of　its　change　of　food。　　Here　we　can　show　that　in　even　a
  few　generations　structure　is　modified　under　changed　conditions　of
  existence；　but　as　we　believe　these　cases　to　occur　comparatively
  rarely；　so　it　is　still　more　rarely　that　they　occur　when　and　where　we
  can　watch　them。　　Nature　is　eminently　conservative；　and　fixity　of
  type；　even　under　considerable　change　of　conditions；　is　surely　more
  important　for　the　well…being　of　any　species　than　an　over…ready　power
  of　adaptation　to；　it　may　be；　passing　changes。　　There　could　be　no
  steady　progress　if　each　generation　were　not　mainly　bound　by　the
  traditions　of　those　that　have　gone　before　it。　　It　is　evolution　and
  not　incessant　revolution　that　both　parties　are　upholding；　and　this
  being　so；　rapid　visible　modification　must　be　the　exception；　not　the
  rule。　　I　have　quoted　direct　evidence　adduced　by　competent　observers；
  which　is；　I　believe；　sufficient　to　establish　the　fact　that　offspring
  can　be　and　is　sometimes　modified　by　the　acquired　habits　of　a
  progenitor。　　I　will　now　proceed　to　the　still　more；　as　it　appears　to
  me；　cogent　proof　afforded　by　general　considerations。
  What；　let　me　ask；　are　the　principal　phenomena　of　heredity？　　There
  must　be　physical　continuity　between　parent；　or　parents；　and
  offspring；　so　that　the　offspring　is；　as　Erasmus　Darwin　well　said；　a
  kind　of　elongation　of　the　life　of　the　parent。
  Erasmus　Darwin　put　the　matter　so　well　that　I　may　as　well　give　his
  words　in　full；　he　wrote：…
  〃Owing　to　the　imperfection　of　language　the　offspring　is　termed　a　new
  animal；　but　is　in　truth　a　branch　or　elongation　of　the　parent；　since
  a　part　of　the　embryon　animal　is；　or　was；　a　part　of　the　parent；　and
  therefore；　in　strict　language；　cannot　be　said　to　be　entirely　new　at
  the　time　of　its　production；　and　therefore　it　may　retain　some　of　the
  habits　of　the　parent　system。
  〃At　the　earliest　period　of　its　existence　the　embryon　would　seem　to
  consist　of　a　living　filament　with　certain　capabilities　of
  irritation；　sensation；　volition；　and　association；　and　also　with　some
  acquired　habits　or　propensities　peculiar　to　the　parent；　the　former
  of　these　are　in　common　with　other　animals；　the　latter　seem　to
  distinguish　or　produce　the　kind　of　animal；　whether　man　or　quadruped；
  with　the　similarity　of　feature　or　form　to　the　parent。〃　｛39｝
  Those　who　accept　evolution　insist　on　unbroken　physical　continuity
  between　the　earliest　known　life　and　ourselves；　so　that　we　both　are
  and　are　not　personally　identical　with　the　unicellular　organism　from
  which　we　have　descended　in　the　course　of　many　millions　of　years；
  exactly　in　the　same　way　as　an　octogenarian　both　is　and　is　not
  personally　identical　with　the　microscopic　impregnate　ovum　from　which
  he　grew　up。　　Everything　both　is　and　is　not。　　There　is　no　such　thing
  as　strict　identity　between　any　two　things　in　any　two　consecutive
  seconds。　　In　strictness　they　are　identical　and　yet　not　identical；　so
  that　in　strictness　they　violate　a　fundamental　rule　of　strictness
  namely；　that　a　thing　shall　never　be　itself　and　not　itself　at　one　and
  the　same　time；　we　must　choose　between　logic　and　dealing　in　a
  practical　spirit　with　time　and　space；　it　is　not　surprising；
  therefore；　that　logic；　in　spite　of　the　show　of　respect　outwardly
  paid　to　her；　is　told　to　stand　aside　when　people　come　to　practice。
  In　practice　identity　is　generally　held　to　exist　where　continuity　is
  only　broken　slowly　and　piecemeal；　nevertheless；　that　occasional
