Lamarckism: Lamarckism, or Lamarckian Inheritance, Also Known As "Neo-Lamarckism"

Lamarckism
Lamarckism, or Lamarckian inheritance, also known as "Neo-Lamarckism",[1] is the notion that an

organism can pass on to its offspring physical characteristics that the parent organism acquired through use or
disuse during its lifetime. This idea is also called the inheritance of acquired characteristics or soft
inheritance. It is inaccurately[1][2] named after the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829), who
incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories as a supplement to his concept of
orthogenesis, a drive towards complexity. The theory is cited in textbooks to contrast with Darwinism. This
paints a false picture of the history of biology, as Lamarck did not originate the idea of soft inheritance, which
was known from the classical era onwards, and it was not the primary focus of Lamarck's theory of evolution.
Further, in On the Origin of Species (1859), Charles Darwin supported the idea of "use and disuse
inheritance", though rejecting other aspects of Lamarck's theory. Darwin's own concept of pangenesis implied
soft inheritance.
Many researchers from the 1860s onwards attempted to find evidence for Lamarckian inheritance, but these
have all been explained away, either by other mechanisms such as genetic contamination or as fraud. On the
other hand, August Weismann's experiment is now considered to have failed to disprove Lamarckism as it did
not address use and disuse. Later, Mendelian genetics supplanted the notion of inheritance of acquired traits,
eventually leading to the development of the modern synthesis, and the general abandonment of Lamarckism
in biology. Despite this, interest in Lamarckism has continued.
Studies in the fields of epigenetics, genetics, and somatic hypermutation have highlighted the possible
inheritance of traits acquired by the previous generation. The characterization of these findings as Lamarckism
has been disputed. The inheritance of the hologenome, consisting of the genomes of all an organism's
symbiotic microbes as well as its own genome, is also somewhat Lamarckian in effect, though entirely
Darwinian in its mechanisms.
Contents
Early history
Origins
Darwin's pangenesis
Lamarck's evolutionary framework
Lamarck's discussion of heredity
Weismann's experiment
Textbook Lamarckism
Neo-Lamarckism
Context
19th century
Early 20th century
Late 20th century
Ideological neo-Lamarckism
Critique
Mechanisms resembling Lamarckism
Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance
Somatic hypermutation and reverse transcription to germline
Hologenome theory of evolution
Baldwin effect
In sociocultural evolution
References
Bibliography
Further reading
External links
Early history
Origins
The inheritance of acquired characteristics was proposed in ancient

times, and remained a current idea for many centuries. The historian
of science Conway Zirkle wrote in 1935 that:[3]
Lamarck was neither the first nor the most distinguished

biologist to believe in the inheritance of acquired
characters. He merely endorsed a belief which had been
generally accepted for at least 2,200 years before his time
and used it to explain how evolution could have taken
place. The inheritance of acquired characters had been
accepted previously by Hippocrates, Aristotle, Galen, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck repeated the
Roger Bacon, Jerome Cardan, Levinus Lemnius, John ancient folk wisdom of the
Ray, Michael Adanson, Jo. Fried. Blumenbach and inheritance of acquired
Erasmus Darwin among others.[3] characteristics.
Zirkle noted that Hippocrates described pangenesis, the theory that

what is inherited derives from the whole body of the parent, whereas Aristotle thought it impossible; but that
all the same, Aristotle implicitly agreed to the inheritance of acquired characteristics, giving the example of the
inheritance of a scar, or of blindness, though noting that children do not always resemble their parents. Zirkle
recorded that Pliny the Elder thought much the same. Zirkle also pointed out that stories involving the idea of
inheritance of acquired characteristics appear numerous times in ancient mythology and the Bible, and
persisted through to Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stories.[4] Erasmus Darwin's Zoonomia (c. 1795) suggested
that warm-blooded animals develop from "one living filament... with the power of acquiring new parts" in
response to stimuli, with each round of "improvements" being inherited by successive generations.[5]
Darwin's pangenesis
Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species proposed natural selection as the main mechanism for development
of species, but did not rule out a variant of Lamarckism as a supplementary mechanism.[6] Darwin called this
pangenesis, and explained it in the final chapter of his book The Variation of Animals and Plants under
Domestication (1868), after describing numerous examples to demonstrate what he considered to be the
inheritance of acquired characteristics. Pangenesis, which he emphasised was a hypothesis, was based on the
idea that somatic cells would, in response to
environmental stimulation (use and disuse), throw
off 'gemmules' or 'pangenes' which travelled around
the body, though not necessarily in the bloodstream.
These pangenes were microscopic particles that
supposedly contained information about the
characteristics of their parent cell, and Darwin Charles Darwin's pangenesis theory. Every part of the
believed that they eventually accumulated in the body emits tiny gemmules which migrate to the gonads
germ cells where they could pass on to the next and contribute to the next generation via the fertilised
generation the newly acquired characteristics of the egg. Changes to the body during an organism's life
parents.[7][8] would be inherited, as in Lamarckism.
Darwin's half-cousin, Francis Galton, carried out

experiments on rabbits, with Darwin's cooperation, in which he transfused the blood of one variety of rabbit
into another variety in the expectation that its offspring would show some characteristics of the first. They did
not, and Galton declared that he had disproved Darwin's hypothesis of pangenesis, but Darwin objected, in a
letter to the scientific journal Nature, that he had done nothing of the sort, since he had never mentioned blood
in his writings. He pointed out that he regarded pangenesis as occurring in protozoa and plants, which have no
blood, as well as in animals.[9]
Lamarck's evolutionary framework
Between 1800 and 1830, Lamarck proposed a

systematic theoretical framework for
understanding evolution. He saw evolution as
comprising four laws:[10][11]
1. "Life by its own force, tends to

increase the volume of all organs
which possess the force of life, and
the force of life extends the
dimensions of those parts up to an
extent that those parts bring to
themselves;"
2. "The production of a new organ in an
animal body, results from a new
requirement arising. and which Lamarck's two-factor theory involves 1) a complexifying force
continues to make itself felt, and a that drives animal body plans towards higher levels
new movement which that (orthogenesis) creating a ladder of phyla, and 2) an adaptive
requirement gives birth to, and its force that causes animals with a given body plan to adapt to
upkeep/maintenance;" circumstances (use and disuse, inheritance of acquired
3. "The development of the organs, and characteristics), creating a diversity of species and genera.
their ability, are constantly a result of Popular views of Lamarckism only consider an aspect of the
the use of those organs." adaptive force.
4. "All that has been acquired, traced, or
changed, in the physiology of
individuals, during their life, is conserved through the genesis, reproduction, and transmitted to
new individuals who are related to those who have undergone those changes."
Lamarck's discussion of heredity

In 1830, in an aside from his evolutionary framework, Lamarck briefly mentioned two traditional ideas in his
discussion of heredity, in his day considered to be generally true. The first was the idea of use versus disuse; he
theorized that individuals lose characteristics they do not require, or use, and develop characteristics that are
useful. The second was to argue that the acquired traits were heritable. He gave as an imagined illustration the
idea that when giraffes stretch their necks to reach leaves high in trees, they would strengthen and gradually
lengthen their necks. These giraffes would then have offspring with slightly longer necks. In the same way, he
argued, a blacksmith, through his work, strengthens the muscles in his arms, and thus his sons would have
similar muscular development when they mature. Lamarck stated the following two laws:[12]
1. Première Loi: Dans tout animal qui n' a point dépassé le terme de ses développemens, l'
emploi plus fréquent et soutenu d' un organe quelconque, fortifie peu à peu cet organe, le
développe, l' agrandit, et lui donne une puissance proportionnée à la durée de cet emploi ;
tandis que le défaut constant d' usage de tel organe, l'affoiblit insensiblement, le détériore,
diminue progressivement ses facultés, et finit par le faire disparoître.[12]
2. Deuxième Loi: Tout ce que la nature a fait acquérir ou perdre aux individus par l' influence des
circonstances où leur race se trouve depuis long-temps exposée, et, par conséquent, par l'
influence de l' emploi prédominant de tel organe, ou par celle d' un défaut constant d' usage de
telle partie ; elle le conserve par la génération aux nouveaux individus qui en proviennent,
pourvu que les changemens acquis soient communs aux deux sexes, ou à ceux qui ont produit
ces nouveaux individus.[12]
English translation:
1. First Law [Use and Disuse]: In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development,
a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and
enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used;
while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and
progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.
2. Second Law [Soft Inheritance]: All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals,
through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence
through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are
preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired
modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the
young.[13]
In essence, a change in the environment brings about change in "needs" (besoins), resulting in change in
behavior, bringing change in organ usage and development, bringing change in form over time—and thus the
gradual transmutation of the species. However, as the evolutionary biologists and historians of science Michael
Ghiselin and Stephen Jay Gould have pointed out, these ideas were not original to Lamarck.[1][14]
Moreover, studying Weismann's work over the span of his entire career carefully, shows that he had more
nuanced views about the role of the environment on the germ plasm. Indeed, like Darwin, he consistently
insisted that a variable environment was necessary to cause variation in the hereditary material.[15]
Weismann's experiment
The idea that germline cells contain information that passes to each generation unaffected by experience and
independent of the somatic (body) cells, came to be referred to as the Weismann barrier, as it would make
Lamarckian inheritance from changes to the body difficult or impossible.[16]
August Weismann conducted the experiment
of removing the tails of 68 white mice, and
those of their offspring over five generations,
and reporting that no mice were born in
consequence without a tail or even with a
shorter tail. In 1889, he stated that "901 young
were produced by five generations of
artificially mutilated parents, and yet there was
not a single example of a rudimentary tail or
of any other abnormality in this organ."[17]
The experiment, and the theory behind it,
were thought at the time to be a refutation of August Weismann's germ plasm theory. The hereditary
Lamarckism.[16] material, the germ plasm, is confined to the gonads and the
gametes. Somatic cells (of the body) develop afresh in each
However, the experiment's effectiveness in generation from the germ plasm, creating an invisible
refuting Lamarck's hypothesis is doubtful, as "Weismann barrier" to Lamarckian influence from the soma to
the next generation.
it did not address the use and disuse of
characteristics in response to the environment.
The biologist Peter Gauthier noted in 1990
that:[18]
Can Weismann's experiment be considered a case of disuse? Lamarck proposed that when an
organ was not used, it slowly, and very gradually atrophied. In time, over the course of many
generations, it would gradually disappear as it was inherited in its modified form in each
successive generation. Cutting the tails off mice does not seem to meet the qualifications of
disuse, but rather falls in a category of accidental misuse... Lamarck's hypothesis has never been
proven experimentally and there is no known mechanism to support the idea that somatic change,
however acquired, can in some way induce a change in the germplasm. On the other hand it is
difficult to disprove Lamarck's idea experimentally, and it seems that Weismann's experiment fails
to provide the evidence to deny the Lamarckian hypothesis, since it lacks a key factor, namely the
willful exertion of the animal in overcoming environmental obstacles.[18]
The biologist and historian of science Michael Ghiselin also considered the Weismann tail-chopping
experiment to have no bearing on the Lamarckian hypothesis, writing in 1994 that:[1]
The acquired characteristics that figured in Lamarck's thinking were changes that resulted from an
individual's own drives and actions, not from the actions of external agents. Lamarck was not
concerned with wounds, injuries or mutilations, and nothing that Lamarck had set forth was
tested or "disproven" by the Weismann tail-chopping experiment.[1]
Textbook Lamarckism
The identification of Lamarckism with the inheritance of acquired characteristics is regarded by evolutionary
biologists including Michael Ghiselin as a falsified artifact of the subsequent history of evolutionary thought,
repeated in textbooks without analysis, and wrongly contrasted with a falsified picture of Darwin's thinking.
Ghiselin notes that "Darwin accepted the inheritance of acquired characteristics, just as Lamarck did, and
Darwin even thought that there was some experimental evidence to support it."[1] American paleontologist and
historian of science Stephen Jay Gould wrote that in the late 19th century, evolutionists "re-read Lamarck, cast
aside the guts of it ... and elevated one aspect of the mechanics—
inheritance of acquired characters—to a central focus it never had for
Lamarck himself."[19] He argued that "the restriction of 'Lamarckism'
to this relatively small and non-distinctive corner of Lamarck's
thought must be labelled as more than a misnomer, and truly a
discredit to the memory of a man and his much more comprehensive
system."[2][20]
Neo-Lamarckism The long neck of the giraffe is often

