germ and body; and in the young body the differentiation of its
cells, each in due time and place, into the varied tissue cells and
organs. Such views might perhaps be acceptable if it could be shown
that over each cell-division there presided a wise all-guiding genie
of transcending intellect, to which Clerk-Maxwell's sorting demons
were mere infants. Yet these views have so enchanted many
distinguished biologists, that in dealing with the subject they have
actually ignored the existence of equally able workers who hesitate
to share the extremest of their views. The phenomenon is one well
known in hypnotic practice. So long as the non-Weismannians deal
with matters outside this discussion, their existence and their work
is rated at its just value; but any work of theirs on this point so
affects the orthodox Weismannite (whether he accept this label or
reject it does not matter), that for the time being their existence
and the good work they have done are alike non-existent. {0e}

Butler founded no school, and wished to found none. He desired that
what was true in his work should prevail, and he looked forward
calmly to the time when the recognition of that truth and of his
share in advancing it should give him in the lives of others that
immortality for which alone he craved.

Lamarckian views have never lacked defenders here and in America. Of
the English, Herbert Spencer, who however, was averse to the
vitalistic attitude, Vines and Henslow among botanists, Cunningham
among zoologists, have always resisted Weismannism; but, I think,
none of these was distinctly influenced by Hering and Butler. In
America the majority of the great school of palaeontologists have
been strong Lamarckians, notably Cope, who has pointed out, moreover,
that the transformations of energy in living beings are peculiar to