  periods　of　even　rapid　change　are　not　held　to　bar　identity；　appears
  from　the　fact　that　no　one　denies　this　to　hold　between　the
  microscopically　small　impregnate　ovum　and　the　born　child　that
  springs　from　it；　nor　yet；　therefore；　between　the　impregnate　ovum　and
  the　octogenarian　into　which　the　child　grows；　for　both　ovum　and
  octogenarian　are　held　personally　identical　with　the　newborn　baby；
  and　things　that　are　identical　with　the　same　are　identical　with　one
  another。
  The　first；　then；　and　most　important　element　of　heredity　is　that
  there　should　be　unbroken　continuity；　and　hence　sameness　of
  personality；　between　parents　and　offspring；　in　neither　more　nor　less
  than　the　same　sense　as　that　in　which　any　other　two　personalities　are
  said　to　be　the　same。　　The　repetition；　therefore；　of　its
  developmental　stages　by　any　offspring　must　be　regarded　as　something
  which　the　embryo　repeating　them　has　already　done　once；　in　the　person
  of　one　or　other　parent；　and　if　once；　then；　as　many　times　as　there
  have　been　generations　between　any　given　embryo　now　repeating　it；　and
  the　point　in　life　from　which　we　startedsay；　for　example；　the
  amoeba。　　In　the　case　of　asexually　and　sexually　produced　organisms
  alike；　the　offspring　must　be　held　to　continue　the　personality　of　the
  parent　or　parents；　and　hence　on　the　occasion　of　every　fresh
  development；　to　be　repeating　something　which　in　the　person　of　its
  parent　or　parents　it　has　done　once；　and　if　once；　then　any　number　of
  times；　already。
  It　is　obvious；　therefore；　that　the　germ…plasm　（or　whatever　the　fancy
  word　for　it　may　be）　of　any　one　generation　is　as　physically　identical
  with　the　germ…plasm　of　its　predecessor　as　any　two　things　can　be。
  The　difference　between　Professor　Weismann　and；　we　will　say；
  Heringians　consists　in　the　fact　that　the　first　maintains　the　new
  germ…plasm　when　on　the　point　of　repeating　its　developmental
  processes　to　take　practically　no　cognisance　of　anything　that　has
  happened　to　it　since　the　last　occasion　on　which　it　developed　itself；
  while　the　latter　maintain　that　offspring　takes　much　the　same　kind　of
  account　of　what　has　happened　to　it　in　the　persons　of　its　parents
  since　the　last　occasion　on　which　it　developed　itself；　as　people　in
  ordinary　life　take　of　things　that　happen　to　them。　　In　daily　life
  people　let　fairly　normal　circumstances　come　and　go　without　much　heed
  as　matters　of　course。　　If　they　have　been　lucky　they　make　a　note　of
  it　and　try　to　repeat　their　success。　　If　they　have　been　unfortunate
  but　have　recovered　rapidly　they　soon　forget　it；　if　they　have
  suffered　long　and　deeply　they　grizzle　over　it　and　are　scared　and
  scarred　by　it　for　a　long　time。　　The　question　is　one　of　cognisance　or
  non…cognisance　on　the　part　of　the　new　germs；　of　the　more　profound
  impressions　made　on　them　while　they　were　one　with　their　parents；
  between　the　occasion　of　their　last　preceding　development；　and　the
  new　course　on　which　they　are　about　to　enter。　　Those　who　accept　the
  theory　put　forward　independently　by　Professor　Hering　of　Prague
  （whose　work　on　this　subject　is　translated　in　my　book；　〃Unconscious
  Memory〃）　｛40｝　and　by　myself　in　〃Life　and　Habit；〃　｛41｝　believe　in
  cognizance；　as　do　Lamarckians　generally。　　Weismannites；　and　with
  them　the　orthodoxy　of　English　science；　find　non…cognisance　more
  acceptable。
  If　the　Heringian　view　is　accepted；　that　heredity　is　only　a　mode　of
  memory；　and　an　extension　of　memory　from　one　generation　to　another；
  then　the　repetition　of