Chapter III · 1881-1890 LONDON—GEANIES (continued 2)

Lastly, at Newcastle you said something that seemed to imply a doubt upon such facts as Lord Morton's mare. Do you really doubt such facts? I cannot suppose it.

There are plenty of white stoats hereabouts, I believe, though I have never actually seen them, because I do not stay late enough in the year. I have told my keeper to try to catch some without injuring them, and, if he succeeds, to send them straight to the Zoo. The experiment would be a very interesting one. But the keeper says that even here the whiteness depends as to its intensity upon the amount of snow in different seasons. He is most positive about this; he says it depends upon snow, and not on cold. However, I do not quote him as an authority in science, although he certainly is an intelligent and observing man.

Regarding the Royal Institution, an after Easter course by you would be doubly interesting, because before Easter I have to give one on the 'Post-Darwinian Period,' which will be mainly concerned with Weismann. Your lectures might then serve as a counter-irritant, therefore I will do anything I can to bring them about, only, not being on the managing body, I can help merely by backing any application you may make. And, of course, there ought to be no difficulty about it. Only let me know if you should want backing.

Would it not be worth while to get also some mountain hares for observation at the Zoo? These, I think, I could get.

Yours very truly,

Geo. J. Romanes.

Geanies, Ross-shire, N.B.: October 15.

Would you mind sending me the part of your MS. dealing with Sphex? I do not know that I quite caught your objection to my difficulty, and want to allude to it in lectures which I am now preparing for my Edinburgh class.

Also, did I correctly understand you to say that you refused to acknowledge any fundamental identity between processes of reproduction and those of repair? For this identity is to my mind the most important of all objections to W.'s theory.

G. J. Romanes.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: December 3, 1889.

My dear Poulton,—I returned here a day or two ago, and now send you my copy of Perrier's remarks about the neuters of hymenopterous insects. But he said a good deal more in subsequent and private correspondence. His preface, however, will serve to show you the general tone of argument.

With regard to Panmixia, it occurs to me that very likely you have not seen all that I wrote upon it, as the three papers were scattered over several months in 'Nature.' The following are the references: Vol. ix. pp. 361, 440; vol. x. p. 164.

You will see that I took up a decided stand upon the principle of Panmixia not being able altogether to supersede that of disuse. This was for the reasons stated in my last letter; and I still see no further reason for changing the opinion that was then formed under the influence of Darwin's judgment.

With reference to the difference that you alluded to—and which, as far as I can see, is the only difference between Weismann's presentation of the principle and my own—I enclose an extract from the lecture which I have just been giving in Edinburgh. From this extract I think you will see that the one point of difference does not redound to the credit of Weismann's logic. After reading the extract in conjunction with the papers in 'Nature,' perhaps you will let me know whether you now understand my view any better, or still believe that the cessation of selection alone can reduce the average of a useless organ below fifty per cent, of its original size—so long, that is, as the force of heredity continues unimpaired.

G. J. Romanes.

Some further letters to Mr. Thiselton-Dyer and to Mr. F. Darwin follow.

To Professor Thiselton-Dyer.

December 20, 1888.

Dear Dyer,—Would you mind sending me on a postcard the name of the genus of plants the constituent species of which you alluded to in the train as being mutually fertile, and also separated from one another topographically? I want to get as many of such cases as I possibly can, so, if any others occur to you, please mention them likewise.

By reading pages 401 and 404 of my paper, you will see why such cases are of quite as much importance to me as the converse, viz. where closely allied species inhabiting continuous areas are more or less mutually sterile (see p. 392).

If you have hitherto failed to apply these converse tests to my theory, I cannot conceive by what other principle you have sought to test it. Pray read the passages referred to, which present the shortest summary of what I regard as the very backbone of my evidence.

If your large knowledge of geographical distribution should enable you to supply me with specific cases of the general principle mentioned by Darwin in the quotation given on page 392 ('Origin of Species,' 6th ed., pp. 134-5), I should much like to try experiments on the sterility which I should expect to find between these interlocking species.

It seems comical to ask a scientific opponent for assistance, but the fact of being able to do so proves the superiority of science to politics.

December 25, 1888.

It is very good of you to write such a long and suggestive letter.

As a result of attentively reading your letter, it appears to me that you think I suppose sterility in a high degree to be much more usual among allied species than I do suppose it. I well know the large amount of natural as well as artificial hybridisation that goes on. But, on the other hand, there are so many species which either will not cross at all, or produce sterile hybrids, that, taking a general view of all species together, mutual sterility does become by far the most generally distributed single peculiarity—i.e. is the one peculiarity which, more than any other that can be named, is common to numberless species.

Thus much for mutual sterility that is absolute, either in first crosses or in their hybrid progeny. But now, the most important thing for me is mutual sterility that is not absolute (though, on my theory, perhaps on its way to becoming so) but relative, i.e. there being a lower degree of fertility between A × B or B × A, than there is between A × A or B × B.

Hitherto very few experiments have been made on these comparative degrees of fertility, yet it is by such alone, it seems to me, that physiological selections can be tested. Thus, e.g., my point about the 'interlocking' species (p. 392) is that in such cases I should expect a higher degree of fertility in A × A and B × B than crosswise. Indeed, my fear is that when I shall have proved by experiment that such is the general rule in such cases, naturalists will turn round and say: 'Well, of course, on merely a priori grounds you might have known that such must have been the case; for otherwise the two interlocking species could never have existed as separate species, they would have hybridised freely along the whole frontier line and eventually blended over the whole area.' And still more may this be said in the case of allied species, not merely interlocking, but intermixed through common areas. Therefore, as a believing F.R.S. said to me the other day, 'Your letters in "Nature" will at least have the effect of blunting the edge of such possible criticism in the future.' Of course you will laugh at the robustness of my faith in thus forecasting the line of future opposition, but I would like to ask you this much: Supposing, for the sake of argument, that twenty years hence I publish one hundred instances of allied species which grow intermixed in common areas, proving by experiment that in all the cases there is some comparative degree of sterility between them (if only due to pre-potency of their own pollen), would you regard this as making in favour of physiological selection? Or are you already prepared to admit that such must be the case, since otherwise the species A and B could not exist without fusion into one? If you say that you are prepared to admit this, it seems to me that you have already accepted the theory of physiological selection on a priori grounds.

Again, if I should publish one hundred other instances of allied species topographically isolated from one another, all of which were proved by experiment to present no degree at all of mutual infertility (so that A × A and B × B are not more fertile than crosswise), would you allow that, taken in conjunction with the previous set of experiments, these finally prove the theory of physiological selection to be true? If not, I do not see how it is possible to verify the theory at all: it is only by means of these two complementary lines of research that, as it seems to me, the theory can be experimentally tested.

In the former case—i.e. where allied species intermix in common areas—sometimes they intercross freely (e.g. Primula vulgaris and veris, Geum urbanum and rivale, Rumex, Epilobium, &c.), while in other instances they don't (e.g. Ranunculus repens and bulbosus, Lepidium Smithii and campestre, Scrophularia nodosa and aquatica, &c.). Now, as regards the latter, I suppose you would not question that the 'physiological isolation' has to do with preventing the species from fusing? But, if so, by parity of reasoning, should we not expect to meet with some degree of the same thing in the other cases, which, although not here sufficiently pronounced to block off frequent hybridisation, is nevertheless sufficient to prevent the species from blending over their common area?

