216 [December 



POSTSCRIPT, 



It is singular liow few N. A. Naturalists seem to be able to quote 



Darwin correctly. In the Proceedings (Vol, V. pp. 26-27) Mr. Scudder 



discourses on Darwinism as follows : — 



It has been a-^serted tliat species existing over a wide range of country are 

 more variable than those limited to a smaller area, and some arguments have 

 been based upon this and similar assertions by those who would maintain the 

 derivative theory of the Origin of Species. On this assumption * ® * we 

 should expect to find, &c., kc, &c. In point of fact, almost the exact opj^yosite 

 apj^ears to be true, &c., <tc., &c. 



Now what does Darwin really assert ? These are his words : — 



Alph. DeCandolle and others have shown, that plants which have very 

 wide ranges generally j^rescnt varieties. •■■' * ••■• But my tallies further show 

 * * «■ that it is the most flourishing, or, as they may be called, the dominant 

 species — those which range widely over the world, are the most diffused in their 

 own country, and are the most numerous in individuals — which of tenest produce 

 well marked varieties. {Orig. Spec. p. 54, Amer. ed.) 



Other writers belonging to the same school take precisely the same 



ground. For example, Mr. Wallace, in his recent admirable Paper on the 



Malayan Papillonulst, writes as follows: — 



I find, as a general rule, that the constancy of species is in an inverse ratio to 

 their range. Those which are confined to one or two islands are generally very 

 constant. When they extend to many islands, considerable variability apoears ; 

 and when they have an extensive range over a large part of the Archipelago, 

 the amount of unstable variation is very large. {Trans. Linn. Soc. xxv. p. 4.) 



Substitute in Mr. Scudder's sentence " generally more variable " or 

 " often er variable" for "more variable," as in common foirness ought 

 to have been done, and the few facts quoted by him in the genus Chi- 

 onohas in no wise controvert what Darwin really asserts. Leave the 

 sentence as it stands, and assume the facts to be as Mr. Scudder puts 

 them — on which point I do not pretend to offer any opinion — and the 

 argument appears to be a triumphant refutation of the so-called Dar- 

 winian statement. When Darwin is misquoted, the reasoning seems 

 good; when he is quoted correctly, it is good for nothing. A theory 

 must be strong indeed, when, as would seem from the practice of cer- 

 tain Naturalists, it can only be refuted by misstating it. 