used as an example in popular
explanations of Lamarckism.
However, this was only a small part
Context
of his theory of evolution towards
"perfection"; it was a hypothetical
The period of the history of
illustration; and he used it to discuss
evolutionary thought between his theory of heredity, not
Darwin's death in the 1880s, and the evolution.[1]
foundation of population genetics in
the 1920s and the beginnings of the
modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1930s, is called the eclipse of
Darwinism by some historians of science. During that time many scientists
and philosophers accepted the reality of evolution but doubted whether
natural selection was the main evolutionary mechanism.[21]
Among the most popular alternatives were theories involving the inheritance
of characteristics acquired during an organism's lifetime. Scientists who felt
Edward Drinker Cope
that such Lamarckian mechanisms were the key to evolution were called neo-
Lamarckians. They included the British botanist George Henslow (1835–
1925), who studied the effects of environmental stress on the growth of
plants, in the belief that such environmentally-induced variation might explain much of plant evolution, and the
American entomologist Alpheus Spring Packard, Jr., who studied blind animals living in caves and wrote a
book in 1901 about Lamarck and his work.[22][23] Also included were paleontologists like Edward Drinker
Cope and Alpheus Hyatt, who observed that the fossil record showed orderly, almost linear, patterns of
development that they felt were better explained by Lamarckian mechanisms than by natural selection. Some
people, including Cope and the Darwin critic Samuel Butler, felt that inheritance of acquired characteristics
would let organisms shape their own evolution, since organisms that acquired new habits would change the
use patterns of their organs, which would kick-start Lamarckian evolution. They considered this
philosophically superior to Darwin's mechanism of random variation acted on by selective pressures.
Lamarckism also appealed to those, like the philosopher Herbert Spencer and the German anatomist Ernst
Haeckel, who saw evolution as an inherently progressive process.[22] The German zoologist Theodor Eimer
combined Larmarckism with ideas about orthogenesis, the idea that evolution is directed towards a goal.[24]
With the development of the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution, and a lack of evidence for a
mechanism for acquiring and passing on new characteristics, or even their heritability, Lamarckism largely fell
from favour. Unlike neo-Darwinism, neo-Lamarckism is a loose grouping of largely heterodox theories and
mechanisms that emerged after Lamarck's time, rather than a coherent body of theoretical work.[25]
19th century
Neo-Lamarckian versions of evolution were widespread in the late 19th century. The idea that living things
could to some degree choose the characteristics that would be inherited allowed them to be in charge of their
own destiny as opposed to the Darwinian view, which placed them at the mercy of the environment. Such
ideas were more popular than natural selection in the late 19th century as it
made it possible for biological evolution to fit into a framework of a divine or
naturally willed plan, thus the neo-Lamarckian view of evolution was often
advocated by proponents of orthogenesis.[26] According to the historian of
science Peter J. Bowler, writing in 2003:
One of the most emotionally compelling arguments used by the

neo-Lamarckians of the late nineteenth century was the claim
that Darwinism was a mechanistic theory which reduced living
things to puppets driven by heredity. The selection theory made
life into a game of Russian roulette, where life or death was
predetermined by the genes one inherited. The individual could Charles-Édouard Brown-
do nothing to mitigate bad heredity. Lamarckism, in contrast, Séquard tried to
demonstrate Lamarckism by
allowed the individual to choose a new habit when faced with an
mutilating guinea pigs.
environmental challenge and shape the whole future course of
evolution.[27]
Scientists from the 1860s onwards conducted numerous experiments that purported to show Lamarckian
inheritance. Some examples are described in the table.
19th century experiments attempting to demonstrate Lamarckian inheritance

Claimed
Scientist Date Experiment Rebuttal
result
Charles- Cut sciatic nerve and dorsal Not Lamarckism, as no use and disuse in
1869
Édouard spinal cord of guinea pigs, Epileptic response to environment; results could not
to
Brown- causing abnormal nervous offspring be replicated; cause possibly a transmitted
1891
Séquard condition resembling epilepsy disease.[28][29][30][31][32][33]
Gaston 1884, Transplant plants at different Acquired Not controlled from weeds; likely cause
Bonnier 1886 altitudes in Alps, Pyrenees adaptations genetic contamination[34]
Joseph 1891, Inherited
Shine light on underside of
Thomas 1893,
flatfish
production of Disputed cause[35][36][37][38][39][40]
Cunningham 1895 pigment
Variations in
1892 offspring Richard Goldschmidt agreed; Ernst Mayr
Max Raise butterflies at low
to even without
Standfuss temperature "difficult to interpret".[41][42][43][44]
1917 low
temperature
Early 20th century
A century after Lamarck, scientists and philosophers continued to seek mechanisms and evidence for the
inheritance of acquired characteristics. Experiments were sometimes reported as successful, but from the
beginning these were either criticised on scientific grounds or shown to be fakes.[45][46][47][48][49] For
instance, in 1906, the philosopher Eugenio Rignano argued for a version that he called "centro-
epigenesis",[50][51][52][53][54][55] but it was rejected by most scientists.[56] Some of the experimental
approaches are described in the table.
Paul Kammerer claimed in
the 1920s to have found
evidence for Lamarckian
inheritance in midwife toads,
in a case celebrated by the
journalist Arthur Koestler,
but the results are thought
to be either fraudulent or at
best misinterpreted.
Early 20th century experiments attempting to demonstrate Lamarckian inheritance
Claimed
Scientist Date Experiment Rebuttal
result
Colorado potato Criticised by William Bateson; Tower claimed all results

William 1907 Heritable
beetles in extreme lost in fire; William E. Castle visited laboratory, found
Lawrence to changes in
humidity, fire suspicious, doubted claim that steam leak had killed
Tower 1910 size, colour
temperature all beetles, concluded faked data.[57][58][59][46][47]
1907
Gustav Goldfish, embryos Abnormalities
Tornier
to
of frogs, newts inherited Disputed; possibly an osmotic effect[60][61][62][63]
1918
Repeated alcohol
Charles
intoxication of Inherited Raymond Pearl unable to reproduce findings in
Rupert 1910
Stockard
pregnant guinea malformations chickens; Darwinian explanation[64][45]
pigs
Reared mice at
Francis Inherited
different
Bertody 1921 longer bodies, Inconsistent results[65][66]
temperatures,
Sumner tails, hind feet
humidities
Injected fowl
Michael F.
1918 serum antibodies Eye defects
Guyer,
Elizabeth
to for rabbit lens- inherited for 8 Disputed, results not replicated[67][68]
1924 protein into generations
A. Smith
pregnant rabbits
Fraud, ink injected; or, results misinterpreted; case
Paul Black foot-
1920s Midwife toad celebrated by Arthur Koestler arguing that opposition
Kammerer pads inherited
was political[48][69]
Offspring
William Rats solving learnt mazes
1920s Poor experimental controls[70][71][72][73][74][75][49]
McDougall mazes quicker (20 vs
165 trials)
John Inherited
William Peppered moths mutations Failure to replicate results; implausible mutation
1920s
Heslop- exposed to soot caused by rate[76][77]
Harrison soot
Conditioned reflex Offspring
Ivan
Pavlov
1926 in mice to food easier to Pavlov retracted claim; results not replicable[78][79]
and bell condition
Coleman
1920 Reared rats on Inherited
Griffith, Results not replicable; likely cause ear
to rotating table for 3 balance
John
1925 months disorder infection[80][81][82][83][84][85]
Detlefson
Directed
Heat treatment in
Victor mutagenesis,
1930s Drosophila Results not replicable[86][87]
Jollos a form of
melanogaster
orthogenesis
Late 20th century
The British anthropologist Frederic Wood Jones and the South African paleontologist Robert Broom
supported a neo-Lamarckian view of human evolution. The German anthropologist Hermann Klaatsch relied
on a neo-Lamarckian model of evolution to try and explain the origin of bipedalism. Neo-Lamarckism
remained influential in biology until the 1940s when the role of natural selection was reasserted in evolution as
part of the modern evolutionary synthesis.[88] Herbert Graham Cannon, a British zoologist, defended
Lamarckism in his 1959 book Lamarck and Modern Genetics.[89] In the 1960s, "biochemical Lamarckism"
was advocated by the embryologist Paul Wintrebert.[90]
Neo-Lamarckism was dominant in French biology for more than a century. French scientists who supported
neo-Lamarckism included Edmond Perrier (1844–1921), Alfred Giard (1846–1908), Gaston Bonnier (1853–
1922) and Pierre-Paul Grassé (1895–1985). They followed two traditions, one mechanistic, one vitalistic after
Henri Bergson's philosophy of evolution.[91]
In 1987, Ryuichi Matsuda coined the term "pan-environmentalism" for his evolutionary theory which he saw
as a fusion of Darwinism with neo-Lamarckism. He held that heterochrony is a main mechanism for
evolutionary change and that novelty in evolution can be generated by genetic assimilation.[92][93] His views
were criticized by Arthur M. Shapiro for providing no solid evidence for his theory. Shapiro noted that
"Matsuda himself accepts too much at face value and is prone to wish-fulfilling interpretation."[93]
Ideological neo-Lamarckism
A form of Lamarckism was revived in the Soviet Union of the 1930s when
Trofim Lysenko promoted the ideologically-driven research programme,
Lysenkoism; this suited the ideological opposition of Joseph Stalin to genetics.
Lysenkoism influenced Soviet agricultural policy which in turn was later
blamed for crop failures.[94]
Critique
George Gaylord Simpson in his book Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944)
claimed that experiments in heredity have failed to corroborate any
Lamarckian process.[95] Simpson noted that neo-Lamarckism "stresses a
factor that Lamarck rejected: inheritance of direct effects of the environment" Trofim Lysenko promoted an
and neo-Lamarckism is closer to Darwin's pangenesis than Lamarck's ideological form of neo-
views.[96] Simpson wrote, "the inheritance of acquired characters, failed to Lamarckism which
meet the tests of observation and has been almost universally discarded by adversely influenced Soviet
biologists."[97] agricultural policy in the
1930s.
Botanist Conway Zirkle pointed out that Lamarck did not originate the
hypothesis that acquired characteristics could be inherited, so it is incorrect to
refer to it as Lamarckism:
What Lamarck really did was to accept the hypothesis that acquired characters were heritable, a
notion which had been held almost universally for well over two thousand years and which his
contemporaries accepted as a matter of course, and to assume that the results of such inheritance
were cumulative from generation to generation, thus producing, in time, new species. His
individual contribution to biological theory consisted in his application to the problem of the
origin of species of the view that acquired characters were inherited and in showing that evolution
could be inferred logically from the accepted biological hypotheses. He would doubtless have
been greatly astonished to learn that a belief in the inheritance of acquired characters is now
labeled "Lamarckian," although he would almost certainly have felt flattered if evolution itself
had been so designated.[4]
Peter Medawar wrote regarding Lamarckism, "very few professional biologists believe that anything of the
kind occurs—or can occur—but the notion persists for a variety of nonscientific reasons." Medawar stated
there is no known mechanism by which an adaptation acquired in an individual's lifetime can be imprinted on
the genome and Lamarckian inheritance is not valid unless it excludes the possibility of natural selection but
this has not been demonstrated in any experiment.[98]
Martin Gardner wrote in his book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (1957):
A host of experiments have been designed to test Lamarckianism. All that have been verified
have proved negative. On the other hand, tens of thousands of experiments— reported in the
journals and carefully checked and rechecked by geneticists throughout the world— have
established the correctness of the gene-mutation theory beyond all reasonable doubt... In spite of
the rapidly increasing evidence for natural selection, Lamarck has never ceased to have loyal
followers.... There is indeed a strong emotional appeal in the thought that every little effort an
animal puts forth is somehow transmitted to his progeny.[99]
According to Ernst Mayr, any Lamarckian theory involving the inheritance of acquired characters has been
refuted as "DNA does not directly participate in the making of the phenotype and that the phenotype, in turn,
does not control the composition of the DNA."[100] Peter J. Bowler has written that although many early
scientists took Lamarckism seriously, it was discredited by genetics in the early twentieth century.[101]
Mechanisms resembling Lamarckism

