give rise to the next generation, and so on. We have, therefore, a continuing chain of actual organic matter linking every living form with those that are most ancestral and remote, and from these chains all the so-called living individuals that have ever existed have, as it were, been thrown off. Many have emphasised this point, Owen, Haeckel and others; but perhaps Francis Galton must be given much of the credit of clearly stating it as a fact to be remarked, though similar views have more recently been popularised among biologists by the delightful pen of Weismann. The “continuity of the germ plasm,” the title by which this view is generally known, expresses the fact that germ substance continues in an unbroken line from generation to generation; a man is similar to his parents because he develops out of a similar plasm. The continuity of germ plasm (_stirp_ of Galton), like Darwin’s selection, is a fact, not a theory. [Illustration: FIG. 2. Diagram to illustrate: A, Darwin’s theory of pangenesis; B, the continuity of the germ plasm. A. An ovum above, full of gemmules (only three of which are represented) develops into an individual made up of cells, three of which are shown. These cells give off gemmules, which collect and form the substance of the ovum of the next generation. One can see how the gemmules formed by the body cells will be influenced by any change in these. B. An ovum gives rise on the one hand to body cells, and on the other hand to the substance of the ovum of the next generation. A change in the somatic cells does not influence the ovum.] Now while Darwin’s fancy regarding pangenesis compels one to believe that the effects of use and disuse, the action of disease and mutilation, must be transmitted, the continuity of the germ plasm in the isolated reproductive cells of the parents renders this extremely doubtful. The anatomical conditions actually found are fully reconcilable with the observed non-transmission of acquired characters.