Abstract
THE contributions of Mr. Trow and Dr. Poulton to this discussion render necessary an explanation that should, perhaps, have accompanied my first letter. After rough-drafting this, I felt misgivings lest I might have misconceived Weismann's meaning, and set up a man of straw to knock down. Accordingly, I wrote to Prof Weismann to ask if I rightly understood his meaning, explaining my object in doing so; and he answered my queries with great kindness, courtesy, and fulness. As I wrote back to him, I then thought it better, relieved from my misgivings, to state the point without reference to his letter. But Mr. Trow and Dr. Poulton have both blamed my use of the word shuffling, and appear to think that my hypothesis A is a purely imaginary conception of the straw man order. I hope, therefore, I shall not be accused of having wilfully kept a trump card up my sleeve if I now quote the two essential passages of Prof. Weismann's letter, which were written in definition of the points at issue.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
HARTOG, M. A Difficulty in Weismannism. Nature 45, 102–103 (1891). https://doi.org/10.1038/045102d0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/045102d0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.