And here, I may say, I should not at all object to the charge of misunderstanding Darwin on any merely trivial point such as the one you mention. But in this instance it so happens that it is rather you who have misunderstood me. I know that 'a hybrid is not an intermediate form in his sense,' and this is just what constitutes my difficulty against his paragraphs quoted on p. 392 of my paper. For what I say is, these intermediate forms ought to be hybrids, unless physiological selection, (i.e. mutual sterility) has been at work. 'In his sense' I cannot conceive how such 'intermediate forms' can exist in the circumstances described, seeing that they are not hybrids, and yet that (in the absence of any hypothesis of physiological isolation for which I am contending) there is no reason given why the two interlocking species should not freely intercross.

Regarding sexual selection I certainly am very much in earnest about its parallel to p.s.[62] If you intend the meaning of n.s. so as to embrace s.s. it will at the same time embrace also p.s. For s.s., like p.s., has nothing to do with life-preserving characters; yet, also like p.s., it has to do with the differentiation of specific forms. (There is no distinction to be drawn between 'the species of a cock' and 'the plumage of a cock': plumage is the most favourite part of a bird with ornithologists on which to found specific diagnoses.) Therefore, if p.s. is true at all—which, of course, is another question—even my celebrated powers of 'dialectical subtlety' are completely unable to perceive any difference between p.s. and s.s. in respect of their relation to n.s.

Lastly, as regards Nägeli, no doubt he is an out-and-out Lamarckian, but I did not see that this should make any difference touching his opinion on a matter of fact not more connected with Lism. than Dism. I will look up 'Nature' for 1870.

With best Christmas wishes and many thanks for botanical hints.

December 26, 1888.

It has occurred to me that if you know Churchill's address, I might save time by writing to him before seeing him when he comes in spring.

It has also occurred to me that I might perhaps put the argument on pp. 801-4 better before you thus:

If phys. sel. is true, it would follow that as between allied species, mutual sterility ought to occur in all degrees (from zero to absolute), and that there ought to be a correlation between these degrees of sterility and degrees of non-separation, topographically.

Now, you cannot possibly doubt that the first expectation is realised in nature; as between allied species sterility does occur in all degrees, from there being no such sterility at all in very many cases, to there being absolute sterility in other cases. Therefore, in stating this fact as a fact, I am not playing at 'heads I win and tails you lose,' nor 'begging the whole question at the outset.' Any 'question' really arises only with regard to the second expectation—viz. whether there is a general correlation between degrees of mutual fertility and degrees of topographical isolation.

Now, this question I have not begged, but, on the contrary, stated as the question by an experimental answer to which my theory must stand or fall.

Thus, the cases which you mention obviously go to support the theory, inasmuch as they conform to the expectation above mentioned. What I want to do is to find as many genera as possible like binchona and begonia, where the constituent species are separated geographically or topographically, and (? in consequence) easily hybridise with one another.

Therefore, as a mere matter of method, I cannot see that I have begged any question: for the only question is not about the facts which I state, but about my suggested explanation of them. And this question can only be answered by ascertaining whether there is in nature any such general correlation between isolation and capability of hybridising (also, of course, between the absence of isolation and the absence of such capability) as my theory would require.

Yours very sincerely,

G. J. Romanes.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: December 27, 1888.

I am most glad that in your last letter you deal with what I consider the real 'question'—viz. not whether degrees of sterility obtain among a large proportional number of species, but whether there is any such correlation between them and absence of isolation of other kinds as my theory would expect. And, in dealing with this question you hit upon precisely the two greatest difficulties which I have myself concluded lie against the theory. The first is about areas now discontinuous having been once continuous, and our being so often unable to say whether or not such has been the case. But this difficulty is one that lies against verification of the theory, not against the theory itself. It was in view of this difficulty that I mentioned oceanic islands as furnishing the best flora for trying experiments upon; but since I published the paper, I have not been able to hear of any botanists visiting islands. Should you ever hear of any you might let me know.

The second difficulty is one that lies against the theory itself, and has always seemed to me most formidable. But as nobody else has ever mentioned it, I have not hitherto done so, as I want to work it out quietly. I allude to your remark about the extraordinary differences that obtain among different genera with regard to the capability of intercrossing exhibited by their constituent species. This, I confess, has from the first appeared a tremendous objection to my theory. On the other hand, I have taken comfort from the consideration that besides being a tremendous objection, it is also a tremendous mystery. For, as it must admit of some explanation, and as this explanation must almost certainly have to do with the sexual system, it becomes not improbable that when found the explanation may square with p.s. That the difference in question is functional and not structural (or physiological as distinguished from morphological) seems to be proved by the fact that in some cases it obtains as between the most closely allied genera, being, e.g., most strongly pronounced of all between Geranium and Pelargonium. Even quite apart from my own theory, it seems to me that this is a subject of the highest importance to investigate.

As regards sexual selection I allow, of course, that the 'law of battle' is a form of natural selection. But where the matter is merely a pleasing of æsthetic taste, and the resulting structures therefore only ornamental, I can see nothing 'advantageous' in the sense of life-preserving. On the contrary, in most cases such structures entail considerable expenditure of physiological energy in their production. On this account Darwin says that nat. sel. must impose a check on sexual selection running beyond a certain point of injuriousness ('D. of M.,' p. 227). Now, physiological selection is never thus injurious; and although it is a 'form of isolation,' the isolation is neither so extreme nor of such long continuance as the ones you compare it with. Moreover, the environment (therefore all other or external conditions of life) remain the same, which is not the case under the other forms of isolation. Provided that the physiological change is not in itself injurious, I do not see why physiologically isolated forms should be less fit than those from which they have been separated, though I can very well see why this should be the case with such geographically isolated forms as you mention, for there the schooling is different. Lastly, physiological selection, if not in itself injurious, does not require that its children should be 'protected against the struggle for existence.' On the contrary, as I say in my paper, it is calculated to give this struggle a better chance than ever to develope adaptive character in the sexually isolated forms, because the swamping effects of intercrossing are diminished.

But I really did not intend to afflict you with another jaw of this kind. I am, however, very glad that we now understand each other better than we did. At all events on my side I think I now know exactly the points which I have to make good if Nature is so constituted as to admit of my theory. One thing only I have forgotten to say, viz. that nothing can be argued against the theory from the fact of hybridisation occurring in cases where, according to the theory, it ought not to occur. This argument only becomes valid where it is found that the resulting hybrids are fertile. In relation to the theory, a sterile hybrid is all the same as a failure to cross.

Yours very sincerely,

G. J. Romanes.

P.S.—I forgot to ask you if there would be any facilities in spring at Kew for repeating Adam's graft of purple on yellow laburnum. I want to try this experiment in budding on a large scale because of its importance on Weismannism, should the result of any of the grafts go to corroborate Adam's account of the way in which he produced the hybrid. If you agree to the experiments being tried at Kew, perhaps you might let me know whether there are any purple laburnums already in the gardens, or whether I should get the material over from France. But in that case you might also let me know to whom in France or elsewhere I had best apply. However, do not bother to answer any other parts of this tremendous letter, these we can discuss in conversation hereafter. A postcard to answer this postscript, however, is desirable, as then it might be possible to get matters in train for next budding season.

G. J. R.

I should much like to meet Churchill. Will you remember to tell me when he comes?

To F. Darwin, Esq.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: January 20, 1889.

Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your long letter. I thought you might have had some notes or memories of conversations, to show in a general way what the 'line' would have been.[63] If so, of course I should not have said that my sayings were inspired, but should myself have known that I was not going astray.

The line I am going to take is:

1st. Even assuming, for sake of argument, that heightened colour is correlated with increased vigour, Wallace everywhere fails to distinguish between brilliancy and ornament; yet it is the disposition of colours in patterns, &c., that is the chief thing to be explained.

2nd. In many cases (e.g. peacock's tail) the pattern is only revealed when unfolded during courtship. Besides natural selection could not be such a fool as to develope large (physiologically expressive) and weighty (impeding flight) structures like this—stags' antlers, &c., merely as correlates of vigour.

3rd. There is not much in Wallace's merely negative difficulty about our not knowing what goes on in the mind of a hen, when we set against that difficulty the positive fact that we can see what does go on in the mind of a cock—display, antics, song, &c.

4th. To say that 'each bird finds a mate under any circumstances' is merely to beg the whole question.

5th. There remains Wallace's jealousy of natural selection. He will not have any other 'factor,' and therefore says natural selection must eat up sexual selection like the lean kine have the fat kine. But natural selection alone does not explain all the phenomena of sexual colouring, courtship, &c., and sexual selection is exactly the theory that does. Wallace's jealousy, therefore, is foolish and inimical to natural selection theory itself, by forcing it into explanations which are plainly false.

My own belief is, that what Lankester calls the 'pure Darwinians' are doing the same thing in another direction. By endeavouring, with Wallace and Weismann, to make natural selection all in all as the sole cause of adaptive structure, and expressly discarding the Darwinian recognition of use and disuse. I think they are doing harm to natural selection theory itself. Moreover, because I do not see any sufficient reason as yet to budge from the real Darwinian standpoint (Weismann has added nothing to the facts which were known to Charles Darwin), the post-Darwinians accuse me of moving away from Darwinian principles. But it is they who are moving, and, because they see a change in our relative positions, affirm that it is I. In point of fact, my position has never varied in the least, and my confession of faith would still follow, in every detail, that given on p. 421 of 'Origin,' 6th ed., which, it seems to me, might also be regarded as prophetic no less than retrospective.

If I did not say all this in my paper in physiological selection, it is only because I never conceived the possibility of my being accused of trying to undermine natural selection; and, therefore, I only stated as briefly as possible what my relations were to it. Yet it seems to me that this statement was clear enough if Wallace had not come down with his preposterous 'Romanes versus Darwin.' At all events, it is not in my power—or, I believe, in that of anybody else—to express more strongly than I now have in 'Nature,' in answer to Dyer, what I do hold about natural selection in its relation to physiological selection, sexual selection, and other subordinate principles. Of course, if there were a debate on these lines at the B.A., I should get my part of it published somewhere. As far as I can honestly see, my 'position' is absolutely identical with that in last editions of 'Origin' and 'Descent,' with, perhaps, a 'tendency' to lay more stress on levelling influence of Panmixia.

Re physiological selection. I have sent Correvon, of Geneva, £50 to help in founding a garden in the Alps, which will have the proud distinction of being the highest garden in the world. He is a splendid man for his knowledge of Alpine flora, and besides, is strongly bitten with a desire to test physiological selection. Of course I shall do the hybridising experiments myself, but he will collect the material from the different mountains—i.e. nearly allied species, topographically separated, and therefore, I hope, mutually fertile. The converse experiments of nearly allied species on common areas may be tried in England.

I am making arrangements for repeating on an extensive scale experiments on budding purple laburnum on yellow, to see if it is possible to reproduce 'Adam's eye' hybrid. If so, it would now be of more importance than ever in relation to Weismann. By the way, he is sorely put to it in the case of plants which reproduce themselves not only by cuttings, but even by leaves. Here he is bound to confess that his germ-plasma occupies all the cellular tissue of the entire plant. But if so, how in the world does his germ-plasma differ from gemmules?

There! I did not intend to write you anything of a letter when I began, but have gone on and on till it is well for you that the second sheet is coming to an end.

Yours ever,

G. J. Romanes.

P.S.—Any contributions to Correvon's garden (however small) would be thankfully received by him. Possibly his garden may be of some use to English botanists; if so, you might send the hat round, and collect any coppers that fall.

To Professor Thiselton-Dyer.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: January 7, 1889.

My dear Dyer,—Knowing what a busy man you are, I never expected you to answer my last letter, and therefore it has come as an agreeable surprise. For no doubt you will believe me when I say that I value much more communications which are opposed to physiological selection than those in its favour; the former show me better what has to be done in the way of verification, as well as the general views which may be taken on the subject by other minds. And most of all is this the case when anyone like yourself gives me the benefit of opinions which are formed by a trained experience in botany, seeing that here I am myself such a sorry ignoramus. And I willingly confess that your strongly expressed opinion has seriously shaken my hopes for physiological selection, notwithstanding that some German botanists think otherwise. Nevertheless, I still think that it is worth while to devote some years to experimental testing, and then, if the results are against me—well, I shall be sorry to have spent so much time over a wild flower chase, and to have kicked up so much scientific dust in the process; but I will not be ashamed to acknowledge that Nature has said No.

And now for your last letter. Read in the light of subsequent experience, I have no doubt that I ought to have expressed myself with more care while writing my paper. But, to tell the honest truth, it never once occurred to me that I of all men could be suspected of trying to undermine the theories of Darwin. I was entirely filled with the one idea of presenting what seemed to me 'a supplementary hypothesis,' which, while 'in no way opposed to natural selection,' would 'release the latter from the only difficulties' which to my mind it had ever presented. Therefore I took it for granted that everybody would go with me in recognising natural selection as the 'boss' round which every 'other theory' must revolve, without my having to say so on every page. So, of course, by 'other theory' I did not mean that physiological selection was in my opinion the only theory of the origin of species. Everywhere throughout the paper, from the title-page to the conclusion, I represented it as an 'additional suggestion,' a 'supplementary hypothesis,' &c., &c. Sexual selection is in my view (as it is also in Darwin's, Wallace's, and doubtless that of all evolutionists) one of the 'other theories that have been propounded on the origin of species.' So is Lamarck's theory, which was considered by Darwin as more or less 'supplementary' to natural selection; and this is all that I meant—or, I should say, could possibly be understood to mean in view of the title-page, &c.—by speaking of physiological selection as another theory of the origin of species. It certainly is not the same thing as natural selection or either of the 'other theories' just mentioned; but no less certainly it is not exclusive of any of the three. Unquestionably it is as you say, and as I myself said, an independent theory—i.e. not identical with, but additional to, that of natural selection. But this is a widely different thing from saying that it is in itself an exhaustive theory, which must therefore swallow up all or any 'others.' In short, I abide by the closing statement of my introductory paragraph—viz. that the theory is an 'attempt at suggesting another factor in the formation of species, which, although quite independent of natural selection, is in no way opposed to natural selection, and may therefore be regarded as a factor supplementary to natural selection.' Statements to the same effect are indeed scattered through the entire paper; but, of course, could I have foreseen the interpretations which afterwards arose, I should have reiterated such statements ad nauseam.

Sorry you cannot come to the B.A., or to dine, but certainly do not wonder.

