25$ EVOLUTION, OLD AND NEW. 



Lamarck himself has clone, if he had been so minded, 

 yet the palm must be given to Lamarck on the score of 

 what he actually did, and this I observe to be the 

 verdict of history, for whereas Lamarck's name is still 

 daily quoted, Dr. Darwin's is seldom mentioned, and 

 never with the applause which it deserves. 



The resemblance between the two writers that is to 

 say, the complete coincidence of their views is so 

 remarkable that the question is forced upon us how far 

 Lamarck knew the substance of Dr. Darwin's theory. 

 Lamarck knew Buffon personally ; he had been tutor 

 to BufTon's son, and Buffon had three of Lamarck's 

 volumes on the French Flora printed at the royal 

 printing press; how can we account for Lamarck's 

 having had Buffon's theory of descent with modification 

 before him for so many years, and yet remaining a 

 partisan of immutability till 1801 ? Before this year 

 we find no trace of his having accepted evolution ; 

 thenceforward he is one of the most ardent and constant 

 exponents which this doctrine has ever had. What 

 was it that repelled him in Buffon's system ? How is it 

 that in the ' Philosophic Zoologique ' there is not, so 

 far as I can remember, a single reference to Buffou, 

 from whom, however, as we shall see, many paragraphs 

 are taken with but very little alteration ? 



I am inclined to think that the secret of this sudden 

 conversion must be found in a French translation by 

 M. Deleuze of Dr. Darwin's poem, ' The Loves of the 

 Plants' which appeared in 1800. Lamarck the most 

 eminent botanist of his time was sure to have heard 

 of and seen this, and would probably know the trans- 



