[15] By homologous matings I mean those in which the germ-plasms of _both_ parents are in the same condition with reference to the unit-character; _i. e._, both either possess it pure or lack it altogether. The reason for this difference in the inheritableness of the two conditions is easy to understand on the principles enumerated in the last section. A positive character has a real ontogeny. But, as we have seen, the development of any character may be _interrupted_ at any stage. Most aberrations among organisms are due to a retardation or failure of normal development. In human affairs we recognize this tendency in the terms "degenerates" and "defectives" (constituting from 2 to 4 per cent of the population). Indeed, there are few persons who are not defective in some physical or psychical character. In cases where the commonest form of abnormality is due to a development _in excess_ it seems probable that a normal restraining or inhibiting factor is defective or absent. On page 88 I tried to show how common in ontogeny such restraining and inhibiting factors are. Since ontogenetic processes are so often cut short by external conditions, we can understand the _variability_ in the degree of development of positive characters. On the other hand, whenever the fundamental hereditary stimulus or the material for a character is absent from the germ-plasm of both parents, then it can appear in none of the offspring; they will be practically invariable in respect to this condition. Only the ontogenetic fluctuations of other real characters may influence the defect. Consequently the absent state reproduces itself, the "recessive breeds true." The considerations here presented bear upon the hypothesis of change of dominance. Bateson and Punnett (1905, p. 114) say of poultry: "The normal foot, though commonly recessive, may sometimes _dominate_ the extra-toe character." This idea of occasional _change_ in dominance has been expressed more than once in the literature. I think the phrase an unfortunate one. In my earlier report[16] I urged that a characteristic that is anywhere dominant is so without regard to race or species involved. If this is so it is clearly improbable that it should vary from individual to individual, or in the same individual at different times. Rather in view of the imperfection of dominance we should say that a dominant character sometimes fails to develop, in which case it is absent from the progeny; that is all. It is particularly apt to fail of development when dilute--_heterozygous_. [16] Davenport, 1906, page 86. C. POTENCY.