This communication well exemplifies the spirit in which Mr. Romanes

approached the problems of animal faculty. He spent, indeed, much

time and labour in collecting and classifying the observations and

anecdotes which he published in 'Animal Intelligence'; but he lost no

opportunities of observing and experimenting for himself. In this,

as in other departments of inquiry, his constant effort was to be

in direct and immediate touch with facts. His observations on his

own dogs, especially those which he published in his article[58]

on 'Fetishism in Animals,' wherein he describes the effects on a

terrier of the apparent coming to life of a dry bone which the dog

had been playing with, and to which a fine thread had been attached,

and those which dealt with the power of tracking their master by

scent,[59] further exemplify his careful methods and his resort,

wherever possible, to experimental conditions. His observations, too,

on the 'homing' of bees,[60] by which he showed that the insects

find their way back to the hive through their experience of the

topography and by knowledge of landmarks, rather than through any

mysterious innate faculty or sense of direction, are the work of a

scientific observer, and very different from the chance tales of a

mere anecdotist.

The whole subject of comparative psychology had a special and

peculiar fascination for Mr. Romanes, partly on account of its

intimate connection with the theory of evolution, and partly from

its bearing on those deeper philosophic problems which were never

long absent from his thoughts. His treatment of the phenomena of

instinct in 'Mental Evolution in Animals,' and elsewhere, was both

comprehensive and exact, and still forms, in the opinion of competent

authorities, the best general account of the subject that we have;

though, had he lived to review and consolidate his work, some changes

would probably have been introduced in view of later discussions on

the nature and method of hereditary transmission. His arguments in

'Mental Evolution in Man,' in support of the essential similarity of

the reasoning processes in the higher animals and in man, created a

stir, at the time of their publication, which was in itself evidence

that his critics felt that they had a writer and thinker that must

be seriously and sharply met. He hoped by this work to win over the

psychologists to the evolution camp; and he himself felt strongly

that in some cases, when he failed fully to convince them of the

adequacy of his method of treatment and of the arguments he adduced,

it was rather in matters of definition than in matters of fact that

the source of their differences lay. He was somewhat disappointed

that his terms 'recept' and 'receptual' for mental products

intermediate between the 'percept' and the 'concept' were not more

generally accepted by psychologists, since, in his matured opinion,

they and the conception they represent were eminently helpful in

bridging the debatable space between the intellectual powers of man

and the faculties of the lower animals.

It was Mr. Romanes' intention to continue the mental evolution

series and to deal, in further instalments of his work, with

the intellectual emotions, volition, morals, and religion. This

intention, however, he did not live to fulfil. His further

development of mental evolution in the light of his later conclusions

in the region of philosophical and religious thought would have

been profoundly interesting. But one's regret that this part of

his life work remained incomplete is tempered by the recollection

that what he did complete was so worthily done. For, in the words

of Mr. Lloyd Morgan, which were quoted with approval by Dr. Burdon

Sanderson in his Royal Society obituary notice: 'by his patient

collection of data; by his careful discussion of these data in

the light of principles clearly and definitely formulated; by his

wide and forcible advocacy of his views; and, above all, by his

own observations and experiments, Mr. Romanes left a mark in this

field of investigation and interpretation which is not likely to be

effaced.'

In 1889 Mr. Romanes attended the British Association which met

that year at Newcastle. Here, he and Professor Poulton had a long

discussion on the 'Inheritance of Acquired Characters'; he spoke so

much, and was so much _en évidence_, at this Association that the

Newcastle papers described him as a most belligerent person.

He wrote afterwards from Edinburgh:

Things progress as usual. After my lecture I played chess with

Mrs. Butcher and dined with the Logans. Margaret, in telling me

the pretty things she had heard, drew from her husband the rebuke

that she was not judicious. So I told them your estimate of my

merits, and Charles[61] was quite satisfied that I was in good

keeping.

You have made a 'philosophical' mistake about the dinner party to

the R.'s which, of course, I imitated. Butcher has given me a MS.

of his to read on the 'Psychology of the Ludicrous.' Seems very

good.

_To Professor Poulton._

Newcastle: Monday, September 1889.

My dear Poulton,--I am very glad to receive your long and

friendly letter; because, although I have the Ishmael-like

reputation of finding my hand against every man, and every man's

against mine, my blastogenetic endowments are really of the

peaceful order. Moreover, in the present instance the 'row' was

not one that affected me with any feelings of real opposition,

although it seemed expedient to point out that a somewhat hasty

inference had not been judiciously stated. Therefore, I take

it, we may now cordially, as well as formally, shake hands, and

probably be better friends than ever. In token of which I may

begin by furnishing the explanation of what was meant by the

passage in the 'Contemporary Review' to which you alluded.

I quite agree that Weismann's suggestion about causes of

variability is an admirable one. But it has always seemed to me

that it is comprised under Darwin's general category of causes

internal to the organism (or, in his terminology, causes due to

'the nature of the organism'). But besides this, he recognised

the category of causes external to the organism (or the so-called

Lamarckian principles of direct action of environment, _plus_

inherited efforts of use and disuse). Now, anyone who accepts

this latter category as comprising _veræ causæ_, obviously has

a larger area of causality on which to draw for his theoretical

explanations of variability, than has a man who expressly

limits the possibility of such causes to the former category.

