1893. Ee TCA TRE AION TTEORY. 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 /ess like the adult C. livia than is the newly-hatched 
nestling of the ‘‘ wild parent species,” 7.¢., the C. livia of to-day. In 
order to produce a “ record ” of the descent from C. Jivia, t.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, &c., 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 Wirtemberger, Waagen, 
Branco, Hyatt, Buckman, or anybody else. What I have denied I 
will deny afresh at the end of this article. 
(g.) 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. 
(1o.) I have paid full attention to the opinions of paleontologists 
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 Culex, etc., into my paper 
will be obvious to anyone who will read the paragraph which 
