=Stockard's Interpretation.--=Stockard's interpretation of his experiments is as follows: "Mammals treated with injurious substances, such as alcohol, ether, lead, etc., suffer from the treatments by having the tissues of their bodies injured. When the reproductive glands and germ-cells become injured in this way they give rise to offspring showing weak and degenerative conditions of a general nature, and every cell of these offspring having been derived from the injured egg or sperm-cell are necessarily similarly injured and can only give rise to other injured cells and thus the next generation of offspring are equally weak and injured and so on. The only hope for such a line of individuals is that it can be crossed by normal stock, in which case the vigor of the normal germ-cell in the combination may counteract, or at any rate reduce, the extent of injury in the body cells of the resulting animal." He also believes that various deformities and developmental arrests such as harelip and cleft-palate may similarly be cases of transmission rather than true inheritance, due to the weakening of the germ-cells in some way, or to some lack of full vigor in the uterine environment. =Further Remarks on the Situation in Man.--=Returning now to the question of alcoholism in man, it seems in view of the strong circumstantial evidence in the case of man himself, together with the result of experiments on animals, that little doubt remains that excessive alcoholism might result in the production of defective offspring. On the other hand an antecedent degeneracy or neural instability undoubtedly plays an important part in many cases, in the original production of drunkards, and when such occurs, it, as well as the direct effects of alcoholic poisoning, must be reckoned with in the effects on progeny. Studies carried on by Pearson, Elderton and Barrington of the Eugenic Laboratory in London lead these investigators to the conclusion that extreme alcoholism is a _result_ not a _cause_ of degeneracy. That is, the degeneracy is due to the defective stock, not to alcohol. They cite in evidence their records of four thousand school children of alcoholic and of sober parents, which fail to show any unfavorable effect of alcohol on offspring. Some of their critics, however, maintain that they did not choose subjects who were sufficiently alcoholic to give the injurious results that might legitimately be expected among the offspring of excessive drinkers or habitual drunkards.