Studies in the field of epigenetics, genetics and somatic hypermutation[102][103] have highlighted the possible
inheritance of traits acquired by the previous generation.[104][105][106][107][108] However, the characterization
of these findings as Lamarckism has been disputed.[109][110][111][112]
Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance
Epigenetic inheritance has been argued by scientists including Eva

Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb to be Lamarckian.[113] Epigenetics is
based on hereditary elements other than genes that pass into the germ
cells. These include methylation patterns in DNA and chromatin
marks on histone proteins, both involved in gene regulation. These
marks are responsive to environmental stimuli, differentially affect
gene expression, and are adaptive, with phenotypic effects that persist
for some generations. The mechanism may also enable the inheritance
of behavioral traits, for example in chickens[114][115][116]
DNA molecule with epigenetic
rats[117][118] and human populations that have experienced starvation, marks, created by methylation,
DNA methylation resulting in altered gene function in both the enabling a neo-Lamarckian pattern of
starved population and their offspring.[119] Methylation similarly inheritance for some generations.
mediates epigenetic inheritance in plants such as rice.[120][121] Small
RNA molecules, too, may mediate inherited resistance to
infection.[122][123][124] Handel and Romagopalan commented that "epigenetics allows the peaceful co-
existence of Darwinian and Lamarckian evolution."[125]
Joseph Springer and Dennis Holley commented in 2013 that:[126]

Lamarck and his ideas were ridiculed and discredited. In a strange twist of fate, Lamarck may
have the last laugh. Epigenetics, an emerging field of genetics, has shown that Lamarck may have
been at least partially correct all along. It seems that reversible and heritable changes can occur
without a change in DNA sequence (genotype) and that such changes may be induced
spontaneously or in response to environmental factors—Lamarck's "acquired traits." Determining
which observed phenotypes are genetically inherited and which are environmentally induced
remains an important and ongoing part of the study of genetics, developmental biology, and
medicine.[126]
The prokaryotic CRISPR system and Piwi-interacting RNA could be classified as Lamarckian, within a
Darwinian framework.[127][128] However, the significance of epigenetics in evolution is uncertain. Critics
such as the evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne point out that epigenetic inheritance lasts for only a few
generations, so it is not a stable basis for evolutionary change.[129][130][131][132]
The evolutionary biologist T. Ryan Gregory contends that epigenetic inheritance should not be considered
Lamarckian. According to Gregory, Lamarck did not claim that the environment directly affected living things.
Instead, Lamarck "argued that the environment created needs to which organisms responded by using some
features more and others less, that this resulted in those features being accentuated or attenuated, and that this
difference was then inherited by offspring." Gregory has stated that Lamarckian evolution in epigenetics is
more like Darwin's point of view than Lamarck's.[109]
In 2007, David Haig wrote that research into epigenetic processes does allow a Lamarckian element in
evolution but the processes do not challenge the main tenets of the modern evolutionary synthesis as modern
Lamarckians have claimed. Haig argued for the primacy of DNA and evolution of epigenetic switches by
natural selection.[133] Haig has written that there is a "visceral attraction" to Lamarckian evolution from the
public and some scientists, as it posits the world with a meaning, in which organisms can shape their own
evolutionary destiny.[134]
Thomas Dickens and Qazi Rahman (2012) have argued that epigenetic mechanisms such as DNA methylation
and histone modification are genetically inherited under the control of natural selection and do not challenge
the modern synthesis. They dispute the claims of Jablonka and Lamb on Lamarckian epigenetic
processes.[135]
In 2015, Khursheed Iqbal and colleagues discovered that although "endocrine disruptors exert direct
epigenetic effects in the exposed fetal germ cells, these are corrected by reprogramming events in the next
generation."[137] Also in 2015, Adam Weiss argued that bringing back Lamarck in the context of epigenetics
is misleading, commenting, "We should remember [Lamarck] for the good he contributed to science, not for
things that resemble his theory only superficially. Indeed, thinking of CRISPR and other phenomena as
Lamarckian only obscures the simple and elegant way evolution really works."[138]
Somatic hypermutation and reverse transcription to germline
In the 1970s, the Australian immunologist Edward J. Steele developed a neo-Lamarckian theory of somatic
hypermutation within the immune system and coupled it to the reverse transcription of RNA derived from
body cells to the DNA of germline cells. This reverse transcription process supposedly enabled characteristics
or bodily changes acquired during a lifetime to be written back into the DNA and passed on to subsequent
generations.[139][140]
The mechanism was meant to explain why homologous DNA sequences from the VDJ gene regions of parent
mice were found in their germ cells and seemed to persist in the offspring for a few generations. The
mechanism involved the somatic selection and clonal amplification of newly acquired antibody gene
sequences generated via somatic hypermutation in B-
cells. The messenger RNA products of these somatically
novel genes were captured by retroviruses endogenous to
the B-cells and were then transported through the
bloodstream where they could breach the Weismann or
soma-germ barrier and reverse transcribe the newly
acquired genes into the cells of the germ line, in the
manner of Darwin's pangenes.[103][102][141]
The historian of biology Peter J. Bowler noted in 1989

