Heredity and Biological Terms

Abstract

WILL you allow me space for a short comment on the recent discussion in NATURE on Sir Archdall Reid's letters? The chief point raised by Sir Archdall Reid seems to me to be of great importance, and very far from being a side-issue. The usual custom of speaking of “characters” in living beings as either “innate” or “acquired”: the product of either nature or nurture: or of describing them by other pairs of terms of similar import, does lead to much confusion in the minds of many when studying the production of “characters” and very especially that of human characters. Some seventeen years ago, when making a study ot this kind, I was aided greatly by many communications I had with Sir Archdall Reid, and particularly by an article entitled “Biological Terms,” published in the final number of Bedrock in 1914, which virtually sets forth the main position advocated by him in the present discussion. I do not intend to touch on any conflicting views on modes of hereditary transmission which may enter into this discussion, but are not strictly relevant to Sir Archdall Reid's main contention, except to say that the particular difficulty which he points out and strives to conquer can concern only those biologists who do not regard the modern Lamarckian hypothesis as established, or even as verisimilar. If that hypothesis were verified the whole contention would fail.