DARWINISM'S PRESENT STANDING. 389 



ianer doch zugleich der Keim fiir die allein richtige Auffassung der 

 organischen Natur, wenn atich grossentheils unklar und unbewusst, 

 verborgen liegt." 



A special answer to this exhaustive pleading of Wigand is offered 

 by H. Spitzer in his "Beitrage zur Descendenztheorie und zur Metho- 

 dologie der Naturwissenschaft," 1886. 



2 However, there still exist, especially in England, thorough- 

 going Darwinians who see nothing serious in all this criticism of 



Lankester's their great compatriot's explanation of the origin of 

 upholding of species. Lankester, one of the most prominent of 

 Darwinism. English naturalists, said at York, last August (1906), 



in his inaugural address as president of the British Association for 

 the Advancement of Science: "Under the title 'Darwinism' it is con- 

 venient to designate the various work of biologists tending to estab- 

 lish, develop or modify Mr. Darwin's great theory of the origin of 

 species. In looking back over twenty-five years it seems to me that 

 we must say that the conclusions of Darwin as to the origin of 

 species by the survival of selected races in the struggle for exist- 

 ence are more firmly established than ever. And this because there 

 have been many attempts to gravely tamper with essential parts 

 of the fabric as he left it, and even to substitute conceptions for 

 those which he endeavoured to establish, at variance with his 

 conclusions. These attempts must, I think, be considered as having 

 failed." 



3 "Physiologic facts concerning the origin of species in nature 

 were unknown in the time of Darwin. It was a happy idea to 



De Vries's dis- choose the experience of the breeders in the produc- 

 cussion of species- 1 ion of new varieties, as a base on which to build an 

 forming by explanation of the processes of nature. In my opinion 



Darwin was quite right, and he has succeeded in giv- 

 ing the desired proof. But the basis was a frail one, and would not 

 stand too close an examination. Of this Darwin was always well 

 aware. He has been prudent to the utmost, leaving many points 

 undecided, and among them especially the range of validity of his 

 several arguments. Unfortunately this prudence has not been 

 adopted by his followers. Without sufficient warrant they have laid 

 stress on one phase of the problem, quite overlooking the others. 

 Wallace has even gone so far in his zeal and ardent veneration for 

 Darwin, as to describe as Darwinism some things, which, in my 

 opinion, had never been a part of Darwin's conceptions. 



'The experience of the breeders was quite inadequate to the 

 use which Darwin made of it. It was neither scientific, nor critically 

 accurate. Laws of variation were barely conjectured; the different 

 types of variability were only imperfectly distinguished. The breed- 



