lo Darwin, and after Darwin, 



to which his own independent study of natural science 

 may lead him ; but it appears to me that there is 

 the very strongest reason why any one who deviates 

 from the carefully formed opinions of such a man 

 as Darwin, sliould above all things be careful to 

 be absolutely fair in his representations of them; 

 he should be scrupulously jealous, so to speak, of 

 not letting it appear that he is unjustifiably throwing 

 over his own opinions the authority of Darwin's 

 name. 



But in the present case, as we have seen, not only 

 do the l^eo-Darwinians strain the teachings of Dar- 

 win ; they positively reverse those teachings — repre- 

 senting as anti-Darwinian the whole of one side of 

 Darwin's system, and calling those who continue to 

 accept that system in its entirety by the name 

 " Lamarckians " I know it is sometimes said by 

 members of this school that in his utilization of 

 Lamarckian principles as accessory to his own, 

 Darwin was actuated by motives of '-generosity." But 

 a more preposterous suggestion could not well be 

 made. We may fearlessly challenge any one who 

 speaks or writes in such a way, to show any other 

 instance where Darwin's great generosit}' of dis- 

 position had the effect of influencing by one hair's 

 breadth his still greater loyalty to truth. Moreover, 

 and with special regard to this particular case, I 

 would point out that in no one of his many allu- 

 sions to, and often len;^thy dicussions of, these so- 

 called Lamarckian principles, does he ever once 

 introduce the name of Lamarck; while, on the other 

 hand, in the onl)- places where he does so — whether 

 in his books or in his now published letters— he 



