experiment cannot well be final—­with Noyes the questions of eugenics passed beyond the purely academic stage in which, from the time of Plato, they had peacefully reposed.  “It is becoming clear,” Noyes states at the outset, “that the foundations of scientific society are to be laid in the scientific propagation of human beings.”  In doing this, we must attend to two things:  blood (or heredity) and training; and he puts blood first.  In that, he was at one with the most recent biometrical eugenists of to-day ("the nation has for years been putting its money on ‘Environment,’ when ‘Heredity’ wins in a canter,” as Karl Pearson prefers to put it), and at the same time revealed the breadth of his vision in comparison with the ordinary social reformer, who, in that day, was usually a fanatical believer in the influence of training and surroundings.  Noyes sets forth the position of Darwin on the principles of breeding, and the step beyond Darwin, which had been taken by Galton.  He then remarks that, when Galton comes to the point where it is necessary to advance from theory to the duties the theory suggests, he “subsides into the meekest conservatism.” (It must be remembered that this was written at an early stage in Galton’s work.) This conclusion was entirely opposed to Noyes’ practical and religious temperament.  “Duty is plain; we say we ought to do it—­we want to do it; but we cannot.  The law of God urges us on; but the law of society holds us back.  The boldest course is the safest.  Let us take an honest and steady look at the law.  It is only in the timidity of ignorance that the duty seems impracticable.”  Noyes anticipated Galton in regarding eugenics as a matter of religion.

Noyes proposed to term the work of modern science in propagation “Stirpiculture,” in which he has sometimes been followed by others.  He considered that it is the business of the stirpiculturist to keep in view both quantity and quality of stocks, and he held that, without diminishing quantity, it was possible to raise the quality by exercising a very stringent discrimination in selecting males.  At this point, Noyes has been supported in recent years by Karl Pearson and others, who have shown that only a relatively small portion of a population is needed to produce the next generation, and that, in fact, twelve per cent. of one generation in man produces fifty per cent. of the next generation.  What we need to ensure is that this small reproducing section of the population shall be the best adapted for the purpose.  “The quantity of production will be in direct proportion to the number of fertile females,” as Noyes saw the question, “and the value produced, so far as it depends on selection, will be nearly in inverse proportion to the number of fertilizing males.”  In this matter, Noyes anticipated Ehrenfels.  The two principles to be held in mind were, “Breed from the best,” and “Breed in-and-in,” with a cautious and occasional introduction of new strains. (It