435 
all the better for my argument, for the result will show 
that exceptional ability on the part of one parent, com 
bined with training from earliest infancy of the offspring, 
will produce most wonderful results. But it may be very 
much questioned whether, in nature, this marriage of 
skilled and unskilled ever takes place. The struggle for 
existence compels all of them to meet their fate by attain 
ing a common excellence in various arts. When the two 
sexes practically occupy different spheres, and perform 
different actions, this is a case of those secondary sexual 
elements, which afford one of the most striking and mar 
vellous illustrations of correlation ; but mysterious as this 
fact is, there is nothing in it, so far as I can see, to militate 
against the idea of the transforming influence of changed 
habits. On the contrary, if we suppose, as seems reason 
able, that this difference in the modes of life, is itself an 
adaptation to new conditions, it shows how new habits 
arise and are inherited in the different sexes of the same 
species. This argument seems to justify the doctrine for 
which we are contending; a transforming influence takes 
place independently of Natural Selection, which is not 
Natural Selection. It produces marked results which, in 
combination with other transforming influences—such as 
changed conditions, correlated variation, etc.,—will amply 
suffice for the transmutation of species. 
Pure Darwinism, which relies on the selection of favour 
able birth variations, denies that any acquired character 
can be inherited ; and it may be well to consider the 
arguments by which this theory is supported. 
Dr. Weismann contends that no character can be 
acquired for which there is not an inborn disposition. 
He asserts that every character acquired by an individual 
has two elements,—the predisposition of the organism or 
of one of its parts which causes it to respond in a certain