364 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



views in derogation of Darwin's long-accepted theory of the coral islands, and 

 was actually induced to delay it for two years. Yet the late Sir Wyville Thom- 

 son, who was at the head of the naturalists of the Challenger expedition, was 

 himself convinced by Mr. Murray's reasoning (p. 255). 



Clearly, then, it could not be Mr. Murray's official chief who gave 

 him this advice, "Who was it ? And what was the exact nature of 

 the advice given ? Until we have some precise information on this 

 head, I shall take leave to doubt whether this statement is more accu- 

 rate than those which I have previously cited. 



Whether such advice was wise or foolish, just or immoral, depends 

 entirely on the motive of the person who gave it. If he meant to 

 suggest to Mr. Murray that it might be wise for a young and com- 

 paratively unknown man to walk warily, when he proposed to attack 

 a generalization based on many years' labor of one undoubtedly com- 

 petent person, and fortified by the independent results of the many 

 years' labor of another undoubtedly competent person, and even, if 

 necessary, to take two whole years in fortifying his position, I think 

 that such advice would have been sagacious and kind. I suppose that 

 there are few working men of science who have not kcjDt their ideas 

 to themselves, while gathering and sifting evidence, for a much longer 

 period than two years. 



If, on the other hand, Mr, Murray was advised to delay the publi- 

 cation of his criticisms, simply to save Mr. Darwin's credit and to pre- 

 serve some reputation for infallibility, which no one ever heard of, 

 then I have no hesitation in declaring that his advisor was profoundly 

 dishonest, as well as extremely foolish, and that, if he is a man of sci- 

 ence, he has disgraced his calling. 



But, after all, this supposed scientific Achitophel has not yet made 

 good the primary fact of his existence. Until the needful proof is 

 forthcoming, I think I am justified in suspending my judgment as to 

 whether he is much more than an anti-scientific myth. I leave it to 

 the Duke of Argyll to judge of the extent of the obligation under 

 which, for his own sake, he may lie to produce the evidence on which 

 his aspersions of the honor of scientific men ^re based. I can not 

 pretend that we are seriously disturbed by charges which every one 

 who is acquainted with the truth of the matter knows to be ridiculous ; 

 but mud has a habit of staining if it lies too long, and it is as well to 

 have it brushed off as soon as may be. 



So much for the " Great Lesson." It is followed by a " Little Les- 

 son " apparently directed against my infallibility — a doctrine about 

 which I should be inclined to paraphrase Wilkes's remark to George 

 III when he declared that he, at any rate, was not a Wilkitc. But I 

 really should be glad to think that there are people who need the 

 warning, because then it will be obvious that this raking up of an old 

 story can not have been suggested by a mere fanatical desire to dam- 

 age men of science. I can but rejoice, then, that these misguided en- 



