ive a brief survey of the present state of
the problem as it appears to me.

Much has been written on both sides of this question since the
published controversy on the subject in the nineties between Herbert
Spencer and myself. I should like to return to the matter in detail,
if the space at my disposal permitted, because it seems to me that the
arguments I advanced at that time are equally cogent to-day,
notwithstanding all the objections that have since been urged against
them. Moreover, the matter is by no means one of subordinate interest;
it is the very kernel of the whole question of the reality and value
of the principle of selection. For if selection alone does not suffice
to explain "_harmonious adaptation_" as I have called Spencer's
_Coadaptation_, and if we require to call in the aid of the Lamarckian
factor it would be questionable whether selection would explain any
adaptations whatever. In this particular case--of worker bees--the
Lamarckian factor may be excluded altogether, for it can be
demonstrated that here at any rate the effects of use and disuse
cannot be transmitted.

But if it be asked why we are unwilling to admit the cooeperation of
the Darwinian factor of selection and the Lamarckian factor, since
this would afford us an easy and satisfactory explanation of the
phenomena, I answer: _Because the Lamarckian principle is fallacious,
and because by accepting it we close the way towards deeper insight_.
It is not a spirit of combativeness or a desire for self-vindication
that induces me to take the field once more against the Lamarckian
principle, it is the conviction that the progress of our knowledge is
being obstructed by the acceptance of this fallacious principle, since
the facile explanation it apparently affords prevents our seeking
after a truer explanation and a deeper analysis.

The workers in the various species of ants are sterile, that is to
say, they take no regular part in the reproduction of the species,
although individuals among them may occasionally lay eggs. In addition
to this they have lost the wings, and the _receptaculum seminis_, and
their compound eyes have degenerated to a few facets. How could this
last change have come about through disuse, since the eyes of workers
are exposed to light in the same way as are those of the sexual
insects and thus in this particular case are not liable to "disuse" at
all? The same is true of the _receptaculum seminis_, which can only