530 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1926 
“ Several years later Bateson made another address before the 
American Association at Toronto that aroused in Canada and the 
States widespread criticism and comment. In point of fact it con- 
tained little that had not previously been given, but this time it was 
reported in the newspapers in a garbled account. It would be un- 
necessary to dwell on this episode were it not that it received notice 
also from some of the old school naturalists who rushed to the de- 
fense of the evolution theory that Bateson seemed (to them) to have 
attacked. Curiously enough, men who had themselves rejected Dar- 
win’s theory as insufficient were the severest critics of Bateson, on 
the ground, I imagine, that they supposed that he had given away 
the case for evolution. It is needless to point out that he stated 
the case for evolution with extraordinary lucidity, and was quite 
above juggling with the ‘ facts’ and the ‘ causes’ of evolution.” ° 
“The Cambridge period came to an end in 1910 on the acceptance 
of the directorship of the newly founded John Innes Horticultural 
Institution at Merton. It was a great opportunity, and Bateson 
made magnificent use of it. When he went there was nothing; in 
a few years there grew up a splendidly equipped station, and of 
far greater moment, an enthusiastic and devoted band of workers. 
Here, too, his position gave him better facilities for promoting that 
cooperation between the practical breeder and the man of science 
upon which he had so often insisted. He made the breeder feel that 
his problems were also the problems of science, and out of his sym- 
pathy begat trust. Of his own inquiries at this period, and of those 
directly inspired by him, the keynote was segregation, its nature and 
the time of its occurrence. To this impulse we owe the striking 
series of investigations on variegation, bud sports, and root cuttings, 
and on the phenomenon of anisogeny, accounts of which appeared 
from time to time in the Journal of Genetics; and it is in the fitness 
of things that his matured judgment on these phenomena should 
have appeared in the Journal only a few days before his death.”” 
“Tt is with some hesitation that I take up Bateson’s point of view 
toward the chromosomes as the material bearers of the hereditary 
units, because his attitude was for a long time diametrically oppo- 
site to my own. Bateson committed himself rather fully in his Mel- 
bourne address (1914) when he said in reference to the sorting out 
of the ‘elements or factors’ by a process of cell division: ‘ What 
these elements, or factors as we call them, are we do not know. That 
they are in some way transmitted by the material of the ovum and 
of the spermatozoon is obvious, but it seems to me unlikely that they 
are in any simple or literal sense material particles. I suspect, 
6 Proceedings of the Linnean Society. 
7™ Nature, vol. 117, p. 313, 1926. 
