2/4 FERTILISATION [1862. 



A favourable notice appeared in the Saturday Review, 

 October 1 8th, 1 862 ; the reviewer points out that the book would 

 escape the angry polemics aroused by the ( Origin.' * This is 

 illustrated by a review in the Literary Churchman, in which 

 only one fault is found, namely, that Mr. Darwin's expression 

 of admiration at the contrivances in orchids is too indirect a 

 way of saying, " O Lord, how manifold are Thy works ! " 



A somewhat similar criticism occurs in the i Edinburgh 

 Review ' (October 1 862). The writer points out that Mr. Darwin 

 constantly uses phrases, such as " beautiful contrivance," " the 

 labellum is . . . in order to attract," " the nectar is purposely 

 lodged." The Reviewer concludes his discussion thus : " We 

 know, too, that these purposes and ideas are not our own, 

 but the ideas and purposes of Another." 



The 'Edinburgh' reviewer's treatment of his subject was 

 criticised in the Saturday Review, November 15th, 1862. With 

 reference to this article my father wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker 

 (December 29th, 1862) : — 



" Here is an odd chance ; my nephew Henry Parker, an 

 Oxford Classic, and Fellow of Oriel, came here this evening ; 

 and I asked him whether he knew who had written the little 

 article in the Saturday, smashing the [Edinburgh reviewer], 

 which we liked ; and after a little hesitation he owned he 

 had. I never knew that he wrote in the Saturday ; and was 

 it not an odd chance ?" 



The ' Edinburgh ' article was written by the Duke of 

 Argyll, and has since been made use of in his * Reign of Law,' 

 1867. Mr. Wallace replied f to the Duke's criticisms, making 

 some especially good remarks on those which refer to orchids. 

 He shows how, by a " beautiful self-acting adjustment," the 

 nectary of the orchid Angraecum (from 10 to 14 inches in 



* Dr. Gray pointed out that if matised by the natural theologians, 

 the Orchid-book (with a few trifling f ' Quarterly Journal of Science,' 



omissions) had appeared before the October 1867. Republished in 



'Origin/ the author would have ' Natural Selection/ 187 1. 

 been canonised rather than anathe- 