that other scientists had been unable to reproduce his
results, and described the scientific consensus at the
time:[136]
There
is no
feedback
of
information
from
the
proteins
to Edward J. Steele's disputed[136] Neo-Lamarckian
the mechanism involves somatic hypermutation and
DNA, reverse transcription by a retrovirus to breach the
and Weismann barrier to germline DNA.
hence
no
route
by
which
characterist
acquired
in
the
body
can
be
passed
on
through
the
genes.
The
work
of
Ted
Steele Neo-Lamarckian inheritance of hologenome[142]
(1979)
provoked
a
flurry
of
interest
in
the
possibility
that
there
might,
after
all,
be
ways
in
which
this
reverse
flow
of
information
could
take
place.
...
[His]
mechanism
did
not,
in
fact,
violate
the
principles
of
molecular
biology,
but
most
biologists
were
suspicious
of
Steele's
claims,
and
attempts
to
reproduce
his
results
have
failed.[136]
Bowler commented that "[Steele's] work was bitterly criticized at the time by biologists who doubted his
experimental results and rejected his hypothetical mechanism as implausible."[136]
Hologenome theory of evolution
The hologenome theory of evolution, while Darwinian, has Lamarckian aspects. An individual animal or plant
lives in symbiosis with many microorganisms, and together they have a "hologenome" consisting of all their
genomes. The hologenome can vary like any other genome by mutation, sexual recombination, and
chromosome rearrangement, but in addition it can vary when populations of microorganisms increase or
decrease (resembling Lamarckian use and disuse), and when it gains new kinds of microorganism (resembling
Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics). These changes are then passed on to offspring.[143] The
mechanism is largely uncontroversial, and natural selection does sometimes occur at whole system
(hologenome) level, but it is not clear that this is always the case.[142]
Baldwin
effect
Lamarckian use and disuse compared to Darwinian evolution, the Baldwin effect, and
Waddington's genetic assimilation. All the theories offer explanations of how organisms
respond to a changed environment with adaptive inherited change.
The Baldwin effect, named after the psychologist James Mark Baldwin by George Gaylord Simpson in 1953,
proposes that the ability to learn new behaviours can improve an animal's reproductive success, and hence the
course of natural selection on its genetic makeup. Simpson stated that the mechanism was "not inconsistent
with the modern synthesis" of evolutionary theory,[144] though he doubted that it occurred very often, or could
be proven to occur. He noted that the Baldwin effect provide a reconciliation between the neo-Darwinian and
neo-Lamarckian approaches, something that the modern synthesis had seemed to render unnecessary. In
particular, the effect allows animals to adapt to a new stress in the environment through behavioural changes,
followed by genetic change. This somewhat resembles Lamarckism but without requiring animals to inherit
characteristics acquired by their parents.[145] The Baldwin effect is broadly accepted by Darwinists.[146]
In sociocultural evolution
Within the field of cultural evolution, Lamarckism has been applied as a mechanism for dual inheritance
theory.[147] The biologist Stephen Jay Gould viewed culture as a Lamarckian process whereby older
generations transmitted adaptive information to offspring via the concept of learning. In the history of
technology, components of Lamarckism have been used to link cultural development to human evolution by
considering technology as extensions of human anatomy.[148]
References
1. Ghiselin, Michael T. (1994). "The Imaginary Lamarck: A Look at Bogus "History" in
Schoolbooks" (https://web.archive.org/web/20001012042617/http://www.textbookleague.org/54
marck.htm). The Textbook Letter (September–October 1994). Archived from the original (http://
www.textbookleague.org/54marck.htm) on 12 October 2000. Retrieved 17 February 2006.
2. Gould 2002, pp. 177–178
3. Zirkle, Conway (1935). "The Inheritance of Acquired Characters and the Provisional
Hypothesis of Pangenesis". The American Naturalist. 69 (724): 417–445. doi:10.1086/280617
(https://doi.org/10.1086%2F280617). S2CID 84729069 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusI
D:84729069).
4. Zirkle, Conway (January 1946). "The Early History of the Idea of the Inheritance of Acquired
Characters and of Pangenesis". Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. 35 (2):
91–151. doi:10.2307/1005592 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1005592). JSTOR 1005592 (https://
www.jstor.org/stable/1005592).
5. Darwin 1794–1796, Vol I, section XXXIX (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15707/15707-h/15707-
h.htm#sect_XXXIX)
6. Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 617: "But Darwin was loath to let go of the notion that a well-used
and strengthened organ could be inherited."
7. Darwin, Charles (April 27, 1871). "Pangenesis" (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F003502a0). Nature.
3 (78): 502–503. Bibcode:1871Natur...3..502D (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1871Natur...
3..502D). doi:10.1038/003502a0 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F003502a0).
8. Holterhoff, Kate (2014). "The History and Reception of Charles Darwin's Hypothesis of
Pangenesis". Journal of the History of Biology. 47 (4): 661–695. doi:10.1007/s10739-014-9377-
0 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10739-014-9377-0). PMID 24570302 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.ni
h.gov/24570302). S2CID 207150548 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:207150548).
9. Liu, Yongsheng (2008). "A new perspective on Darwin's Pangenesis". Biological Reviews. 83
(2): 141–149. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2008.00036.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1469-185x.2
008.00036.x). PMID 18429766 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18429766). S2CID 39953275
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:39953275).
10. Larson, Edward J. (2004). A Growing sense of progress. Evolution: The remarkable history of a
Scientific Theory. Modern Library. pp. 38–41.
11. Gould, Stephen (2001). The lying stones of Marrakech : penultimate reflections in natural
history. Vintage. pp. 119–121. ISBN 978-0-09-928583-0.
12. Lamarck 1830, p. 235 (http://www.lamarck.cnrs.fr/ice/ice_page_detail.php?lang=fr&type=text&b
dd=lamarck&table=ouvrages_lamarck&bookId=29&search=no&typeofbookDes=Livres&facsim
ile=off&pageOrder=260)
13. Lamarck 1914, p. 113
14. Gould 2002
15. Winther, Rasmus (2001). "August Weismann on Germ-Plasm Variation". Journal of the History
of Biology. 34 (3): 517–555. doi:10.1023/A:1012950826540 (https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1
012950826540). PMID 11859887 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11859887).
S2CID 23808208 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:23808208).
16. Romanes, George John (1893). An examination of Weismannism. Open Court. OL 23380098M
(https://openlibrary.org/books/OL23380098M).
17. Weismann 1889, "The Supposed Transmission of Mutilations" (1888), p. 432 (http://www.esp.or
g/books/weismann/essays/facsimile/contents/weismann-essays-1-ch08.pdf#page=14)
18. Gauthier, Peter (March–May 1990). "Does Weismann's Experiment Constitute a Refutation of
the Lamarckian Hypothesis?". BIOS. 61 (1/2): 6–8. JSTOR 4608123 (https://www.jstor.org/stabl
e/4608123).
19. Gould 1980, p. 66
20. Gould, Stephen Jay (October 4, 1979). "Another Look at Lamarck" (https://books.google.com/bo
oks?id=kHHYOtogBEgC&pg=PA38). New Scientist. Vol. 84 no. 1175. pp. 38–40. Retrieved
2015-11-09.
21. Quammen 2006, p. 216
22. Bowler 2003, pp. 236–244
23. Quammen 2006, pp. 218, 220
24. Quammen 2006, p. 221
25. Bowler, Peter J. (1989) [1983]. Evolution: The History of an Idea (https://archive.org/details/evol
utionhistory0000bowl/page/257) (Revised ed.). University of California Press. pp. 257, 264,
279–280 (https://archive.org/details/evolutionhistory0000bowl/page/257). ISBN 978-
0520063860.
26. Bowler 1992
27. Bowler 2003, p. 367
28. Mumford 1921, p. 209
29. Mason 1956, p. 343
30. Burkhardt 1995, p. 166
31. Raitiere 2012, p. 299
32. Linville & Kelly 1906, p. 108 (http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t52f7m354;vie
w=1up;seq=128)
33. Aminoff 2011, p. 192
34. Kohler 2002, p. 167
35. Cunningham, Joseph Thomas (1891). "An Experiment concerning the Absence of Color from
the lower Sides of Flat-fishes". Zoologischer Anzeiger. 14: 27–32.
36. Cunningham, Joseph Thomas (May 1893). "Researches on the Coloration of the Skins of Flat
Fishes" (https://zenodo.org/record/2009008). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of
the United Kingdom. 3 (1): 111–118. doi:10.1017/S0025315400049596 (https://doi.org/10.101
7%2FS0025315400049596).
37. Cunningham, Joseph Thomas (May 1895). "Additional Evidence on the Influence of Light in
producing Pigments on the Lower Sides of Flat Fishes" (http://plymsea.ac.uk/146/1/Additional_
evidence_on_the_influence_of_light_in_producing_pigments_on_the_lower_sides_of_flat_fis
hes.pdf) (PDF). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 4: 53–59.
doi:10.1017/S0025315400050761 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0025315400050761).
38. Moore, Eldon (September 15, 1928). "The New View of Mendelism" (http://archive.spectator.co.
uk/article/15th-september-1928/25/the-new-view-of-mendelism). The Spectator (Book review).
Vol. 141 no. 5229. p. 337. Retrieved 2015-10-24. Review of Modern Biology (1928) by J. T.
Cunningham.
39. Cock & Forsdyke 2008, pp. 132–133
40. Morgan 1903, pp. 257–259 (http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015028160185;view=1
up;seq=277)
41. Goldschmidt 1940, pp. 266–267
42. Burkhardt 1998, "Lamarckism in Britain and the United States", p. 348
43. Forel 1934, p. 36
44. Packard, A. S. (July 10, 1896). "Handbuch der paläarktischen Gross-Schmetterlinge für
Forscher und Sammler. Zweite gänzlich umgearbeitete und durch Studien zur
Descendenztheorie erweitete Auflage, etc" (https://books.google.com/books?id=eMY-AQAAIA
AJ). Science (Book review). 4 (80): 52–54. doi:10.1126/science.4.80.52-c (https://doi.org/10.11
26%2Fscience.4.80.52-c). Review of Handbuch der paläarktischen Gross-Schmetterlinge für
Forscher und Sammler (1896) by Maximilian Rudolph Standfuss.
45. Delage & Goldsmith 1912, p. 210
46. Kohler 2002, pp. 202–204
47. Mitman 1992, p. 219
48. Bowler 2003, pp. 245–246
49. Medawar 1985, p. 168
50. Rignano 1906
51. Rignano & Harvey 1911
52. Eastwood, M. Lightfoot (October 1912). "Reviewed Work: Eugenio Rignano Upon the
Inheritance of Acquired Characters by C.H. Harvey". International Journal of Ethics. 23 (1):
117–118. doi:10.1086/206715 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F206715). JSTOR 2377122 (https://w
ww.jstor.org/stable/2377122).
53. Newman 1921, p. 335 (http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ncs1.ark:/13960/t9d50p31t;view=1u
p;seq=357)
54. Rignano 1926
55. Carmichael, Leonard (December 23, 1926). "Reviewed Work: Biological Memory by Eugenio
Rignano, E. W. MacBride". The Journal of Philosophy. 23 (26): 718–720. doi:10.2307/2014451
(https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2014451). JSTOR 2014451 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2014451).
56. "(1) Upon the Inheritance of Acquired Characters (2) Biological Aspects of Human Problems".
Nature (Book review). 89 (2232): 576–578. August 8, 1912. Bibcode:1912Natur..89..576. (http
s://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1912Natur..89..576.). doi:10.1038/089576a0 (https://doi.org/10.1
038%2F089576a0). S2CID 3984855 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:3984855).
57. Bateson, William (July 3, 1919). "Dr. Kammerer's Testimony to the Inheritance of Acquired
Characters" (https://zenodo.org/record/2519385). Nature (Letter to editor). 103 (2592): 344–345.
Bibcode:1919Natur.103..344B (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1919Natur.103..344B).
doi:10.1038/103344b0 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F103344b0). S2CID 4146761 (https://api.sem
anticscholar.org/CorpusID:4146761).
58. Bateson 1913, pp. 219–227 (https://archive.org/stream/problemsofgeneti00bate#page/219/mod
e/2up)
59. Weinstein 1998, "A Note on W. L. Tower's Lepinotarsa Work," pp. 352–353
60. MacBride, Ernest (January 1924). "The work of tornier as affording a possible explanation of
the causes of mutations" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2942563). The
Eugenics Review. 15 (4): 545–555. PMC 2942563 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P
MC2942563). PMID 21259774 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21259774).
61. Cunningham 1928, pp. 84–97
62. Sladden, Dorothy E. (May 1930). "Experimental Distortion of Development in Amphibian
Tadpoles" (https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frspb.1930.0031). Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
106 (744): 318–325. doi:10.1098/rspb.1930.0031 (https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frspb.1930.0031).
63. Sladden, Dorothy E. (November 1932). "Experimental Distortion of Development in Amphibian
Tadpoles. Part II" (https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frspb.1932.0072). Proceedings of the Royal
Society B. 112 (774): 1–12. Bibcode:1932RSPSB.112....1S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/
1932RSPSB.112....1S). doi:10.1098/rspb.1932.0072 (https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frspb.1932.00
72).
64. Blumberg 2010, pp. 69–70
65. Young 1922, p. 249
66. Child 1945, pp. 146–173
67. Guyer, Michael F.; Smith, E. A. (March 1920). "Transmission of Eye-Defects Induced in Rabbits
by Means of Lens-Sensitized Fowl-Serum" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC108
4447). PNAS. 6 (3): 134–136. Bibcode:1920PNAS....6..134G (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ab
s/1920PNAS....6..134G). doi:10.1073/pnas.6.3.134 (https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.6.3.134).
PMC 1084447 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1084447). PMID 16576477 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16576477).
68. Medawar 1985, p. 169
69. Moore 2002, p. 330
70. McDougall, William (April 1938). "Fourth Report on a Lamarckian Experiment". General
Section. British Journal of Psychology. 28 (4): 365–395. doi:10.1111/j.2044-
8295.1938.tb00882.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.2044-8295.1938.tb00882.x).
71. Pantin, Carl F. A. (November 1957). "Oscar Werner Tiegs. 1897-1956" (https://doi.org/10.109
8%2Frsbm.1957.0017). Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society. 3: 247–255.
doi:10.1098/rsbm.1957.0017 (https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frsbm.1957.0017).
72. Agar, Wilfred E.; Drummond, Frank H.; Tiegs, Oscar W. (July 1935). "A First Report on a Test of
McDougall'S Lamarckian Experiment on the Training of Rats" (http://jeb.biologists.org/content/1
2/3/191.short). The Journal of Experimental Biology. 12 (3): 191–211.
73. Agar, Wilfred E.; Drummond, Frank H.; Tiegs, Oscar W. (October 1942). "Second Report on a
Test of McDougall's Lamarckian Experiment on the Training of Rats" (http://jeb.biologists.org/co
ntent/19/2/158.short). The Journal of Experimental Biology. 19 (2): 158–167.
74. Agar, Wilfred E.; Drummond, Frank H.; Tiegs, Oscar W. (June 1948). "Third Report on a Test of
