24 Darbishire, Lmvs of Heredity. 



inclined rather to interpret the phenomena on some such 

 hypothesis as that of Galtoii!'^ 



The nume'als refer to the words in italics preceding 

 them. 



1. This shews that Castle followed me in confusing Galton's 



Law with the Law of Contribution. 



2. Here we see that Castle has started on a right track : 



he has perceived that Galton's Law in the sense in 

 which I used it, meaning the Law of Contribution, 

 is not the same as that Law as first enunciated. 



3. And yet he thinks that in its original form it was in 



harmony with the phenomena of gametogenesis as 

 then interpreted, whereas it seems to me that the 

 chief characterist c of a statistical Law is that it is 

 independent of any theory of gametogenesis what- 

 soever. 



4. Of course it does : because it does not attempt to. What 



he means is that the Law of Contribution attempts and 

 fails : and this is quite true. 



5. Here again as in (2) we see light breaking in on the 



confusion between Galton's Law and the Law of Con- 

 tribution. Castle sees that tlie theory of heredity I 

 had in mind is not quite the same as Galton's : I 

 have shewn (p. 15) exactly how it differs from it. 



I will now refer to a case in which the confusion 

 between Galton's Law and that of Contribution is com- 

 plete. 



In 1904 I wrote:* "/ do not propose to discuss here 

 the difference^ between Mendelian principles and the 

 statistical conception of inheritance^ but to consider one 

 part of the hypothesis put forward by Mendel, which is at 

 variance with Galton's theory? I refer to the phenomenon 

 of segregation. We have seen what Mendel says. But 

 this is flatly contradicted by the Galtonian generalization*^ 

 according to which the greater number of generations a 



* Darbishire '.o^b^ p. 9. 



