Right, if Retric's comment is correct, then the example of this story certainly isn't a vindication of Lamarck. But it might be a step in that direction.
I'm just an ignorant outsider, but the absolute dismissal of Lamarck always felt like a dogmatism to me. I'm suspicious whenever I hear words like "can't" or "never" repeated in a slightly too loud and rigid way. Remember when everyone "knew" that brain cells could "never" regenerate?
Lamarck ideas are nearly always advanced as a form of genetics denialism. Lysenkoism being the prime example.
Also how would any research done now rehabilitate Lamarck? He had no evidence for his hypothesis and his theory was incredibly vague. It's as if he had suggested a hypothesis of a carriage without horses and you were now willing to credit him with the invention of the automobile.
Lamarck is now remembered for the single idea that acquired traits can be inherited. When I say his name that's all I'm referring to. Similarly, Democritus is remembered for the idea of "atoms" despite having nothing to do with modern physics. This is just historical convention.
I'm just an ignorant outsider, but the absolute dismissal of Lamarck always felt like a dogmatism to me. I'm suspicious whenever I hear words like "can't" or "never" repeated in a slightly too loud and rigid way. Remember when everyone "knew" that brain cells could "never" regenerate?