McDougall'S Lamarckian Experiment on the Training of Rats" (http://jeb.biologists.org/content/2
5/2/103.short). The Journal of Experimental Biology. 25 (2): 103–122. Retrieved 2015-10-28.
75. Agar, Wilfred E.; Drummond, Frank H.; Tiegs, Oscar W.; Gunson, Mary M. (September 1954).
"Fourth (Final) Report on a Test of McDougall'S Lamarckian Experiment on the Training of
Rats" (http://jeb.biologists.org/content/31/3/307.short). The Journal of Experimental Biology. 31
(3): 308–321.
76. Hagen 2002, p. 144: "During the 1920s, the entomologist J. W. Heslop-Harrison published
experimental data supporting his claim that chemicals in soot caused widespread mutations
from light winged to the dark winged form. Because these mutations were supposedly passed
on to subsequent generations, Harrison claimed that he had documented a case of inheritance
of acquired traits. Other biologists failed to replicate Harrison's results, and R. A. Fisher pointed
out that Harrison's hypothesis required a mutation rate far higher than any previously reported."
77. Moore & Decker 2008, p. 203
78. McDougall 1934, p. 180
79. Macdowell, E. Carleton; Vicari, Emilia M. (May 1921). "Alcoholism and the behavior of white
rats. I. The influence of alcoholic grandparents upon maze-behavior" (https://zenodo.org/record/
1426884). Journal of Experimental Zoology. 33 (1): 208–291. doi:10.1002/jez.1400330107 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1002%2Fjez.1400330107).
80. Griffith, Coleman R. (November–December 1920). "The Effect upon the White Rat of Continued
Bodily Rotation". The American Naturalist. 54 (635): 524–534. doi:10.1086/279783 (https://doi.
org/10.1086%2F279783). JSTOR 2456346 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2456346).
S2CID 84453628 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:84453628).
81. Griffith, Coleman R. (December 15, 1922). "Are Permanent Disturbances of Equilibration
Inherited?" (https://zenodo.org/record/1448281). Science. 56 (1459): 676–678.
Bibcode:1922Sci....56..676G (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1922Sci....56..676G).
doi:10.1126/science.56.1459.676 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.56.1459.676).
PMID 17778266 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17778266).
82. Detlefsen, John A. (1923). "Are the Effects of Long-Continued Rotation in Rats Inherited?".
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 62 (5): 292–300. JSTOR 984462 (https://w
ww.jstor.org/stable/984462).
83. Detlefsen, John A. (April 1925). "The inheritance of acquired characters". Physiological
Reviews. 5 (2): 224–278. doi:10.1152/physrev.1925.5.2.244 (https://doi.org/10.1152%2Fphysre
v.1925.5.2.244).
84. Dorcus, Roy M. (June 1933). "The effect of intermittent rotation on orientation and the
habituation of nystagmus in the rat, and some observations on the effects of pre-natal rotation
on post-natal development". Journal of Comparative Psychology. 15 (3): 469–475.
doi:10.1037/h0074715 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0074715).
85. Otho S. A. Sprague Memorial Institute 1940, p. 162
86. Jollos, Victor (September 1934). "Inherited changes produced by heat-treatment in Drosophila
melanogaster". Genetica. 16 (5–6): 476–494. doi:10.1007/BF01984742 (https://doi.org/10.100
7%2FBF01984742). S2CID 34126149 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:34126149).
87. Harwood 1993, pp. 121–131
88. Wood 2013
89. Cannon 1975
90. Boesiger 1974, p. 29
91. Loison, Laurent (November 2011). "French Roots of French Neo-Lamarckisms, 1879–1985".
Journal of the History of Biology. 44 (4): 713–744. doi:10.1007/s10739-010-9240-x (https://doi.o
rg/10.1007%2Fs10739-010-9240-x). PMID 20665089 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/206650
89). S2CID 3398698 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:3398698).
92. Pearson, Roy Douglas (March 1988). "Reviews". Acta Biotheoretica (Book review). 37 (1): 31–
36. doi:10.1007/BF00050806 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF00050806). Book reviews of
Animal Evolution in Changing Environments: With Special Reference to Abnormal
Metamorphosis (1987) by Ryuichi Matsuda and The Evolution of Individuality (1987) by Leo W.
Buss.
93. Shapiro, Arthur M. (1988). "Book Review: Animal Evolution in Changing Environments with
Special Reference to Abnormal Metamorphosis" (http://images.peabody.yale.edu/lepsoc/jls/19
80s/1988/1988-42%282%29146-Shapiro.pdf) (PDF). Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society
(Book review). 42 (2): 146–147. Retrieved 2015-12-11.
94. Baird, Scerri & McIntyre 2006, p. 166
95. Simpson 1944, p. 75
96. Simpson 1964, pp. 14–60
97. Simpson 1965, p. 451
98. Medawar 1985, pp. 166–169
99. Gardner 1957, pp. 142–143
00. Mayr 1997, p. 222: "...the recognition that DNA does not directly participate in the making of the
phenotype and that the phenotype, in turn, does not control the composition of the DNA
represents the ultimate invalidation of all theories involving the inheritance of acquired
characters. This definitive refutation of Lamarck's theory of evolutionary causation clears the
air."
01. Bowler 2013, p. 21
02. Steele, E.J. (2016). "Somatic hypermutation in immunity and cancer: Critical analysis of strand-
biased and codon-context mutation signatures". DNA Repair. 45 (2016): 1–2 4.
doi:10.1016/j.dnarep.2016.07.001 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.dnarep.2016.07.001).
03. Steele, E. J. (1981). Somatic selection and adaptive evolution : on the inheritance of acquired
characters (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
04. Roth, Tania L.; Lubin, Farah D.; Funk, Adam J.; et al. (May 2009). "Lasting Epigenetic Influence
of Early-Life Adversity on the BDNF Gene" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC305
6389). Biological Psychiatry. 65 (9): 760–769. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.11.028 (https://doi.o
rg/10.1016%2Fj.biopsych.2008.11.028). PMC 3056389 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic
les/PMC3056389). PMID 19150054 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19150054).
05. Arai, Junko A.; Shaomin Li; Hartley, Dean M.; et al. (February 4, 2009). "Transgenerational
Rescue of a Genetic Defect in Long-Term Potentiation and Memory Formation by Juvenile
Enrichment" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3408235). The Journal of
Neuroscience. 29 (5): 1496–1502. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5057-08.2009 (https://doi.org/10.1
523%2FJNEUROSCI.5057-08.2009). PMC 3408235 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article
s/PMC3408235). PMID 19193896 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19193896).
06. Hackett, Jamie A.; Sengupta, Roopsha; Zylicz, Jan J.; et al. (January 25, 2013). "Germline DNA
Demethylation Dynamics and Imprint Erasure Through 5-Hydroxymethylcytosine" (https://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3847602). Science. 339 (6118): 448–452.
Bibcode:2013Sci...339..448H (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Sci...339..448H).
doi:10.1126/science.1229277 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1229277). PMC 3847602 (ht
tps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3847602). PMID 23223451 (https://pubmed.ncbi.n
lm.nih.gov/23223451).
07. Bonduriansky, Russell (June 2012). "Rethinking heredity, again". Trends in Ecology &
Evolution. 27 (6): 330–336. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.02.003 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.tree.20
12.02.003). PMID 22445060 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22445060).
08. Skinner, Michael K. (May 2015). "Environmental Epigenetics and a Unified Theory of the
Molecular Aspects of Evolution: A Neo-Lamarckian Concept that Facilitates Neo-Darwinian
Evolution" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4453068). Genome Biology and
Evolution. 7 (5): 1296–1302. doi:10.1093/gbe/evv073 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fgbe%2Fevv0
73). PMC 4453068 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4453068). PMID 25917417
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25917417).
09. Gregory, T. Ryan (March 8, 2009). "Lamarck didn't say it, Darwin did" (http://www.genomicron.e
volverzone.com/2009/03/lamarck-didnt-say-it-darwin-did/). Genomicron (Blog). Retrieved
2015-11-04.
10. Wilkins 2009, pp. 295–315
11. Burkhardt, Richard W., Jr. (August 2013). "Lamarck, Evolution, and the Inheritance of Acquired
Characters" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3730912). Genetics. 194 (4): 793–
805. doi:10.1534/genetics.113.151852 (https://doi.org/10.1534%2Fgenetics.113.151852).
12. Penny, David (June 2015). "Epigenetics, Darwin, and Lamarck" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p
mc/articles/PMC4494054). Genome Biology and Evolution. 7 (6): 1758–1760.
doi:10.1093/gbe/evv107 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fgbe%2Fevv107). PMC 4494054 (https://w
ww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494054). PMID 26026157 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/26026157).
13. Jablonka & Lamb 1995
14. Moore 2015
15. Richards, Eric J. (May 2006). "Inherited epigenetic variation — revisiting soft inheritance".
Nature Reviews Genetics. 7 (5): 395–401. doi:10.1038/nrg1834 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnrg
1834). PMID 16534512 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16534512). S2CID 21961242 (https://
api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:21961242).
16. Nätt, Daniel; Lindqvist, Niclas; Stranneheim, Henrik; et al. (July 28, 2009). Pizzari, Tom (ed.).
"Inheritance of Acquired Behaviour Adaptations and Brain Gene Expression in Chickens" (http
s://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2713434). PLOS ONE. 4 (7): e6405.
Bibcode:2009PLoSO...4.6405N (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PLoSO...4.6405N).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006405 (https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006405).
17. Sheau-Fang Ng; Lin, Ruby C. Y.; Laybutt, D. Ross; et al. (October 21, 2010). "Chronic high-fat
diet in fathers programs β-cell dysfunction in female rat offspring". Nature. 467 (7318): 963–
966. Bibcode:2010Natur.467..963N (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Natur.467..963N).
doi:10.1038/nature09491 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature09491). PMID 20962845 (https://pu
bmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20962845). S2CID 4308799 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:
4308799).
18. Gibson, Andrea (June 16, 2013). "Obese male mice father offspring with higher levels of body
fat" (https://www.ohio.edu/research/communications/obese_paternal.cfm) (Press release). Ohio
University. Retrieved 2015-11-02.
19. Lumey, Lambert H.; Stein, Aryeh D.; Ravelli, Anita C. J. (July 1995). "Timing of prenatal
starvation in women and birth weight in their first and second born offspring: The Dutch famine
birth cohort study". European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology.
61 (1): 23–30. doi:10.1016/0028-2243(95)02149-M (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0028-2243%28
95%2902149-M). PMID 8549843 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8549843). INIST:3596539
(https://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=3596539).
20. Akimoto, Keiko; Katakami, Hatsue; Hyun-Jung Kim; et al. (August 2007). "Epigenetic
Inheritance in Rice Plants" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2735323). Annals of
Botany. 100 (2): 205–217. doi:10.1093/aob/mcm110 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Faob%2Fmcm1
21. Sano, Hiroshi (April 2010). "Inheritance of acquired traits in plants: Reinstatement of Lamarck"
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2958583). Plant Signaling & Behavior. 5 (4):
346–348. doi:10.4161/psb.5.4.10803 (https://doi.org/10.4161%2Fpsb.5.4.10803).
22. Singer, Emily (February 4, 2009). "A Comeback for Lamarckian Evolution?" (http://www.technol
ogyreview.com/news/411880/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/). MIT Technology Review
(Biomedicine news).
23. Rechavi, Oded; Minevich, Gregory; Hobert, Oliver (December 9, 2011). "Transgenerational
Inheritance of an Acquired Small RNA-Based Antiviral Response in C. Elegans" (https://www.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250924). Cell. 147 (6): 1248–1256.
doi:10.1016/j.cell.2011.10.042 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cell.2011.10.042). PMC 3250924
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250924). PMID 22119442 (https://pubmed.ncb
i.nlm.nih.gov/22119442).
24. Rechavi, O.; Houri-Ze'evi, L.; Anava, S.; Goh, W.S.; Kerk, S.Y.; Hannon, G.J.; Hobert, O. (17
July 2014). "Starvation-induced transgenerational inheritance of small RNAs in C. elegans" (htt
ps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4377509). Cell. 158 (2): 277–287.
doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.06.020 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cell.2014.06.020). PMC 4377509
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4377509). PMID 25018105 (https://pubmed.ncb
i.nlm.nih.gov/25018105).
25. Handel, Adam E.; Ramagopalan, Sreeram V. (May 13, 2010). "Is Lamarckian evolution relevant
to medicine?" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2876149). BMC Medical
Genetics. 11: 73. doi:10.1186/1471-2350-11-73 (https://doi.org/10.1186%2F1471-2350-11-73).
26. Springer & Holley 2013, p. 94
27. Koonin, Eugene V.; Wolf, Yuri I. (November 11, 2009). "Is evolution Darwinian or/and
Lamarckian?" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781790). Biology Direct. 4: 42.
doi:10.1186/1745-6150-4-42 (https://doi.org/10.1186%2F1745-6150-4-42). PMC 2781790 (http
s://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781790). PMID 19906303 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nl
m.nih.gov/19906303).
28. Koonin, Eugene V. (February 2019). "CRISPR: a new principle of genome engineering linked
to conceptual shifts in evolutionary biology" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC64
04382). Biology & Philosophy. 34 (9): 9. doi:10.1007/s10539-018-9658-7 (https://doi.org/10.100
7%2Fs10539-018-9658-7). PMC 6404382 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC640
4382). PMID 30930513 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30930513).
29. Coyne, Jerry (October 24, 2010). "Epigenetics: the light and the way?" (https://whyevolutionistr
ue.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/epigenetics-the-light-and-the-way/). Why Evolution Is True
(Blog). Retrieved 2015-11-04.
30. Coyne, Jerry (September 23, 2013). "Epigenetics smackdown at the Guardian" (https://whyevol
utionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/epigenetics-smackdown-at-the-guardian/). Why
Evolution is True (Blog). Retrieved 2015-11-04.
31. González-Recio O, Toro MA, Bach A. (2015). Past, present, and future of epigenetics applied to
livestock breeding (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4585102/). Front Genet 6:
305.
32. Varona L, Munilla S, Mouresan EF, González-Rodríguez A, Moreno C, Altarriba J. (2015). A
Bayesian model for the analysis of transgenerational epigenetic variation. G3: Genes,
Genomes, Genetics 5(4): 477-485.
33. Haig, David (June 2007). "Weismann Rules! OK? Epigenetics and the Lamarckian temptation".
Biology and Philosophy. 22 (3): 415–428. doi:10.1007/s10539-006-9033-y (https://doi.org/10.1
