F. A. Woods.Sociology and Eugenics.247
than nurture, adds that much to the eugenist’s capital. It is the chief
object of the present paper to show that the historical records can be utilized,
and when utilized, the answer practically always is to strengthen our belief
in the importance of inborn qualities.
It has been sometimes said that it is impossible to separate heredity
from environment. It is true that, as far as any one individual is con
cerned, both the inborn or gametic forces and all the other subsequent
influences are hopelessly intertwined. The black-haired and black-eyed
negro is as he is—the compound resultant of all forces acting on the pro
duction of pigment. A white man is equally the result of all internal
causes acting in response to all outward stimuli. But, the pigmentation differ
ences between white and negro, say in the United States to-day, or at any
one place or time, are obviously a matter of germ plasm. We scarcely
realize that, without the least doubt, we in this instance at once separate
the relative value of heredity and environment. Shades of colour may in
part be produced by differences in exposure to the rays of the sun, but this
does not complicate the question in the least. The differences are due almost
entirely to heredity and for practical purposes, this covers the ground.
It is true, some data do not permit the separation and evaluaton of
heredity; for instance, if the social class which is favoured by fortune,
is found to be several inches taller than the dwellers in slums, the
observed difference may be due to difference in nourishment, or it may not.
There is no way of telling without further investigation. But if the environ
ment for any reason can be known to be identical, or for practical purposes,
the same as identical, then the observed differences must be caused by some
thing else. It is always necessary to make these problems problems of
differences. It is also important to think of the word heredity not as
signifying a resemblance between parent and offspring, but rather as a term
covering the gametic or inborn potentialities, all that is present in the single
fertilized cell. Mendelian investigation has proved that, for certain traits
and in certain definite ratios, no resemblance whatever is to be expected
between parent and offspring, yet these offspring show their peculiarities
no less certainly as an outgrowth of inborn differences. With some such
definition of heredity as this in mind, we may now proceed to see how far
the material stored in history, biography, and genealogy lends support to
the doctrine of gametic causation.
The labours of the biometricians have placed in the hands of the his
torian a wealth of analyzed data, pedigrees, and correlation coefficients,
bearing on the inheritance of family traits. These mental and physical
measurements are not drawn from history. Now, researches historically
derived can be compared with these and matched side by side; this has
been done, and one finds substantial agreement. This does not in itself
prove heredity the cause of the distribution of historical facts, but it does