Yours very sincerely,

G. J. Romanes.

Lastly, about species not being able to exist as species without the physiological isolation of physiological selection (p. 403), the statement of course only applies to nearly allied species occupying common areas (see p. 404). If this statement is wrong, no one has yet shown me wherein it is so. I fancy you do not quite appreciate that by 'sterility' I always mean (unless otherwise expressly stated) sterility in some degree, and this not only with regard to the fertile hybrids. It is by no means enough to point to natural and fertile hybrids as cases opposed to physiological selection unless it has been shown by experiment through a generation or two that these hybrids are fully fertile—i.e. as fertile as their parent species. Now, experiments of this kind have rarely been carried through. If you assume that the result of carrying them through would be destructive of physiological selection by proving that fertile hybrids are, as a rule, fully fertile, and also (which is very important) that in any cases where experiment may show them to be so, further experiment would fail to show that isolation has not been effected in any other way (as by pre-potency, differences of insect fertilisation, &c.)—in short, if you assume that fertility is as complete between the two associated species as it is within each species, how is it conceivable that they should continue to be distinct? In this connection it is well to consult Gulick's paper already referred to (especially p. 259, paragraph 1st) on the theoretical side, and Jordan's papers and books on the practical side. I have repeated the latter's observations on poppies, and find that where any considerable number of individuals are concerned, natural selection is not nearly so great a power in this respect. (Even in cases where it happens that in-breeding is necessarily confined to single hermaphrodite individuals for numberless generations, the handicapping is not fatal: witness flowers which habitually fertilise themselves before opening—especially some species of orchids, which never seem to do otherwise, notwithstanding the elaborate provisions for cross-fertilisation in other species.) Now, I believe most of all in what I have called 'collective variation' of the reproductive system in the way of physiological selection, whereby, owing to some common influence acting on a large number of individuals similarly and simultaneously, they all become sexually co-adapted inter se while physiologically isolated from the rest. This essential feature of the theory seems to me entirely to remove the difficulty about in-breeding, as well as that which Wallace urged about the chances against a suitable meeting of 'physiological complements.'

As for my having attributed too much to the swamping effects of intercrossing (Panmixia), this, I am convinced, is the one and only particular wherein I have at all departed from the judgments of Darwin; though, curiously enough, it is the particular on which my critics have laid least stress when accusing me of Darwinian heresy. But it is too big a question to treat in correspondence. Gulick's recently published paper at the Linnean Society seems to me a most important one in this connection, and I have a large body of other evidence.

To F. Darwin, Esq.[64]

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W., January 8, 1889.

Dear Darwin,—Hate you, indeed! Why, I cannot imagine any better service than that of stopping a fellow from making a fool of himself, and I most cordially thank you for having done so in this case. The business was so completely out of my line, that I did not know what was required. It seemed to me that if I got any evidence of bending towards the sparks, the only question I wanted to answer would be answered, and, therefore, that it did not matter a straw about temperature, moisture, and the rest. Moreover, the results did not seem to me to be of any importance, as they were just what might have been expected, and, therefore, I doubted whether it was worth while publishing a paper about them. Had they gone, the other way, and proved that the plants would not bend to flashing light, I should have thought it much more interesting. Lastly, the research was so expensive, costing £1 per day at the only place where I could get the requisite apparatus, and there they shut up at night.

Of course, I will withdraw this paper, and, if you think the thing is worth working out in all the details you suggest, will do so. In that case, it would be worth while to ascertain whether there would be any electrical apparatus at Cambridge which I could get the use of at a lower rate of profit to the owners. A good-sized induction coil is really all that is required, and they probably have this in the Cavendish. But there is not one available in any of the London workshops, and so I had to go to Appes, in the Strand. It is suggested that the debate in Section D at the British Association this year should be opened by me on the question of utility as universal. Before I agree, I should like to know what you think about the 'Nature' controversy which I have recently had with Dyer, and out of which the present suggestion has emanated. Perhaps we might arrange to meet somewhere soon to have a talk over the expediency of such a debate at all, and the lines on which, if held, it should run. Of course, physiological selection would be carefully kept out. My object would be to show the prime importance of natural selection as a theory which everywhere accounts for adaptations.

Yours very sincerely,

G. J. Romanes.

May 27, 1889.

Herewith I return, with many thanks, a pamphlet by Kerner, numbered 738.

In my experiments with electric spark illumination on plants, I notice that the seedlings, although so wonderfully heliotropic, never form chlorophyll, even if exposed to a continuous stream of sparks for 30 hours on end, while they will bend through 90° in seven hours to single sparks following one another at one per second. This proves that there is no connection at all between heliotropism and formation of chlorophyll, or vice versa—a point which I cannot find to have been hitherto stated. Do you happen to know if it has been? If you do not happen to remember anything bearing on this subject, do not trouble to search or to answer.

Wallace's book[65] strikes me as very able in many parts, though singularly feeble in others—especially the last chapter. He has done but scant justice to Gulick's paper. Had he read it with any care, he might have seen that it fully anticipates his criticism on mine. But I think he deserves great credit for nowhere chuckling. From the first he has been consistent in holding natural selection the sole factor of organic evolution—leaving no room for sexual selection, inheritance of acquired characters, &c., &c. And now that he had lived to see an important body of evolutionists adopting this view, there must have been a strong temptation to 'I always told you so.' Yet there is nowhere any note of this, or even so much as an allusion to his previous utterances on the subject.

To E. B. Poulton, Esq.

Geanies, Ross-shire: November 2, 1889.

My dear Poulton,—Continuing our antipodal correspondence, and taking the points in your last letter seriatim, I quite saw that your theory of repair was 'the logical outcome of Weismann's' (being, in fact, a direct application of his views on phylogeny to the case of repair); but I did not know whether the outcome had been traced by him or by yourself. Now, I understand, I may allude to it as yours. Again, what I meant about regeneration of entire limbs, &c., was that, to meet such cases, your diagram would require modification in the way that you now suggest. Has it occurred to you as an argument in favour of this suggestion (i.e. that the 'potentiality' of somatic germ-plasm may in such cases be arrested in its process of ontogenetic diffusion), that Darwin has shown, or at least alleged, that all such cases may be traced to special adaptation to special needs, dangers, &c.—so that the arrest may have been brought about in these cases by natural selection?

If you deem the 'chief difference' between Darwin's and Weismann's theory of heredity to be 'that the one implies material particles and the other only physical and chemical constitution,' then, it seems to me, Weismann's theory will become identical with Herbert Spencer's—seeing that this is virtually the only respect in which Spencer's differs from Darwin's. But I think there is another and a much more important respect in which W.'s theory differs from both these predecessors. However, to proceed to the next point, I agree with you, that the sole object of the Sphex stinging the larvæ is now to cause them to 'keep,' and that natural selection must have worked upon this for perfecting the instinct. But the point is, what was the origin of the selective stinging? If merely chance congenital variations, would unity to billions express the chances against their ever arising? Get some mathematician to calculate—giving as data superficial area of caterpillar on the one hand and that of nine ganglia on the other. Even neglecting the consideration that the variation must occur many times to give unaided natural selection a chance to fix it as an instinct, the chances against its occurring only once would be represented by the following series, where x is the superficial area of the caterpillar minus that of eight ganglia, and unity is superficial area of one ganglia:

¹/_x × ¹/_x × ¹/_x × ¹/_x × ¹/_x × ¹/_x × ¹/_x × ¹/_x × ¹/_x

If, as I suppose, x may here be taken as = 100,000, the chances against the variation occurring once would be written in figures expressing unity to one thousand million billion trillions. Of course I do not rely on calculations of this kind for giving anything like accurate results (mathematics in biology always seems to me like a scalpel in a carpenter's shop), but it makes no difference how far one cuts down such figures as these. Therefore, if Lamarck won't satisfy such facts, neither do I think that Darwin minus Lamarck can do so. We must wait for the next man.