007%2Fs10539-006-9033-y). S2CID 16322990 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1632
2990). "Modern neo-Darwinists do not deny that epigenetic mechanisms play an important role
during development nor do they deny that these mechanisms enable a variety of adaptive
responses to the environment. Recurrent, predictable changes of epigenetic state provide a
useful set of switches that allow genetically-identical cells to acquire differentiated functions
and allow facultative responses of a genotype to environmental changes (provided that 'similar'
changes have occurred repeatedly in the past). However, most neo-Darwinists would claim that
the ability to adaptively switch epigenetic state is a property of the DNA sequence (in the sense
that alternative sequences would show different switching behavior) and that any increase of
adaptedness in the system has come about by a process of natural selection."
34. Haig, David (November 2011). "Lamarck Ascending!" (https://doi.org/10.3998%2Fptb.6959004.
0003.004). Philosophy and Theory in Biology (Book essay). 3 (e204).
doi:10.3998/ptb.6959004.0003.004 (https://doi.org/10.3998%2Fptb.6959004.0003.004). "A
Review of Transformations of Lamarckism: From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology, edited by
Snait B. Gissis and Eva Jablonka, MIT Press, 2011"
35. Dickins, Thomas E.; Rahman, Qazi (August 7, 2012). "The extended evolutionary synthesis
and the role of soft inheritance in evolution" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC338
5474). Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 279 (1740): 2913–2921.
doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.0273 (https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frspb.2012.0273). PMC 3385474 (http
s://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3385474). PMID 22593110 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nl
m.nih.gov/22593110).
36. Bowler, Peter J., Peter J. (1989) [1983]. Evolution: The History of an Idea (https://archive.org/det
ails/evolutionhistory0000bowl/page/179) (Revised ed.). University of California Press. pp. 179,
341 (https://archive.org/details/evolutionhistory0000bowl/page/179). ISBN 978-0520063860.
37. Whitelaw, Emma (March 27, 2015). "Disputing Lamarckian Epigenetic Inheritance in Mammals"
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4375926). Genome Biology. 16 (60): 60.
doi:10.1186/s13059-015-0626-0 (https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs13059-015-0626-0).
38. Weiss, Adam (October 2015). "Lamarckian Illusions" (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.tree.2015.08.
003). Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 30 (10): 566–568. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.08.003 (https://d
oi.org/10.1016%2Fj.tree.2015.08.003). PMID 26411613 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2641
1613).
39. Steele, E.J. (2016). "Somatic hypermutation in immunity and cancer: Critical analysis of strand-
biased and codon-context mutation signatures". DNA Repair. 45: 1–24.
doi:10.1016/j.dnarep.2016.07.001 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.dnarep.2016.07.001).
40. Steele, E.J.; Pollard, J.W. (1987). "Hypothesis : Somatic Hypermutation by gene conversion via
the error prone DNA-to-RNA-to-DNA information loop". Molecular Immunology. 24 (6): 667–
673. doi:10.1016/j.dnarep.2016.07.001 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.dnarep.2016.07.001).
41. Steele, Lindley & Blanden 1998
42. Moran, Nancy A.; Sloan, Daniel B. (2015-12-04). "The Hologenome Concept: Helpful or
Hollow?" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4670207). PLOS Biology. 13 (12):
e1002311. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002311 (https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.100231
43. Rosenberg, Eugene; Sharon, Gill; Zilber-Rosenberg, Ilana (December 2009). "The
hologenome theory of evolution contains Lamarckian aspects within a Darwinian framework".
Environmental Microbiology. 11 (12): 2959–2962. doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.01995.x (http
s://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1462-2920.2009.01995.x). PMID 19573132 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.n
ih.gov/19573132).
44. Depew, David J. (2003), "Baldwin Boosters, Baldwin Skeptics" in: Weber, Bruce H.; Depew,
David J. (2003). Evolution and learning: The Baldwin effect reconsidered (https://books.google.
com/books?id=yBtRzBilw1MC&q=baldwin+effect&pg=PR9). MIT Press. pp. 3–31. ISBN 978-0-
262-23229-6.
45. Simpson, George Gaylord (1953). "The Baldwin effect". Evolution. 7 (2): 110–117.
doi:10.2307/2405746 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2405746). JSTOR 2405746 (https://www.jsto
r.org/stable/2405746).
46. Dennett, Daniel (2003), "The Baldwin Effect, a Crane, not a Skyhook" in: Weber, Bruce H.;
Depew, David J. (2003). Evolution and learning: The Baldwin effect reconsidered (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=yBtRzBilw1MC&q=baldwin+effect&pg=PR9). MIT Press. pp. 69–106.
ISBN 978-0-262-23229-6.
47. Kronfeldner, Maria (December 13, 2005). "Is cultural evolution Lamarckian?". Biology &
Philosophy. 22 (4): 493–512. doi:10.1007/s10539-006-9037-7 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs105
39-006-9037-7). S2CID 85411375 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:85411375).
48. Cullen 2000, pp. 31–60
Bibliography
Aminoff, Michael J. (2011). Brown-Séquard: An Improbable Genius Who Transformed
Medicine. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-974263-9. LCCN 2010013439 (https://lccn.l
oc.gov/2010013439). OCLC 680002156 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/680002156).
Baird, Davis; Scerri, Eric; McIntyre, Lee, eds. (2006). Philosophy of Chemistry: Synthesis of a
New Discipline. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. 242. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-
3256-1. LCCN 2006295950 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2006295950). OCLC 209927684 (https://www.
worldcat.org/oclc/209927684).
Bateson, William (1913). Problems of Genetics (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.409
16). Yale University Press. LCCN 13021769 (https://lccn.loc.gov/13021769). OCLC 809326988
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/809326988). Problems of genetics (1913) (https://archive.org/det
ails/problemsofgeneti00bate) at the Internet Archive
Blumberg, Mark S. (2010). Freaks of Nature: And What They Tell Us about Evolution and
Development (Paperback ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-921306-1.
LCCN 2010481198 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2010481198). OCLC 352916350 (https://www.worldca
t.org/oclc/352916350).
Boesiger, Ernest (1974). "Evolutionary theories after Lamarck and Darwin". In Ayala, Francisco
José; Dobzhansky, Theodosius (eds.). Studies in the Philosophy of Biology: Reduction and
Related Problems. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-02649-0. LCCN 73090656
(https://lccn.loc.gov/73090656). OCLC 1265669 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1265669).
Bowler, Peter J. (1992) [Original hardback edition published 1983]. The Eclipse of Darwinism:
Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades Around 1900 (Johns Hopkins Paperbacks
ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-4391-4. LCCN 82021170 (https://lccn.l
oc.gov/82021170). OCLC 611262030 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/611262030).
Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea (https://archive.org/details/evolutionhi
story0000bowl_n7y8) (3rd ed.). University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-23693-6.
LCCN 2002007569 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2002007569). OCLC 49824702 (https://www.worldcat.
org/oclc/49824702).
Bowler, Peter J. (2013). Darwin Deleted: Imagining a World Without Darwin. University of
Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-06867-1. LCCN 2012033769 (https://lccn.loc.gov/201203376
9). OCLC 808010092 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/808010092).
Burkhardt, Richard W., Jr. (1995) [Originally published 1977]. The Spirit of System: Lamarck
and Evolutionary Biology: Now with 'Lamarck in 1995' (First Harvard University Press
paperback ed.). Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-83318-0. LCCN 95010861 (https://l
ccn.loc.gov/95010861). OCLC 32396741 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/32396741).
Cannon, Herbert Graham (1975) [Originally published 1959: Manchester, England; Manchester
University Press]. Lamarck and Modern Genetics (Reprint ed.). Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-
8371-8173-8. LCCN 75010211 (https://lccn.loc.gov/75010211). OCLC 1418716 (https://www.w
orldcat.org/oclc/1418716).
Child, Charles Manning (1945). Biographical Memoir of Francis Bertody Sumner, 1874–1945
(http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/sumner-francis.pdf)
(PDF). National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Biographical Memoirs. 25. National
Academy of Sciences. LCCN 52004656 (https://lccn.loc.gov/52004656). OCLC 11852074 (http
s://www.worldcat.org/oclc/11852074). Retrieved 2015-10-27.
Cock, Alan G.; Forsdyke, Donald R. (2008). Treasure Your Exceptions: The Science and Life of
William Bateson. Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-75687-5. LCCN 2008931291 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2
Cullen, Ben Sandford (2000). Steele, James; Cullen, Richard; Chippindale, Christopher (eds.).
Contagious Ideas: On Evolution, Culture, Archaeology, and Cultural Virus Theory. Oxbow
Books. ISBN 978-1-84217-014-4. OCLC 47122736 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/47122736).
Cunningham, Joseph Thomas (1928). Modern Biology: A Review of the Principal Phenomena
of Animal Life in Relation to Modern Concepts and Theories. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner &
Co., Ltd. LCCN 29000027 (https://lccn.loc.gov/29000027). OCLC 920415 (https://www.worldca
t.org/oclc/920415).
Darwin, Erasmus (1794–1796). Zoonomia; or, the Laws of Organic Life. Joseph Johnson.
LCCN 34036671 (https://lccn.loc.gov/34036671). OCLC 670735211 (https://www.worldcat.org/
oclc/670735211).
Delage, Yves; Goldsmith, Marie (1912). The Theories of Evolution (https://archive.org/details/th
eoriesevoluti00tridgoog). Translation by André Tridon. B. W. Huebsch. LCCN 12031796 (http
s://lccn.loc.gov/12031796). OCLC 522024 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/522024). The theories
of evolution (1912) (https://archive.org/details/theoriesofevolut00delauoft) at the Internet
Archive
Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James R. (1991). Darwin. Michael Joseph; Viking Penguin.
ISBN 978-0-7181-3430-3. LCCN 92196964 (https://lccn.loc.gov/92196964). OCLC 26502431
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/26502431).
Forel, Auguste (1934) [1922]. The Sexual Question: A Scientific, Psychological, Hygienic and
Sociological Study. English adaptation from the second German edition, revised and enlarged
by C. F. Marshall (Revised ed.). Physicians and Surgeons Book Company. LCCN 22016399 (ht
tps://lccn.loc.gov/22016399). OCLC 29326677 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/29326677). The
sexual question: a scientific, psychological, hygienic and sociological study (1922) (https://archi
ve.org/details/b20442579) at the Internet Archive. Retrieved 2015-10-26.
Gardner, Martin (1957) [1952]. Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Dover Publications.
LCCN 57003844 (https://lccn.loc.gov/57003844). OCLC 233892 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/
233892).
Goldschmidt, Richard (1940). The Material Basis of Evolution. Mrs. Hepsa Ely Silliman
Memorial Lectures. Yale University Press; Oxford University Press. LCCN 40012233 (https://lcc
n.loc.gov/40012233). OCLC 595767401 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/595767401).
Gould, Stephen Jay (1980). The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History (1st ed.).
W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-01380-1. LCCN 80015952 (https://lccn.loc.gov/800
Gould, Stephen Jay (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-00613-3. LCCN 2001043556 (https://lccn.loc.gov/20010435
Hagen, Joel B. (2002). "Retelling Experiments: H.B.D. Kettlewell's Studies of Industrial
Melanism in Peppered Moths". In Giltrow, Janet (ed.). Academic Reading: Reading and Writing
Across the Disciplines (2nd ed.). Broadview Press. ISBN 978-1-55111-393-7.
LCCN 2002514564 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2002514564). OCLC 46626903 (https://www.worldcat.
org/oclc/46626903).
Harwood, Jonathan (1993). Styles of Scientific Thought: The German Genetics Community,
1900–1933. Science and its Conceptual Foundations. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-
0-226-31882-0. LCCN 92015321 (https://lccn.loc.gov/92015321). OCLC 25746714 (https://ww
w.worldcat.org/oclc/25746714).
Jablonka, Eva; Lamb, Marion J. (1995). Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: The Lamarckian
Dimension. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-854062-5. LCCN 94032108 (https://lccn.lo
c.gov/94032108). OCLC 30974876 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/30974876).
Kohler, Robert E. (2002). Landscapes and Labscapes: Exploring the Lab-Field Border in
Biology. University Of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-45010-0. LCCN 2002023331 (https://lcc
n.loc.gov/2002023331). OCLC 690162738 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/690162738).
Lamarck, Jean-Baptiste (1830) [Originally published 1809; Paris: Dentu et L'Auteur].
Philosophie Zoologique (in French) (New ed.). Germer Baillière. LCCN 11003671 (https://lccn.l
oc.gov/11003671). Philosophie zoologique (1830) (https://archive.org/details/philosophiezool0
2unkngoog) at the Internet Archive
—— (1914). Zoological Philosophy; An Exposition with Regard to the Natural History of
Animals. Translated, with an introduction, by Hugh Elliot. Macmillan and Co., Ltd.
LCCN a15000196 (https://lccn.loc.gov/a15000196). OCLC 1489850 (https://www.worldcat.
org/oclc/1489850). Zoological philosophy (1914) (https://archive.org/details/ZoologicalPhilo
sophy) at the Internet Archive
Linville, Henry R.; Kelly, Henry A. (1906). A Text-Book in General Zoölogy. Ginn & Company.
LCCN 06023318 (https://lccn.loc.gov/06023318). OCLC 1041858 (https://www.worldcat.org/ocl
c/1041858). A textbook in general zoölogy (1906) (https://archive.org/details/atextbookingene0
0kellgoog) at the Internet Archive
Mason, Stephen Finney (1956). Main Currents of Scientific Thought: A History of the Sciences.
The Life of Science Library. 32 (Reprint ed.). Abelard-Schuman. OCLC 732176237 (https://ww
w.worldcat.org/oclc/732176237).
Mayr, Ernst (1997) [Originally published 1976]. Evolution and the Diversity of Life: Selected
Essays (First Harvard University Press paperback ed.). Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press. ISBN 978-0-674-27105-0. LCCN 75042131 (https://lccn.loc.gov/75042131).
OCLC 247687824 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/247687824).
Mayr, Ernst; Provine, William B., eds. (1998). The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the
Unification of Biology. New preface by Ernst Mayr. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-
