The point I'm making however, is that a, a fairer way to judge this book, might be to say, not well let, let's reject everything in it that's Lamarckian, cos it doesn't fit with our modern prejudices, a fairer way, might be to read it the way we read Darwin's works, where there is also considerable Lamarckenis Lamarckism, and say well, this is er, this is an understandable error, given the poor state of knowledge that people had about genetics at the time, and then try and make sense of it.