I will send you 'Perrier' on my return to town next month.

Lord Morton's experience is so universally that of all breeders of live stock, that I never knew anybody ever doubted it. But, if they do, there is no reason why they should not satisfy themselves on the point. For my part I do not feel that the fact requires any corroboration as regards mammals, though I have some experiments going on with birds. Lastly, the apparently analogous cases in plants are still worse for Weismann's theory, and they stand on the best authorities.

I enclose a letter received by same post that brought yours. It is from a former keeper of mine who is now more in the moorlands. Other applications are out, so I hope some of them will be successful. Very little doubt it will prove to be temperature. I found a dead stoat here to-day; it had not turned white at all, but then the season is very mild.

The Secretary of the R.I. is Sir F. Bramwell, Bart., F.R.S. You had better write to him. Also to his son-in-law, Victor Horsley, who is more of a biologist. Tell Bramwell, if you like, that I think he ought to jump at you.

Yours very truly,

G. J. Romanes.

Geanies, Ross-shire, N.B.: November 6, 1889.

My dear Poulton,—Many thanks for your paper, which is the clearest exposition I have yet seen of Weismann's views. But how about your allusion to experiments in grafting? As regards plants, there is a good deal of evidence as to the possibility of a graft-hybrid. As regards animals, fifteen years ago I spent an immensity of time in experimenting, and could not then find that there was any literature on the subject. Nobody who had grafted animal tissues had done so with any reference to the heredity question, nor do I know of any publications on the subject since then.

Yours very truly,

G. J. Romanes.

Geanies, Ross-shire, N.B.: November 11, 1889.

My dear Poulton,—Although I spent more time and trouble than I like to acknowledge (even to myself) in trying to prove Pangenesis between '73 and '80, I never obtained any positive results, and did not care to publish negative. Therefore there are no papers of mine on the subject, although I may fairly believe that no other human being has tried so many experiments upon it. No doubt you will think that I ought to regard this fact as so much negative evidence in favour of the new theory; and, up to a certain point, I do, only the issue between Pangenesis and Germ-plasm is not really or nearly so well defined as Weismann represents, where the matter of experiments is concerned; e.g. it is not the case that any crucial test is furnished by the non-transmissibility of mutilations; Darwin did not set much store by them, though Eimer and others have done so since. In fact all the Germans on both sides, and all the Englishmen on Weismann's side, seem to me unjust to Darwin in this respect.

Regarding the cessation of selection, the motive that prompted my question to you was not the paltry one of claiming priority in the enunciation of an exceedingly obvious idea. My motive was to assure myself that this idea is exactly the same as Weismann's Panmixia; for, although I could see no difference, I thought perhaps he and you did (from absence of allusion to my paper, while priority is acknowledged as regards a later one); and, if this were so, I wanted to know where the difference lay. And the reason I wanted to know this was because when my paper was published, and Darwin accepted the idea with enthusiasm, I put it to him in conversation whether this idea might not supersede Lamarckian principles altogether. (By carefully reading between the lines of the paper itself, you will see how much this question was occupying my mind at the time, though I did not dare to challenge Lamarck's principles in toto without much more full inquiry.) Then it was that Darwin dissuaded me from going on to this point, on the ground that there was abundant evidence of Lamarck's principles apart from use and disuse of structures—e.g. instincts—and also on the ground of his theory of Pangenesis. Therefore I abandoned the matter, and still retain what may thus be now a prejudice against exactly the same line of thought as Darwin talked me out of in 1873. Weismann, of course, has greatly elaborated this line of thought; but what may be called the scientific axis of it (viz. possible non-inheritance of acquired characters) is identical, and all the more metaphysical part of it about the immortality, immutability, &c., of a hypothetical germ-plasm is the weakest part in my estimation.

Now, the point I am working up to is this. If there be no difference between Panmixia and Cessation of Selection, from what I have briefly sketched about it, it follows that, had Darwin lived till now, he would almost certainly have been opposed to Weismann. This is not a thing I should like to say in public, but one that I should like to feel practically assured about in my own mind.

Regarding the numerical calculations, I have not got a copy of the 'Nature' paper here, but, so far as I remember (and I think I am right), the idea was that 'Economy of Growth' would go on assisting Cessation of Selection till the degenerating organ became 'rudimentary.' In other words, reversal of selection would co-operate with cessation of it.

This, as I understand it, is now exactly Weismann's view; only he thinks that thus the rudimentary organ would finally become extinguished. Here, however, it seems to me evident he must be wrong. The reasons are obvious, as I am going to show this week to my Edinburgh class. Six lectures are to be devoted entirely to Weismann, and when they are published (as they will be this time next year), I think it will be seen that Weismannism is not such very plain sailing as Weismann himself seems to think. Vines has anticipated some of my points in his paper in 'Nature'; but I hope this may have the effect of letting me see what answers can be given before I shall have to publish.

Yours very truly,

G. J. Romanes.

In the midst of these scientific labours and scientific controversies, Mr. Romanes found time for other thoughts and for other work.

At the beginning of 1889 he delivered an address at Toynbee Hall on the Ethical Teaching of Christ, of which the following is an extract:

'The services rendered by Christ to the cause of morality have been in two distinct directions. The first is in an unparalleled change of moral conception, and the other in an unparalleled moral example, joined with peculiar powers of moral exposition and enthusiasm of moral feeling which have never before been approached. The originality of Christ's teaching might in some quarters be over-rated, but the achievement it was impossible to overrate. It is only before the presence of Christ that the dry bones of ethical abstraction have sprung into life. The very essence of the new religion consists in re-establishing more closely than ever the bonds between morality and religion. One important effect of Christ's teaching and influence has been the carrying into effect of the doctrine of universalism, for previously the idea of human brotherhood can not be said to have existed. Again, in the exaltation of the benevolent virtues at the expense of the heroic, the change effected is fundamental and abrupt. Christ may be said to have created the virtues of self-abnegation, universal beneficence, unflinching humility—indeed, the divine supremacy of compassion. Whether Christ be regarded as human or divine, all must agree in regarding the work of His life as by far the greatest work ever achieved in the history of the human race. A topic of great importance is the influence of Christ's personality in securing the acceptance of His teaching. The personal character of Christ is of an order sui generis, and even the most advanced of sceptics have done homage to it. The more keen the intellectual criticism, the greater is the appreciation of the uniqueness of the personality. Men may cease to wonder at the effect of Christ's teaching; for, given the wonderful personality, all the rest must follow. Whatever answers different persons may give to the questions, "What think ye of Christ? Whose son is He?" everyone must agree that "His name shall be called Wonderful!"'

This brought on him two characteristic letters, one from an Agnostic lady, blaming him for attaching so much importance to Him whom she was pleased to call 'The Peasant of Nazareth,' the other from Dr. Paget:

Christ Church, Oxford: January 14, 1889.

