74 LAMARCK, HIS LIFE AND WORK 
“With respect to books on this subject, I do not 
know of any systematical ones, except Lamarck’s, 
which is veritable rubbish. . . . Is it not strange 
that the author of such a book as the Anzmaux sans 
Vertebres should have written that insects, which 
never see their eggs, should we// (and plants, their 
seeds) to be of particular forms, so as to become at- 
tached to particular objects.” * (ii., p. 29, 1844.) 
‘Lamarck is the only exception, that I can think 
of, of an accurate describer of species, at least in the 
Invertebrate Kingdom, who has disbelieved in per- 
manent species, but he in his absurd though clever 
work has done the subject harm.” (ii., p. 39, no date.) 
“To talk of climate or Lamarckian habit producing 
such adaptions to other organic beings is futile.” 
(isiped21, 1358.) 
On the other hand, another great English thinker 
and naturalist of rare breadth and catholicity, and 
despite the fact that he rejected Lamarck’s peculiar 
evolutional views, associated him with the most em1- 
nent biologists. 
In a letter to Romanes, dated in 1882, Huxley 
thus estimates Lamarck’s position in the scientific 
world: 
‘Tam not likely to take a low view of Darwin's 
position in the history of science, but I am disposed 
to think that Buffon and Lamarck would run him 
hard in both genius and fertility. In breadth of 
view and in extent of knowledge these two men were 
giants, though we are apt to forget their services. 
*We have been unable to find these statements in any of La- 
marck’s writings. 
