I 



43 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 



pp.10, 11, 14 of tlie Appendix) of ihe 1849 booklet, aud quoted in 

 last year's Address (p. 31), imply a standpoint of knowledge and 

 liypothesis that is much later than 1849. The passages referred to 

 pre-suppose the equality in heredity of the germ-cells of the two 

 sexes. Yet this conclusion is only implied and not announced 

 as the important new thought it would have been in 1849. The 

 same criticism applies to the work as a whole, which, apart 

 from the discoveries announced in it, seems to belong to the 

 intellectual atmosphere of a far later date. 



My friend Professor August Weismann tells me that the con- 

 clusion that the male and female germ-cells are essentially similar, 

 and plaj^ the same part in heredity, was fii-st published in his 

 memoir " Beitrage zur jVaturgescbichte der Daphnoiden," Leipzig, 

 1876-79, p. 323. 



13. The " 1849 " Booldet prohahhj of very recent Date. 



In May 1913 I had no reason to doubt the history of the copy 

 given on pp. 26-27 of last year's Address, and considered on 

 p. 43 to be the strongest evidence in favour of authenticity. The 

 lacts that have now been proved make it impossible to accept 

 this history without further confirmation, and as yet such con- 

 firmation is wanting. 



The attempt was made to trace the book-store at Cleveland or 

 Cincinnati where Mr. Miller stated that he had bought the 

 booklet (pp. 26-27). A letter directed to "Mr. AV. Davie, 

 Book Store, Cleveland," was returned with the stamp "Not in 

 Directory No. 8." A similar letter directed to Cincinnati was 

 not returned, but brought no reply, and a second letter to the 

 same address was equally unsuccessful. My friend Dr. Joseph 

 L. Hancock, of Chicago, lias been unable to find evidence in the 

 Directories that anyone named W. Davie is now keeping a book- 

 store in either city. 



The attempt to obtain confirmation has therefore failed, and 

 we cannot acce])t the history of the copy sent to Dr. Wallace. 

 If the booklet is a forgtrj^ as there is the strongest evidence 

 to prove, it is only reasonable to suppose that it was printed 

 after all the discoveries announced iu it had become known, and 

 perhaps after the death of G. AV. Sleeper in 1903. This suggestion 

 was made by Sir George Warner in a letter dated Aug. 17, 

 1913: — 



The possibility of a fraiidulent concoction after G. W. Sleeper's death had 

 occurred to me. If, however, Miller's statement that he purchased his copy 

 of the pamphlet in 1892 is coi-rect, this cannot be, and the fact that the 

 pamphlet is mentioned* in tlie obituary notice of 190.3 is also against it ... . 

 But, on the assumption that the date 1849 is genuine, the vonder to me is 

 that the author apparently does not refer to the theories advocated in this 

 pamphlet anywhere else among his later publications, and that no claim to 

 anticipation has been made on his behalf until now, although he lived to so 



* This is a mistake (see p. 43;. 