My dear Romanes,—I hope you will not think me impertinent if I write a few words of gratitude for the happiness which I enjoyed in reading to-day even such an account of your address at Toynbee Hall as the 'Times' gave me. There is always a risk of impertinence in thanking a man for what he has said; for of course he has said it because he saw it, and thought he ought to say it, quite simply. But I may just thank you for the generous willingness with which you accepted such a task:—and for the light in which you looked at it:—as an opportunity for saying so ungrudgingly, so open-heartedly, that which is clear to you about our Lord. This must be, please God, a real bit of help to others; and I trust and pray that it may return in help to you.

But how dark you were about it! I should have been furious if I had been in London, and not there.

Please forgive me this letter; and do not think it needs any answer.

Affectionately yours,

Francis Paget.

At the beginning of this year Mr. Romanes collected his various poems and had them privately printed. He writes to his sister:

February 1889.

Three weeks before the 11th I was wondering what I should get as a wedding-day present to mark the tenth anniversary. Ethel then chanced to say that she wished my poems were published, so that she could have them in type. This suggested to me the idea of putting them into type for private circulation, when they might serve at once as the required wedding-present, and as a preliminary to publication at any future time either by myself or, more probably, by her or someone else. So I got an estimate from the printer, and with an awful rush he set up the whole in a week. Proof corrections occupied another week, and the binding of a grand presentation copy the third week. Thus I only had my present ready a few hours before it had to be presented. Binding the other copies occupied the time till I sent you yours. In Ethel's copy (which is awfully swell) I have written a special sonnet, as I did in yours.

These poems, or rather a selection from them, will be published, in accordance with the author's wish.

Of his poetry, his sonnets (which were privately printed) seem the most successful. Various friends saw the privately printed book, and the present Professor of Poetry at Oxford gratified Mr. Romanes very much by his own kind words respecting them, and also by submitting them to Lord Tennyson, who spoke of them in kindly terms, as did also Dean Church, Mr. Edmund Gosse, Mr. George Meredith, and others. Two letters he received about his poems are here given:

From the Dean of St. Paul's.

Ettenheim, Torquay: February 26, 1889.

My dear Mr. Romanes,—Thank you very much for your kindness in thinking me worthy of your gift. I am always glad to see science and poetry go together. It was the way with the earliest efforts of natural science, as Empedocles and Lucretius; and when the strictest thinking of science is done, there is still something more of expression and meaning, of which poetry is the natural and only adequate interpreter.

My acquaintance with your volume is as yet only superficial. But I have been very much impressed by 'Charles Darwin,' and by the 'Dream of Poetry.' It is a very pleasant volume to open, and does not send one away empty and cold; which means that it is genuine poetry. We do not get on very fast; but we are better here than in London, and the place is pleasant.

Please remember us all to Mrs. Romanes. Mary sends a very special remembrance.

Yours faithfully,

R. W. Church.

From the Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone.

Hawarden.

Dear Mr. Romanes,—You have sent me an acceptable gift, and a most considerate note; considerate as regards me, but not, I fear, as respects yourself; for you have made your appeal to an incompetent judge. I do not think I possess, though I have always coveted, the gift of song, and I am not a qualified judge of those who have it.

But in your case there can surely be neither difficulty nor doubt. I came home on Saturday evening and found a book awaiting me with prior personal claims, which has taken up most of the short time since my arrival. It does not, however, I think, require much time to learn from your book whether you have or have not the poetic gift. Before many minutes had passed the affirmation, I will not say dawned, but glared, upon me.

I am very glad that you have proceeded to its further exercise. I can see no good reason why a man of science should not be a poet. Lord Bacon surely shows in his Essays that he had the poet in him. It all depends upon the way of going about it, and on the man's keeping himself, as man, above his pursuit, as Emerson well said long ago.

I do not quite apprehend your estimate of Darwin, nor of Darwin's works, in p. 119. This is no doubt due to my ignorance. I knew him little, but my slight intercourse with him impressed me deeply as well as pleasurably.

With sincere thanks, I remain, dear Mr. Romanes, faithfully yours,

W. E. Gladstone.

Mr. Romanes was an omnivorous reader of poetry, and this taste grew by what it fed on. On a holiday he read poetry in preference to anything else, and he was very fond of good anthologies, beginning first and foremost with the 'Golden Treasury.' Shakespeare, Milton, and, above all, Tennyson were the poets he most loved. For Byron he had had an early boyish enthusiasm, but this he seemed to outgrow; at least Byron was not an author to whom in later years he turned. He grew more and more addicted to versifying in the later years of his life, and girl friends who grew into intimate acquaintances were sure to have sooner or later a sonnet sent to them on some special occasion.

As the years went on he became more interested in work amongst the poor, and longed to take up some special line. For a while he set up a small school in a slum near the Euston Road, in which he tried to attract the very poorest boys who had managed to elude the vigilance of the School Board. His plan was to have only morning school, and to give the children their dinner. The School Board officer came to his aid, and the school was maintained for one or two winters.

He visited the school regularly, and on one occasion, finding that a boy had been grossly rude to the mistress, he gave the young scamp a sound whipping.

For other people's interests in the way of work he had much sympathy; he several times went down to the Christ Church mission at Poplar when the Rev. H. L. Paget was in charge, and he lectured at Toynbee Hall and at the Oxford House.

Of the work of the clergy as a whole Romanes always spoke most warmly; of the peculiar dislike of and suspicion of 'black coats,' so often attributed to laymen in general and to scientific men in particular, he had no trace, and as years went on he used to be gently chaffed for his clerical tendencies and the way in which he was consulted as to the bearings of Science on Religion.

Two new correspondents were now added to Mr. Romanes' list, Professor Joseph Le Conte, of the University of California, and the Rev. J. Gulick, who was, and is still, an American missionary in Japan. Of Mr. Gulick's scientific attainments, Mr. Romanes entertained a very high opinion. Unfortunately, none of the letters to Mr. Gulick have come to hand.

Of Mr. Le Conte's book, 'Evolution and Religious Thought,' Mr. Romanes thought very highly, and introduced it to the notice of various people, especially to Mr. Aubrey Moore.

He writes to Mr. Le Conte:

To Professor Le Conte.

Geanies, Ross-shire, N.B.: October 11, 1887.

Dear Sir,—I am much obliged to you for sending me a copy of your most interesting paper on Flora of the Coast Islands, &c.

If you are acquainted with my new theory of 'Physiological Selection' (published in 'Journ. Lin. Soc.' 1886) you will understand why I regard your facts as furnishing first-rate material for testing that theory. If you cannot get access to my paper, I will send you a copy on my return to London in December.

My object in now writing—over and above that of thanking you for your paper—is to ask whether you yourself, or any other American naturalist whom you may know, would not feel it well worth while to try some experiments on the hybridisation of the peculiar species. Although I agree with you in thinking it probable that many of these species may be 'remnants,' I also think it abundantly possible that some of them may be merely evolved forms. A botanist on the spot might be able to determine, by intelligent comparison, which of the peculiar species are most probably of the last-mentioned character. These he might choose for his experiments on hybridisation. And I should expect him to find marked evidence of mutual sterility between closely allied unique species growing on the same island, with possibly unimpaired fertility between allied species growing on different islands. If this anticipation should be realised by experiment, the fact would go far to prove my theory.

Even if you do not happen to know of any botanist who would care to undertake this experimental research, you might possibly know of some one who would gather and transmit seeds for me to grow in hothouses here.

I shall be much interested to hear what you think of these proposals, and meanwhile remain,

Yours truly,

G. J. Romanes.

Geanies.

My dear Sir,—Your book I will look forward to with much interest, and certainly not least so to your treatment of that very comprehensive question—'What then?'

