Was Lamarck right?

Now that inheritance of acquired genomes seems to be corroborated by a number of studies, at least in tiny critters, the question opens up, is it time to un-taint the Lamarckian heresy?After all, acquiring new genomes happens in adult organisms. And the heritable event is something acquired in the lifetime of a particular organism, then passed on to offspring...I am going off Acquiring Genomes by Margulis and Sagan.Margulis says: "Microbes are champions at passing their DNA to others in the form of entire functional genes. These machinations underlie the story of darwinian evolution. Microbes living on their own, under conditions of stress and deprivation, tend to merge with other forms of life, Some of these associations last for a season or less, but occasionally microbes and larger life forms fuse permanently. Lamarck was correct: Acquired traits can be inherited not as traits but as genomes." She then adds: "But Lamarck, and Darwin with his pangenesis idea, were both wrong when they suggested acquisition might be the fate of any characteristic."

Ernst Mayr wrote the intro to her book and he thinks that she overstates the case. (Huh? He just published another book! Isn't he like 100 years old by now? Maybe he stole, um, acquired some of the bacteria's immortal genes.... )Well, as for Lamarck, I mean it in the more, uh, generous sense of saying that somehow it must be possible to inherit some of what we go thru as individuals. After all, let's give him some credit for the hunch, even if the specs he envisioned were wrong!