27226-2. LCCN 98157613 (https://lccn.loc.gov/98157613). OCLC 503188713 (https://www.worl
dcat.org/oclc/503188713).
McDougall, William (1934). Modern Materialism and Emergent Evolution. Methuen.
Medawar, Peter (1985) [Originally published 1983]. Aristotle to Zoos: A Philosophical
Dictionary of Biology. Oxford Paperbacks (Reprint ed.). Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-
19-283043-2. LCCN 84016529 (https://lccn.loc.gov/84016529). OCLC 11030267 (https://www.
worldcat.org/oclc/11030267).
Mitman, Gregg (1992). The State of Nature: Ecology, Community, and American Social
Thought, 1900–1950. Science and its Conceptual Foundations. University of Chicago Press.
ISBN 978-0-226-53236-3. LCCN 91045638 (https://lccn.loc.gov/91045638). OCLC 25130594
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/25130594).
Moore, David S. (2015). The Developing Genome: An Introduction to Behavioral Epigenetics.
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-992234-5. LCCN 2014049505 (https://lccn.loc.gov/201
Moore, Randy; Decker, Mark D. (2008). More Than Darwin: An Encyclopedia of the People and
Places of the Evolution-creationism Controversy. Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-34155-7.
LCCN 2007044406 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2007044406). OCLC 177023758 (https://www.worldca
t.org/oclc/177023758).
Moore, James R., ed. (2002) [Originally published 1989]. History, Humanity and Evolution:
Essays for John C. Greene. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-52478-0.
LCCN 89032583 (https://lccn.loc.gov/89032583). OCLC 49784849 (https://www.worldcat.org/o
clc/49784849).
Morgan, Thomas Hunt (1903). Evolution and Adaptation (https://archive.org/details/ldpd_61219
86_000). The Macmillan Company; Macmillan and Co., Ltd. LCCN 03027216 (https://lccn.loc.g
ov/03027216). OCLC 758217701 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/758217701). Evolution and
adaptation (1903) (https://archive.org/details/cu31924024754347) at the Internet Archive
Mumford, Frederick Blackmar (1921) [Originally published 1917]. The Breeding of Animals.
The Rural Text-Book Series. The Macmillan Company. LCCN 17007834 (https://lccn.loc.gov/1
7007834). OCLC 5429719 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/5429719). The breeding of animals
(1921) (https://archive.org/details/breedingofanimal00mumf) at the Internet Archive
Newman, Horatio Hackett (1921). Readings in Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics (https://archi
ve.org/details/cu31924074276738). University of Chicago Press. LCCN 21017204 (https://lccn.
loc.gov/21017204). OCLC 606993 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/606993). Readings in
evolution, genetics, and eugenics (1921) (https://archive.org/details/readingsinevolu00newm)
at the Internet Archive
Otho S. A. Sprague Memorial Institute (1940). Studies from the Otho S. A. Sprague Memorial
Institute: Collected Reprints. 25. Otho S. A. Sprague Memorial Institute. OCLC 605547177 (http
s://www.worldcat.org/oclc/605547177).
Quammen, David (2006). The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and
the Making of His Theory of Evolution (https://archive.org/details/reluctantmrdarwi00quam).
Great Discoveries (1st ed.). Atlas Books/Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-05981-6. LCCN 2006009864
(https://lccn.loc.gov/2006009864). OCLC 65400177 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/65400177).
Raitiere, Martin N. (2012). The Complicity of Friends: How George Eliot, G. H. Lewes, and John
Hughlings-Jackson Encoded Herbert Spencer's Secret. Bucknell University Press. ISBN 978-
1-61148-418-2. LCCN 2012030762 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2012030762). OCLC 806981125 (http
s://www.worldcat.org/oclc/806981125).
Rignano, Eugenio (1906). Sur La Transmissibilité Des Caractères Acquis: Hypothèse D'une
Centro-épigénèse (in French). Félix Alcan. OCLC 5967582 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/5967
582).
——; Harvey, Basil C. H. (1911). Eugenio Rignano Upon the Inheritance of Acquired
Characters: A Hypothesis of Heredity, Development, and Assimilation (https://archive.org/d
etails/inheritanceacq00rignrich). Authorized English translation by Basil C. H. Harvey.
Open Court Publishing Company. LCCN 11026509 (https://lccn.loc.gov/11026509).
OCLC 1311084 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1311084). Eugenio Rignano upon the
inheritance of acquired characters (1911) (https://archive.org/details/eugeniorignanoup00rig
nrich) at the Internet Archive
Rignano, Eugenio (1926). Biological Memory (https://archive.org/details/b31364226).
International Library of Psychology, Philosophy, and Scientific Method. Translated with an
introduction by Ernest MacBride. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co.; Harcourt, Brace &
Company. LCCN 26009586 (https://lccn.loc.gov/26009586). OCLC 811731 (https://www.worldc
at.org/oclc/811731).
Simpson, George Gaylord (1944). "Tempo and Mode in Evolution". Transactions of the New
York Academy of Sciences. Columbia Biological Series. Columbia University Press. 15: 45–
60. doi:10.1111/j.2164-0947.1945.tb00215.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.2164-0947.1945.tb0
0215.x). LCCN a45000404 (https://lccn.loc.gov/a45000404). OCLC 993515 (https://www.world
cat.org/oclc/993515). PMID 21012247 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21012247).
Simpson, George Gaylord (1964). This View of Life: The World of an Evolutionist (https://archiv
e.org/details/thisviewoflifewo00simp) (1st ed.). Harcourt, Brace & World. LCCN 64014636 (http
s://lccn.loc.gov/64014636). OCLC 230986 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/230986).
Simpson, George Gaylord (1965). Life: An Introduction to Biology (https://archive.org/details/life
introduction00simp) (2nd ed.). Harcourt, Brace & World. LCCN 65014384 (https://lccn.loc.gov/6
Springer, Joseph T.; Holley, Dennis (2013). An Introduction to Zoology (1st ed.). Jones &
Bartlett Learning. ISBN 978-1-4496-4891-6. LCCN 2011022399 (https://lccn.loc.gov/20110223
Steele, Edward J.; Lindley, Robyn A.; Blanden, Robert V. (1998). Lamarck's Signature : How
Retrogenes Are Changing Darwin's Natural Selection Paradigm. Helix Books; Frontiers of
Science. Perseus Books. ISBN 978-0-7382-0014-9. LCCN 98087900 (https://lccn.loc.gov/9808
Weismann, August (1889). Poulton, Edward B.; Schönland, Selmar; Shipley, Arthur E. (eds.).
Essays Upon Heredity and Kindred Biological Problems (http://www.esp.org/books/weismann/
essays/facsimile/). Clarendon Press. LCCN 77010494 (https://lccn.loc.gov/77010494).
OCLC 488543825 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/488543825). Retrieved 2015-10-30.
Wilkins, John S. (2009) [Originally published 2001 in Laurent, John; Nightingale, John (eds),
Darwinism and Evolutionary Economics, chapter 8, pp. 160–183; Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar]. "The Appearance of Lamarckism in the Evolution of Culture". In Hodgson, Geoffrey M.
(ed.). Darwinism and Economics. The International Library of Critical Writings in Economics
Series. 233. Edward Elgar. ISBN 978-1-84844-072-2. LCCN 2008939772 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2
Wood, Bernard, ed. (2013). Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Human Evolution (First
paperback ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-118-65099-8. LCCN 2013012756 (https://lccn.lo
c.gov/2013012756). OCLC 841039552 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/841039552).
Young, Robert Thompson (1922). Biology in America (https://archive.org/details/biologyinameri
ca00younrich). R.G. Badger. LCCN 22019903 (https://lccn.loc.gov/22019903). OCLC 370597
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/370597). Biology in America (1922) (https://archive.org/details/bi
ologyinamerica00younrich) at the Internet Archive
Further reading
Barthélemy-Madaule, Madeleine (1982). Lamarck, the Mythical Precursor: A Study of the
Relations Between Science and Ideology. English translation by M. H. Shank. MIT Press.
ISBN 978-0-262-02179-1. LCCN 82010061 (https://lccn.loc.gov/82010061). OCLC 8533097 (ht
tps://www.worldcat.org/oclc/8533097). Translation of Lamarck, ou, Le mythe du précurseur
(1979)
Bowler, Peter J. (1989). The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts
in Modern Science and Society. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-3888-0.
clc/19322402).
Burkeman, Oliver (19 March 2010). "Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong"
(https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-
wrong). The Guardian. Guardian Media Group.
Rutherford, Adam (19 March 2010). "Beyond a 'Darwin was wrong' headline" (https://www.theg
uardian.com/commentisfree/2010/mar/19/darwin-evolutionary-science-media-coverage). The
Guardian.
Cook, George M. (December 1999). "Neo-Lamarckian Experimentalism in America: Origins
and Consequences". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 74 (4): 417–437. doi:10.1086/394112 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1086%2F394112). JSTOR 2664721 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2664721).
Desmond, Adrian (1989). The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in
Radical London (https://archive.org/details/politicsofevolut00adri). Science and its Conceptual
Foundations. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-14346-0. LCCN 89005137 (https://l
ccn.loc.gov/89005137). OCLC 709606191 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/709606191).
Fecht, Sarah (October 19, 2011). "Longevity Shown for First Time to Be Inherited via a Non-
DNA Mechanism" (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/longevity-inheritance-
epigenetics/). Scientific American. Retrieved 2015-11-05.
Gissis, Snait B.; Jablonka, Eva., eds. (2011). Transformations of Lamarckism: From Subtle
Fluids to Molecular Biology. Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology. Illustrations by Anna
Zeligowski. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-01514-1. LCCN 2010031344 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2010
Honeywill, Ross (2008). Lamarck's Evolution: Two Centuries of Genius and Jealousy. Pier 9.
ISBN 978-1-921208-60-7. LCCN 2011431766 (https://lccn.loc.gov/2011431766).
OCLC 746154950 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/746154950).
Jablonka, Eva; Lamb, Marion J. (2008). "The Epigenome in Evolution: Beyond The Modern
Synthesis" (http://www.bionet.nsc.ru/vogis/pict_pdf/2008/t12_1_2/vogis_12_1_2_21.pdf) (PDF).
Information Bulletin VOGiS. 12 (1/2): 242–254.
Medawar, Peter (1990). Pyke, David (ed.). The Threat and the Glory: Reflections on Science
and Scientists (https://archive.org/details/threatgloryrefle00meda). Foreword by Lewis Thomas
(1st U.S. ed.). HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-039112-6. LCCN 89046107 (https://lccn.loc.gov/8
9046107). OCLC 21977349 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/21977349). Contains the BBC Reith
Lectures "The Future of Man (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00hg13w)."
Molino, Jean (2000). "Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Music and Language" (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=vYQEakqM4I0C&pg=PA165). In Wallin, Nils L.; Merker, Björn; Brown,
Steven (eds.). The Origins of Music. MIT Press. pp. 165–176. ISBN 978-0-262-23206-7.
clc/44963330). "Consists of papers given at a workshop on the origins of music held in Fiesole,
Italy, May 1997, the first of a series called Florentine Workshops in Biomusicology."
Peng, Wayne (December 27, 2011). "Lamarckian viral defense in worms". Nature Genetics. 44:
15. doi:10.1038/ng.1062 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fng.1062). S2CID 32406225 (https://api.se
manticscholar.org/CorpusID:32406225).
Pennisi, Elizabeth (September 6, 2013). "Evolution Heresy? Epigenetics Underlies Heritable
Plant Traits". Science. 341 (6150): 1055. doi:10.1126/science.341.6150.1055 (https://doi.org/1
0.1126%2Fscience.341.6150.1055). PMID 24009370 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/240093
70).
Persell, Stuart (1999). Neo-Lamarckism and the Evolution Controversy in France, 1870-1920.
Studies in French Civilization. 14. Edwin Mellen Press. ISBN 978-0-7734-8275-3.
clc/40193707).
Seki, Yoshiyuki (April 2013). Groszmann, Roberto J.; Iwakiri, Yasuko; Taddei, Tamar H. (eds.).
"Serum-mediated transgenerational effects on sperm: Evidence for lamarckian inheritance?".
Hepatology. 57 (4): 1663–1665. doi:10.1002/hep.26240 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fhep.2624
0). PMID 23568276 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23568276). S2CID 5288601 (https://api.s
emanticscholar.org/CorpusID:5288601).
Waddington, Conrad H. (1961). "The Human Evolutionary System". In Banton, Michael (ed.).
Darwinism and the Study of Society: A Centenary Symposium; Chicago, IL. Tavistock
Publications; Quadrangle Books. LCCN 61007932 (https://lccn.loc.gov/61007932).
OCLC 1003950 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1003950). "Essays ... based upon papers read
at a conference held at the University of Edinburgh ... 1959."
Ward, Lester Frank (1891). Neo-Darwinism and Neo-Lamarckism (https://archive.org/details/ne
odarwinismand00washgoog). Press of Gedney & Roberts. LCCN 07037459 (https://lccn.loc.go
v/07037459). OCLC 4115244 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/4115244). "Annual address of the
president of the Biological Society of Washington. Delivered January 24, 1891. (From the
Proceedings, vol. VI.)" Neo-Darwinism and neo-Lamarckism (1891) (https://archive.org/details/
neodarwinismand00washgoog) at the Internet Archive.
Whitelaw, Emma (February 2006). "Epigenetics: Sins of the fathers, and their fathers".
European Journal of Human Genetics. 14 (2): 131–132. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201567 (https://do
i.org/10.1038%2Fsj.ejhg.5201567). PMID 16421606 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1642160
6). S2CID 36863159 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:36863159).
Yongsheng Liu (September 2007). "Like father like son. A fresh review of the inheritance of
acquired characteristics" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1973965). EMBO
Reports. 8 (9): 798–803. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401060 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fsj.embor.74
01060). PMC 1973965 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1973965).
External links
"Jean-Baptiste Lamarck : works and heritage" (https://web.archive.org/web/20080505025929/ht
tp://www.lamarck.cnrs.fr/?lang=en). Archived from the original (http://www.lamarck.cnrs.fr/?lang
=en) on 2008-05-05. Retrieved 2015-11-07. — An English/French web site edited by Pietro
Corsi (Oxford Univ.) and realised by CNRS (France - IT team of CRHST). This web site
contains all Lamarck's books, texts, and manuscripts, and his herbarium.
Waggoner, Ben; Speer, Brian (February 25, 2006). "Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829)" (http://
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html). Evolution. University of California Museum of
Paleontology. Retrieved 2010-07-03.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lamarckism&oldid=984130365"
This page was last edited on 18 October 2020, at 10:53 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Lamarckism: Lamarckism, or Lamarckian Inheritance, Also Known As "Neo-Lamarckism"