I will send you a copy of my paper on Physiological Selection as soon as I return to London, which will be about Christmas.

With many thanks for your kindness, I remain, yours truly,

G. J. Romanes.

May 7, 1888.

My dear Sir,—Many thanks for sending me a copy of your book,[66] which seems to me everywhere admirable. Of course, I am particularly glad that you think with me so much on physiological selection, but even apart from this, the work is, to my mind, one of the most clearly thought out that I have met with in Darwinian literature. I have sent it on to 'Nature' for review, understanding from the office that a copy had not then been received. But for your kind mention of myself, I should have reviewed it.

A most remarkable paper has been sent to the Linnean Society by a Mr. Gulick on 'Divergent Evolution,' for the publication of which in the 'Journal' you might look out.

G. J. Romanes.

January 21, 1889.

My dear Sir,—I should like you to set your lucid wits to work upon the following questions, and let me know whether you can devise any answers.

On pp. 220-226 of your book, you state with extreme felicity, and much better than he does, Weismann's theory of the causes of variation. But it does not occur to him, and does not seem to have occurred to you, that there is a curious and unaccountable interruption in the ascending grades of sexual differentiation, for in the vegetable kingdom these do not follow the grades of taxonomic ascent; but, on the contrary, and as a general rule, the lower the order of evolution, the greater is the tendency to bi-sexualism. Diœcious species (i.e. male and female organs on different plants) occur in largest proportion among the lower Cryptogams, less frequently among the higher, and more rarely still among Phanerogams. Monœcious species (i.e. male and female organs on the same plant, but locally distinct) occur chiefly among the higher Cryptogams and lower Phanerogams; Hermaphrodite species (i.e. male and female organs in the same flower) occur much more frequently among higher Phanerogams.

There is, besides, another difficulty. According to Weismann and yourself, it is natural selection that has brought about sexuality 'for the sake of better results in the offspring,' by making them more variable or plastic. But how can natural selection act prophetically? Unless the variability is of use to the individuals at each stage of its advance, it cannot come under the sway of natural selection, however advantageous it may eventually prove to the type. But, if one thinks about it, how can such variability be of any use to the individual? Observe, beneficial variability is quite different from beneficial variation. It is the tendency to vary that is in question, not the occurrence of this, that, and the other display of it. Now, I do not see how sexuality can have been evolved by natural selection for the purpose of securing their tendency in the future, when it can never be of any use to individuals of the present. Each individual of the present is an accomplished fact; the tendency to produce variable offspring is, therefore, of no use to it individually, and so natural selection would have no reason to pick it out for living and propagating. Such is my difficulty touching this point. Another is, why do we meet with such great differences between (sometimes) allied natural genera, and even whole natural orders, as to the facility with which their constituent species hybridise? For example, species of genus Geranium will hybridise almost better than any other, those of the Pelargonium scarcely at all.

I hope that at some time you will be able to get sent to me seeds of species peculiar to oceanic islands, should you hear of any botanists who are visiting such islands.

G. J. Romanes.

I note that you have been good enough to pass my questions on to Mr. Greene, whose great kindness (already experienced by me) will, I trust, prevent him from thinking that the failure of the seeds to flower here was due to any negligence on my part.

Yes, it is the same Rev. Mr. Gulick whom you describe that wrote the paper on 'Divergent Evolution' to which I alluded, and which is a most remarkable paper in every way, though not at all easy to master. Wallace completely misunderstood it in his letter to 'Nature.' It was his work in shells that first led Mr. Gulick to study Isolation, and he has been at work upon the subject ever since. To the best of my judgment, he has demonstrated the necessity of what he calls 'segregate breeding' for 'polytypic evolution,' and in this connection has worked out the idea of physiological selection (which he calls segregate fecundity) much more fully than I have.

It is most astonishing to me with what a storm of opposition this idea has been met in England, and how persistent is the misunderstanding. In Germany and America it is being much more fairly treated, but meanwhile I intend to keep it as quiet as possible, till I shall be in a position to publish a large body of experimental observations. As far as time has hitherto allowed, the results are strongly corroborative of the theory.

I have now read your admirable book, and my only objection to it is that it seems in such large measure to anticipate the publication of my own course of lectures on the theory of Evolution which I am now giving at the Royal Institution. But, on the other hand, this will relieve me of the necessity of printing a good deal of my matter, as it will be sufficient to refer to your book in mine when the two cover common ground. It is needless to add that I am very glad to note you think so well of physiological selection.

Yours very truly,

G. J. Romanes.

The theory of the Non-Inheritance of Acquired Characters, with which Professor Weismann's name is inseparably connected, was now coming to the front.

Mr. Romanes was, of course, intensely interested, and set himself not to dispute so much as to examine and to test it.

He devoted a large part of his last year at the Royal Institution to lecturing on Prof. Weismann's theory, which lectures he worked up into his book, 'An Examination of Weismannism,' published in 1892.

He devised many experiments to test that theory, experiments which have a pathetic interest for those who love him, for they occupied his mind up to the very day of his death.

Of this theory it may safely be said that since the promulgation of Mr. Darwin's great doctrine, no problem has interested the world of science so profoundly.

For the most part the younger English naturalists have accepted Professor Weismann's theory, which, by the way had long ago been anticipated by Mr. Francis Galton, and Mr. Romanes was not much supported in his opposition, or, rather, his non-adherence to Weismannism.

Linnean Society, Burlington House, London, W.: March 21, 1890.

My dear Dyer,—I have come to the conclusion that anything published in 'Nature' might as well never have been published at all; and therefore have come here to-day in order to look through the back numbers of 'Nature,' with a view to republishing as a small book the various things that I have contributed during the past twenty years. Thus it is I find that the explanation which I gave to Herbert Spencer re Panmixia and his articles on the 'Factors of Organic Evolution,' appeared in August 25, 1887, and showed that his whole argument was in the air.

I have also read my own article on Panmixia, written about two mouths ago, and published last week. The result is to satisfy me that your 'intelligent' friends must have had minds which do not belong to the a priori order—i.e. are incapable of perceiving other than the most familiar relations. Such minds may do admirable work in other directions, but not in that of estimating the value of Darwinian speculations. A few years ago they would have thought the cessation of selection a very unimportant principle, and one which could not possibly sustain any such large question as that of the transmissibility of acquired character. And a few years hence they will wonder why they raised such an ado over the no less obvious principle of physiological selection.

Yours very truly,

G. J. Romanes.

He writes to his brother:

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: Sunday.

My dearest James,—This theory, of the Non-Inheritance of Acquired Characters, is that nothing that can happen in the lifetime of the individual exercises any influence on its progeny; effects of use or disuse, for example, cannot be inherited, nor, therefore, can any adaptation to external conditions which are brought about in individual organisms. Natural selection thus can only operate in spontaneous variations of germ-plasm, choosing those variations which, when 'writ large' in the resulting organisms, are best suited to survive and transmit.

This is the most important question that has been raised in biology since I can remember, and one proof of an inherited mutilation would settle the matter against Weismann's theory. I am therefore also trying the mutilation of caterpillars at the Zoo, in the hope that a mutilation during what is virtually an embryonic period of life will be most likely to be transmitted, seeing that congenital variations are so readily transmissible, and that these are changes of a pre-embryonic kind.

All well and with much love, yours ever,

George.

Have you got the 'Contemporary Review' for June with my article on Darwinism? If not, I will send it.

