"The view here taken places the primary roots of instinct in the constitutional activities of protoplasm and regards instinct in every stage of its evolution as action depending essentially upon organization. It places instinct before intelligence in order of development, and is thus in accord with the broad facts of the present distribution and relations of instinct and intelligence, instinct becoming more general as we descend the scale, while intelligence emerges to view more and more as we ascend to the higher orders of animal life. It relieves us of the great inconsistencies involved in the theory of instinct as "lapsed intelligence." Instincts are universal among animals, and that can not be said of intelligence. It ill accords with any theory of evolution, or with known facts, to make instinct depend upon intelligence for its origin; for if that were so, we should expect to find the lowest animals free from instinct and possessed of pure intelligence. In the higher forms we should expect to see intelligence lapsing more and more into pure instinct. As a matter of fact, we see nothing of the kind. The lowest forms act by instinct so exclusively that we fail to get decided evidence of intelligence. In higher forms not a single case of intelligence lapsing into instinct is known. In forms that give indubitable evidence of intelligence we do not see conscious reflection crystallizing into instinct, but we do find instinct coming more and more under the sway of intelligence. In the human race instinctive actions characterize the life of the savage, while they fall more and more into the background in the more intellectual races." For further discussion of this field the reader is referred to an excellent chapter on "Are Acquired Habits Inherited?" in C. Lloyd Morgan's book, _Habit and Instinct_. =Disease.--=Perhaps in the realm of disease more than in any other has an interest in the inheritance of somatic acquirements been manifested. The problem arising here is not essentially different from other questions of inheritance but since it is a matter of such practical importance to man, we may well give it special attention. We have to deal simply with the old questions of what is constitutionally in the germ, what is acquired by the body, and lastly, whether the somatically acquired is inherited. While we all know in a general way what is meant by disease, especially if some specific disorder such as scarlet fever, malaria or tuberculosis is mentioned, an attempt to give an accurate definition is much like trying to define a weed, inasmuch as what is functionally all right at one time or place may be all wrong at another, or what is normal in one animal may be abnormal in another. In general we may say that disease is derangement or failure of physiological function.