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lamarckism: Lamarckism, or Lamarckian Inheritance, Also Known As "Neo-Lamarckism"

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lamarckism

Lamarckism, or Lamarckian inheritance, also known as "Neo-Lamarckism",[1] is the notion that an

The inheritance of acquired characteristics was proposed in ancient

Lamarck was neither the first nor the most distinguished

Zirkle noted that Hippocrates described pangenesis, the theory that

Darwin's half-cousin, Francis Galton, carried out

Lamarck's evolutionary framework

Between 1800 and 1830, Lamarck proposed a

1. "Life by its own force, tends to

Lamarck's discussion of heredity

Neo-Lamarckism The long neck of the giraffe is often

One of the most emotionally compelling arguments used by the

19th century experiments attempting to demonstrate Lamarckian inheritance

Early 20th century

Colorado potato Criticised by William Bateson; Tower claimed all results

Late 20th century

Mechanisms resembling Lamarckism

Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance

Epigenetic inheritance has been argued by scientists including Eva

Joseph Springer and Dennis Holley commented in 2013 that:[126]

Somatic hypermutation and reverse transcription to germline

The historian of biology Peter J. Bowler noted in 1989

Hologenome theory of evolution

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lamarckism&oldid=984130365"

This page was last edited on 18 October 2020, at 10:53 (UTC).

You might also like