Another bit of work was an investigation into the intelligence of the chimpanzee 'Sally' at the Zoological Gardens, which the following letter describes:

SAVAGE versus BRUTE.

To the Editor of the 'Times' (Sept. 19, 1888).

Sir,—In connection with the correspondence on the powers of counting displayed by savages, it may be of interest to narrate the following facts with regard to similar powers as displayed by brutes.

One often hears a story told which seems to show that rooks are able to count as far as five. The source of this story, however, is generally found to have been forgotten, and therefore the story itself is discredited. Now, the facts stand on the authority of a very accurate observer, and as he adds that they are 'always to be repeated when the attempt is made,' so that they are regarded by him as 'among the very commonest instances of animal sagacity,' we cannot lightly set them aside. The observer in question is Leroy, and the facts for which he personally vouches in his work on animal intelligence are briefly as follows:

'The rooks will not return to their nests during daylight should they see that anyone is waiting to shoot them. If to lull suspicion a hut is made below the rookery and a man conceal himself therein, he will have to wait in vain, should the birds have ever been shot at from the hut on a previous occasion. Leroy then goes on to say: 'To deceive this suspicious bird, the plan was hit upon of sending two men into the watch-house, one of whom passed out while the other remained; but the rook counted and kept her distance. The next day three went, and again she perceived that only two returned. In fine, it was found necessary to send five or six men to the watch-house in order to throw out her calculation.'

Finding it on this testimony not incredible that a bird could count as far as five, I thought it worth while to try what might be done with a more intelligent animal in this connection. Accordingly, about a year ago, I began, with the assistance of the keeper, to instruct the chimpanzee at the Zoological Gardens in the art of computation. The method adopted was to ask her for one, two, three, four, or five straws, which she was to pick up and hand out from among the litter in her cage. Of course, no constant order was observed in making these requests, but whenever she handed a number not asked for her offer was refused. In this way the animal learnt to associate the numbers with their names. Lastly, if more than one straw were asked for she was taught to hold the others in her mouth until the required number was complete, and then to deliver the whole at once. This method prevented any possible error arising from her interpretation of vocal tones, an error which might well have arisen if each straw had been asked for separately.

After a few weeks' continuous instruction the ape perfectly well understood what was required of her, and up to the time when I left town, several months ago, she rarely made a mistake in handing me the exact number of straws that I named. Doubtless she still continues to do so for her keeper. For instance, if she is asked for four straws she successively picks up three and puts them in her mouth, then she picks up a fourth and hands over all the four together. Thus, there can be no doubt that the animal is clearly able to distinguish between the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and that she understands the name for each. But as this chimpanzee is somewhat capricious in her moods, even private visitors must not be disappointed if they fail to be entertained by an exhibition of her learning, a caution which it seems desirable to add, as this is the first time that the attainments of my pupil have been made known to the public, although they have been witnessed by officers of the Society and other biological friends.

I have sent these facts to you, Sir, because I think that they bear out the psychological distinction which is drawn in your leading article of the 17th inst. Briefly put, this distinction amounts to that between sensuous estimation and intellectual notation. Any child, a year after emerging from infancy, and not yet knowing its numerals, could immediately see the difference between five pigs and six pigs, and therefore, as your writer indicates, it would be an extraordinary fact if a savage were unable to do so. The case, of course, is different where any process of calculation is concerned: e.g. 'each sheep must be paid for separately; thus, suppose two sticks of tobacco to be the rate of exchange for one sheep, it would sorely puzzle a Damara to take two sheep and give him four sticks.' (F. Galton, 'Tropical South Africa,' p. 213.) But if the savage had to deal with a larger number of pigs the insufficiency of his sensuous estimation would increase with the increase of numbers, until a point would be reached at which, if he were to keep count at all, he would be obliged to resort to some system of notation, i.e. to mark off each separate unit with a separate nota, whether by fingers, notches, or words. Similarly with the sense of hearing and the so-called muscular sense. We can tell whether a clock strikes 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 without naming each stroke, and whether we have walked 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 paces without naming each pace, but we cannot in this way be sure whether a clock has struck 11 or 12, or we ourselves have, walked as many yards.

Thus there is counting and counting, distinguishing between low numbers by directly appreciating the difference between two quantities of sensuous perceptions, and distinguishing between numbers of any amount by marking each sensuous perception with a separate sign. Of course, in the above instance of animals counting it must be the former method alone that is employed, and, therefore, I have not sought to carry the ape beyond the number 5 lest I should spoil the results already gained. But a careful research has been made to find how far this method can be carried in the case of man. The experiments consisted in ascertaining the number of objects (such as dots on a piece of paper) which admit of being simultaneously estimated with accuracy. It was found that the number admits of being largely increased by practice, until, with an exposure to view of one second's duration, the estimate admits of being correctly made up to between 20 and 30 objects. (Preyer, 'Sitzungsber. d. Gesell, f. Med. u. Naturwiss.,' 1881.) In the case of the ape it is astonishing over how long a time the estimate endures. Supposing, for instance, that she is requested to find five coloured straws. She perfectly well understands what is wanted, but as coloured straws are rare in the litter, she has to seek about for them, and thus it takes her a long time to complete the number; yet she remembers how many she has successively found and put into her mouth, so that when the number is completed she delivers it at once. After having consigned them to her mouth she never looks at the straws, and therefore her estimate of their number must be formed either by the feeling of her mouth, or by retaining a mental impression of the successive movements of her arm in picking up the straws and placing them in her mouth. Without being able to decide positively in which of these ways she estimates the number, I am inclined to think it is in the latter. But, if so, it is surprising, as already remarked, over how long a time this estimate by muscular sense endures. Should we trust Houzeau's statement, however (and he is generally trustworthy), it appears that computation by muscular sense may extend in some animals over a very long period. For he says that mules used in the tramways at New Orleans have to make five journeys from one end of the route to the other before they are released, and that they make four of these journeys without showing any expectation of being released, but begin to bray towards the end of the fifth.[67]

From this letter it will, I hope, be apparent that so far as 'counting' by merely sensuous computation is concerned, the savage cannot be said to show much advance upon the brute. 'Once, while I watched a Damara floundering hopelessly in a calculation on one side of me, I observed Dinah, my spaniel, equally embarrassed on the other. She was overlooking half a dozen of her new-born puppies, which had been removed two or three times from her, and her anxiety was expressive as she tried to find out if they were all present, or if any were still missing. She kept puzzling and running her eyes over them, backwards and forwards, but could not satisfy herself. She evidently had a vague notion of counting, but the figure was too large for her brain. Taking the two as they stood, dog and Damara, the comparison reflected no great honour on the man.' (Galton, loc. cit.) But the case, of course, is quite otherwise when, in virtue of the greatly superior development of the sign-making faculty in man, the savage is enabled to employ the intellectual artifice of separate notation, whereby he attains the conception of number in the abstract, and so lays the foundation of mathematical science. Now, so far as I am aware, there is no trustworthy evidence of any race of savages who are without any idea of separate notation. Whether the system of notation be digital only, or likewise verbal, is, psychologically speaking, of comparatively little moment.

For it is historically certain that notation begins by using the fingers, and how far any particular tribe may have advanced in the direction of naming their numbers is a question which ought never to be confused with that as to whether the tribe can 'count' i.e. notate.

George J. Romanes.

Geanies, Ross-shire.

FOOTNOTES: