Initiative in Evolution

pages of it. It is at any rate suggestive, and perhaps I may anticipate the comments of the neo-Darwinian and throw myself on his mercy by mentioning a remark of the late Sir Andrew

hich he was enjoying, and replied at once “Madam, you must get a youn

mblest form, may enter into the story of the organisms as historical and living beings. Every hypothesis in matter

Expe

und universal minute differences, not only between any pair of organisms, but of any two corresponding parts of any organism, even to the size and shape of each leaf on each plant. On the other is universal discontinuity of total experience of all organisms. This term includes all the stimuli of use and environment to which an

ve any purpose. But it is enough to say that the number of such stimuli, and the varying degrees in which these are received and responded to, have hardly any limit which we can conceive. It is a very different and harder task to find out the propor-tion in which such stimuli are advantageous, injurious or indifferent to the organisms, but it may be taken as certain that the vast major

uous Envi

o that “diversity of environment is thus the measure of diversity of specific form. Here then we meet the difficulty that diverse environments often shade into each other insensibly and form a continuous series.”37 This is clearly true and important to the subjects he is discussing. But in regard to the concep-tion with which I am here concerned, that of total experience of organisms, it must be remembered that there is no such thing

plants of the common nettle are growing on the south side of a ditch in a lane, one rooted a foot higher than the other. The upper one receives throughout its life from wind and sun stimuli slightly different from those received by the lower, and from the soil slightly less moisture. These again receive stimuli very different from another pair on the northern side of the lane. Again in windy weather a clump of sycamores facing the south-west in England, and situated on the ridge of an eminence, will receive very different stimuli from a similar clump on the north-eastern slope of this eminence, and will demonstrate the fact, as to force of wind, by a marked slope to the North East. Even in either of the clumps the individual trees present varying degrees of slope according to their position. The total experience of these two clumps of sycamores and of any two in each clump is obviously different. In a windy situation you can t

being somewhere about ten years long. The differences of the total experience of the six young robins is easy to picture. Again, surely, the total experience of two fleas on the body of one plague-rat must be for such small creatures of importance to their welfare, according as their respective “pitches” are on the abdomen, back or legs of the host. When the life-history of a human being is told in full the discontinuity of his total experience needs no proof. The proof is written large before our eyes. But, perhaps, one example may be given. There are two very eminent living writers, whose light has certainly for some years not been hidden under a bushel, Mr. Chesterton and Mr. George Bernard Shaw. We may be said to know the

to it the assertion that all environment, in the wide sense of total experience, is discontinuous. There are no such phenomena in total experience as unit-characters of allied forms, small variatio

inute to affect any structural change. In a higher form of life none but those which are frequen

and

invent an inclusive term and propose to call the two fundamental factors of organic evolution Plasto-diēthēsis38 in which the conceptions of mould and sieve are included and hyphenated. This word is no more proposed for its elegance than are panmixia, amphimixis and tetraplasty, though perhaps it may be the etymological superior of one or more of these. It is at any rate inclusive and perhaps sufficiently audacious to assure the inventor of the title of Dr. Pangloss of controversial memory. But as hard words break no bones I have taken this risk and it would appear

rst time of asking, and who shall say that there is cause or just imp

n the higher development and union of two formerly hostile Kingdoms, and the moral of it is clear and simple. But as a forensic junio

of their separate Kingdoms, and held separate councils. Yet they were so happily united by common views, common interests, and a great deference for each other, that this double administra-tion never prevented a unity of purpose and action. All acts o