1893. THE RECAPITULATION THEORY. 367 



proves conclusively that the domesticated breeds of pigeons are 

 descended from a wild species in no way differing from the existing 

 C.livia. Then variation (in my narrowed sense of the term) has so 

 affected the adult structure, under the influence of long-continued 

 artificial selection, as to produce barbs, runts, fantails, &c. Direct 

 observation of late stages of development in each of these breeds has 

 shown (Darwin) that these stages also have varied in the same direc- 

 tion, though to a smaller extent. In each of these breeds the newly- 

 hatched nestling is less like the adult C. livin than is the newly-hatched 

 nestling of the " wild parent species," i.e., the C. livia of to-day. In 

 order to produce a " record " of the descent from C. livia, i.e., in order 

 that the late stages of development should reproduce the adult 

 characters of C. livia, those late characters would have had to vary 

 in the direction of greater likeness to the adult C. livia during the same 

 time as the adult characters were varying in the direction of less 

 likeness. That is what I have called varying in " another " direc- 

 tion. I did not say " opposite " direction, for the simple reason that 

 stags' antlers, cfcc, were in my mind at the time, and it was obvious 

 that, in such exceptional cases, the two directions were nearly or 

 quite parallel. 



(8.) I have never either denied or hesitated to admit the occur- 

 rence of such phenomena as Mr. Bather records in the Ammonites ; 

 nor do I dispute the facts made known by Wiirtemberger, Waagen, 

 Branco, Hyatt, Buckman, or anybody else. What I have denied I 

 will deny afresh at the end of this article. 



(9.) I find no fact whatever (not even an assertion !) in the table 

 given on p. 279 which in any way runs counter to any view I have 

 put forward. 



(10.) I have paid full attention to the opinions of palaeontologists 

 so far as I have become aware of them, but I bow to no opinion based 

 upon an argument which is inconclusive. The mere opinion of the 

 whole zoological and embryological world appears to be opposed to 

 mine. Would Mr. Bather wish me to bow to that opinion also ? 



(11.) What Mr. Bather calls my "main fallacy" is one into 

 which I have never fallen ! I have never believed that existing 

 species are descended from other existing species, except under the 

 influence of artificial selection (as in pigeons), or geographical or 

 other isolation. 



(11.) All seven parts of the quotation tell equally in my favour. 

 Not one tells against me. 



(12.) Whatever I may seem in Mr. Bather's eyes to suppose, I 

 can assure him that I never supposed any reasonable person to hold 

 the Recapitulation Theory in any form demanding such a " harle- 

 quinade " as he describes. It was not in any such form that I either 

 described or attacked it. 



(13.) The reason for introduction of Ciilex, etc., into my paper 

 will be obvious to anyone who will read the paragraph which 