This is all that I had in my mind when writing the line in

the 'Contemporary Review' which led you to suppose that I was

expounding W. without having read him; and although I freely

allow that the meaning was one that required explanation to bring

out, you may remember that this meaning had nothing whatever to

do with the subject which I was expounding, and therefore it was

that I neglected to draw it out. You will observe that, so far as

the present matter is concerned, it does not signify what views

we severally take touching the validity of Lamarckian hypotheses.

The point is, that anyone who sees his way to entertaining them

thereby furnishes himself with a larger field of causality for

explaining variations than does a man who limits that field to

causes internal to organisms--even though, like W., he suggests

an extension of the latter.

And now about the 'Athenæum.' I fear you think I have been taking

an unfair opportunity of giving you a back-hander. In point of

fact, however, I never do such things; and the more reason I

have for anything like hitting back (which, however, is entirely

absent on the present occasion), the more careful should I be to

avoid any appearance of doing so in an unsigned review. I neither

wrote, nor have I read the particular review in question.

Regarding articulation, read in my 'Mental Evolution in Man,'

Mr. Hales' admirable remarks on children having probably been

the constructors of all languages. I believe this theory will

prove to be the true solution of the origin of _languages_, as

distinguished from the faculty of _language_. What you say about

the latter being blastogenetic, requires you to unsay what is

said by W.

Please let me know whether there is anything that you see in my

'cessation of selection' different from W.'s 'Panmixia.' The

debate to-day failed to furnish any opposition.

Yours very sincerely,

G. J. ROMANES.

Geanies, Ross-shire, N.B.: October 21. 1889.

My dear Poulton,--Many thanks for your interesting letter. From

it I quite understand your views about the relation between

reproduction and repair; are they those of Weismann or altogether

your own? And have they, as yet, been published anywhere? If

not, I suppose it is undesirable to allude to them in public? The

theory is ingenious, but seems to sail rather near Pangenesis

(as do many of the latter amendments of germ-plasm by W.); and I

should have thought that the limbs of salamanders, &c., are too

late products, both phylogenetically and ontogenetically, to fall

within its terms.

I also see better what you mean about Sphex. But Darwin's letter

in 'Mental Evolution in Animals' seems to me to meet (or rather

to anticipate) the 'difficulty.' Of course, he did not suppose

that the insects' knowledge of 'success' goes further than

finding out and observing the best place to sting in order to

produce the maximum effect. The analogy of Cymphs is apposite;

but is it the fact that there is any species whose localisation

is really comparable with that of Sphex? Contrasting Weismann's

account with Fabre's, I should say not.

As for neuter insects (which you mentioned at Newcastle), Darwin

allows that they constitute one of the most difficult cases to

bring under natural selection, seeing that this has here to act

at the end of a long lever of the wrong kind, so to speak. Read

Perrier's preface to French translation of 'Mental Evolution

in Animals,' and observe how good his suggestion is, on the

supposition that Lamarckian principles have any applicability at

all.

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:

[37] _Life and Letters of Charles Darwin_, by Francis Darwin, vol. i.

p. iii.

[38] Miss M. M. Paget.

[39] The friend referred to on p. 178.

[40] It should be explained that the writer of this memoir is

responsible for the Journal, but as it was kept for the benefit of

both husband and wife a few extracts are given.

[41] The answer is the word _six_.

[42] A moor taken in addition to the low ground shooting of Geanies.

[43] Mr. F. Balfour was killed on the Aiguille Blanche de Peuteret,

July 1882.

[44] Mr. Browning told the same story of the Carlyles at this party

which Mrs. Ritchie narrates in _Tennyson, Ruskin, and Browning_, pp.

198, 199.

[45] The _nom de plume_ adopted in writing _Candid Examination of

Theism_.

[46] See sonnets, _The Bible of Amiens_, and _Christ Church, Oxford_.

[47] See _Nature_, January 25, 1883.

[48] Mr. Romanes remarked _à propos_ of Pfleiderer's lecture that St.

Paul seemed to be a very hard nut for the lecturer to crack.

[49] Dr. King.

[50] Through the kindness of Lord Rosebery.

[51] One of Mr. Romanes' numerous pet names.

[52] This is in allusion to a minister of a small country parish in

Scotland, who prayed that there might be at this time, on account of

this parish, 'a very great commotion among the angels.'

[53] Of Germany.

[54] His brother was ill.

[55] An old nurse.

[56] Mr. Aubrey Moore reviewed _Mental Evolution in Man_ in the

_Guardian_.

[57] I have not been able to discover any answer to these.

[58] _Nature_, vol. xvii. p. 168.

[59] _Nature_, vol. xxxvi. p. 273.

[60] _Nature_, vol. xxxii. p. 630.

[61] C. Logan, Esq., W.S., who had married Mr. Romanes' cousin.

[62] p.s.--physiological selection; s.s.--sexual selection;

n.s.--natural selection.

[63] Of Mr. Darwin.

[64] Mr. F. Darwin had pointed out some erroneous conclusions in a

projected scientific paper.

[65] _Darwinism_, by Alfred Russell Wallace.

[66] _Evolution and Religious Thought._

[67] _Fac. Ment. des Anim._ tom. ii. p. 207.