Note 30 — Chapter III · THE PROBLEMS PRESENTED.

The term “character” derives both from its etymological origin and its application to biology a double-edged quality. This is of great value to the study of Mendelism which can only or mainly work with “unit-characters,” and it also serves the Weismann dogma well. In both cases the term obliterates the conception of initial variation, and while serving the purposes of these two great schools of thought it directs attention away from the early minute and unimportant stages by which many germinal variations may have arisen. If it had been coined for the purpose, which it was not, it would have been a remarkable instance of polemic cunning. It will be evident in the course of this study of initial variation, that the accredited and general use of the term “character” begs the question far too manifestly for the general use of biologists. If it be retained for the neo-Darwinian and Mendelian provinces there is nothing to say against it, but I adopt here with pleasure the alternative term, often used by Professor Thomson, “modification.” This is wide enough to include the more clear-cut “character” so long as one makes it clear that the latter is one of the germinal variations. Further, I hold that his use of the term “transmission” instead of “inheritance” is the more useful for a wide range of phenomena. As far as possible I shall employ the expression “transmission of modifications,” instead of that well-worn but often sophisticated expression “inheritance of acquired characters.” This has been subjected by Sir Archdall Reid and Dr. Dixey, to say nothing of others such as Mr. George Sandeman, to a somewhat bewildering analysis. Thus the former says, “It follows that the so-called “acquirements” are innate and “inherited” in precisely the same manner as the so-called inborn characters.”* Dr. Dixey admits “that all characters are both acquired and innate”** and goes on to say that the accepted meaning of the terms was vague, that it led to confusion, and that it ought to be dropped. For this remark of Dr. Dixey one may be thankful, but of my friend Sir Archdall Reid I would ask what he is doing in this galley?

* Nature, Vol. 77, Jan. 30th, 1908, p. 293.

**Nature, Vol. 77, Feb. 1908, p. 392.

Sir E. Ray Lankester in a letter in Nature, 21st March, 1912, dissented from the mode of treatment of this point by Sir Archdall Reid and presumably also by Dr. Dixey in the words “It is not, I think, permissible to say that the normal characters which arise in response to normal conditions are with equal fitness to be described as ‘acquired.’” As to what is a normal character and what are normal conditions there may be much reason for difference of opinion, but I have said enough of this discussion to show that the terms “acquired” and “character” would afford a biological Pascal some such food for criticism as did the term “probable” in his Provincial Letters. The less these two terms are employed the less misunderstanding there will be of certain problems.

It has been held that “discussing words is often indescribably tiresome, but it is better than misunderstanding them,” which is most true.