president's address. 475 



be a matter of doubt. As an instance of this, I may refer to the 

 magnificent paper of the Eev. Professor Henslow, lately published 

 in the Transactions of the Linnsean Society of London. The 

 learned professor has been following up Darwin's observations 

 on the self-fertilization of plants. It will be remembered that 

 Dr. Darwin's observations on the varieties of the common primrose 

 led to the discovery of certain provisions to secure cross fertiliza- 

 tion. The facts thus revealed were so new, so startling, and at 

 the same time so full of interest, that the field was entered upon 

 with ardour by nearly every botanist in Europe. As a matter of 

 course the conclusions of Dr. Darwin were pushed to the extreme. 

 Even the most eminent naturalists were led into extravagant 

 assertions, which, at best, were only supported by a slender array 

 of facts, and some even roundly asserted that self-fertilization 

 never took place. These were not men of eminence, but their 

 opinions were eagerly seized by those whose knowledge was too 

 slight to discriminate, and whose prejudices were too strong for 

 caution. By no one were these excesses more deplored than Dr. 

 Darwin, whose love of his favourite theory is great, but whose 

 love of true science is greater. When Professor Henslow 

 commenced his investigations he states that he adopted Dr. 

 Darwin's views about the self-fertilization of flowers. What has 

 induced him to abandon them is beautifully seen in the facts 

 which a long and patient inquiry has revealed. So far as he has 

 gone he finds self-fertilization the rule and not the exception. 

 The whole paper is a monument to his conscientious care and 

 industry. It is a delightful instance of the perfection of those 

 methods of inquiry of which Dr. Darwin is the illustrious author. 



In the meantime, Darwinism, or the doctrine of develoj)ment 

 or evolution, as it is variously termed, is being vigorously handled 

 by those whose speaking and reading hardly give them time for 

 reflection. It has also become the prey of the metaphysician. 

 There the naturalist might well be content to leave the philo- 

 sophical question which underlies the whole subject. It is out of 



