io Darwin, and after Darwin. 



to which his own independent study of natural science 

 may lead him ; but it appears to me that there is 

 the very strongest reason why any one who deviates 

 from the carefully formed opinions of such a man 

 as Darwin, should above all things be careful to 

 be absolutely fair in his representations of them ; 

 he should be scrupulously jealous, so to speak, of 

 not letting it appear that he is unjustifiably throwing 

 over his own opinions the authority of Darwin s 

 name. 



But in the present case, as we have seen, not only 

 do the Neo-Darwinians strain the teachings of Dar- 

 win ; they positively reverse those teachings repre- 

 senting as anti-Darwinian the whole of one side of 

 Darwin's system, and calling those who continue to 

 accept that system in its entirety by the name 

 " Lamarckians " I know it is sometimes said by 

 members of this school, that in his utilization of 

 Lamarckian principles as accessory to his own, 

 Darwin was actuated by motives of ''generosity." But 

 a more preposterous suggestion could not well be 

 made. We may fearlessly challenge any one who 

 speaks or writes in such a way, to show any other 

 instance where Darwin's great generosity of dis- 

 position had the effect of influencing by one hair's 

 breadth his still greater loyalty to truth. Moreover, 

 and with special regard to this particular case, I 

 would point out that in no one of his many allu- 

 sions to, and often lengthy dicussions of, these so- 

 called Lamarckian principles, does he ever once 

 introduce the name of Lamarck; while, on the other 

 hand, in the only places where he does so whether 

 in his books or in his now published letters he 



