Page:The Zoologist, 4th series, vol 6 (1902).djvu/105

Rh the nature and form of the parts of the body of an animal—which have given rise to its habits and its special faculties; but it is, on the contrary, its habits, its manner of life, and the circumstances in which are placed the individuals from which it originates, which have, with time, brought about the form of its body, the number and condition of its organs, finally, the faculties which it enjoys." This, to very many, will probably prove a hard saying, but it is one which must be mastered with the context of Lamarck's other views, before assent or dissent can with scientific propriety be asserted.

Lamarck was at least a natural philosopher far before his time, with the accidents of wealth, leisure, and powerful support absent from his career, which was pursued among many carping cares—an evolutionary Milton, with the last ten years of his life passed in darkness. Dr. Packard has now written the book which was wanted, and will for long remain the only biography of Lamarck, and the best defence of Lamarckism. We will conclude with the words of the author: "We are all of us evolutionists, though we may differ as to the nature of the efficient causes." And may we not add that Lamarck preceded Darwin, as Erasmus did Luther?

trust that this title will occasion no misconception; it has nothing to do with theology. The warning is not altogether absurd, as some years ago a certain novel entitled 'Birds of Prey' was gravely recorded in Germany among the ornithological publications of the year. Regeneration is here referred to as a biological phenomenon common to many animals, but of which the Salamander affords a sufficient example. "Salamanders also regenerate a new tail, producing even new vertebræ. If a leg is cut off it is regenerated; if all four legs are cut off, either at the same time or in succession, they are renewed. If the leg is cut off near the body, an imperfectly regenerated part is formed." Dr. Morgan also includes plants as regenerate organisms, on the contention that the principal difference "is the development of the new part near the end,