1896. LYELL AND LAMARCKISM : A REJOINDER. 119 



this evidence, and to refuse, in its absence, to admit that these 

 "factors" explain even these incipient stages. 



1 had supposed that, by their " factors," Lamarckians meant use 

 and disuse, effort, and the direct action of the conditions of Hfe, but 

 as I have " quite failed to understand " their views, this may be a 

 mistake. At any rate, instead of giving evidence that the influence 

 of these conditions is beneficial, the author of the " Reply " tells us 

 all adaptations must be ascribed to the fundamental properties of 

 protoplasm, although this statement, while it may be true, has, in 

 the present state of our knowledge, no more claim to be called an 

 explanation than the assertion that the origin of steam engines is to 

 be ascribed to the fundamental properties of matter ; an assertion 

 which may also be quite true for all I know to the contrary, although 

 it will be soon enough to accept it as a belief when some one deduces 

 a steam engine from these properties. 



This writer objects to my statement that I learned from Lyell 

 that the Lamarckian factors could not be accepted unless they could be 

 shown to be inherently beneficial, since he is not able to learn 

 anything of the sort from this author ; although I suppose my state- 

 ment will be justified if I can show that others, including Lyell 

 himself, have made the same deduction from his teaching. His 

 biographer in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, after speaking of his 

 mastery of the work of Darwin and Wallace, says : "Then it was 

 that Lyell, who had rejected Lamarck's theory because it rested on a 

 purely imaginary law of innate progressive development, at once accepted 

 natural selection." 



Darwin's letters show, however, that this acceptance did not 

 come " at once," but that Lyell had much difficulty in perceiving 

 the fundamental difference between Darwin's views and those of 

 Lamarck, and that he for some time thought his criticism of Lamarck 

 applied to Darwin also. After Lyell had read the proof sheet of the 

 "Origin of Species," Darwin wrote to him as follows, Oct. 25, 1859, 

 in answer to a letter which, unfortunately, is not printed in either 

 Lyell's or Darwin's "Letters": "Our difference on 'principle of 

 improvement ' and ' power of adaptation ' is too profound for dis- 

 cussion by letter. If I am wrong, I am quite blind to my error. If 

 I am right, our difference will be got over only by your re-reading 

 carefully and reflecting on my four first chapters. I supplicate you 

 to read them again carefully." 



Darwin is no doubt right, and anything further is a waste of 

 words ; for those who are not persuaded after reading and reflecting 

 on these four chapters, remind one of the five brethren of a certain 

 rich man mentioned in history. 



W. K. Brooks. 



