Abstract
IN his reply to Prof. MacBride (NATURE, Sept. 8) Sir Arthur Keith states that in his Huxley lecture he neither affirms nor denies the doctrine of use-inheritance, but that he does deny that Lamarckism has had no part in the evolution of man. If these words were to be taken literally as expressing Sir Arthur Keith's meaning, he and I would be to a great extent in agreement, but it is obvious that the double negative was an accidental mistake, and that Sir Arthur Keith meant to deny that Lamarckism had any part in the evolution of man.
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
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
CUNNINGHAM, J. Human Embryology and Evolution. Nature 112, 538–539 (1923). https://doi.org/10.1038/112538b0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/112538b0
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.