THE 'VESTIGES' REVIVED xix 



a certain unknown number of generations, some bird 

 had given birth to a woodpecker, and some plant to 

 the misseltoe, and that these had been produced perfect 

 as we now see them ; but this assumption seems to me 

 to be no explanation, for it leaves the case of the co- 

 adaptations of organic beings to each other and to their 

 physical conditions of life, untouched and unexplained.' 1 

 The modern mutationist also admits 2 that adaptation is 

 not explained by his hypothesis, but his way of dealing 

 with this deficiency is at one time to pour contempt upon 

 adaptation as a subject for investigation ; 3 at another to 

 assume that it is so difficult that the attempt is hardly 

 worth a trial. 4 



The only important evidence adduced in favour of 

 Mutation in Nature is to be found in the behaviour of 

 certain Oenotheras (Evening Primroses), first studied by 

 De Vries and subsequently by many other naturalists. 5 

 Oenothera lamarckiana, supposed to be an American plant 

 introduced into Europe but unknown in the wild state in 

 America, is the form which De Vries found to be throwing 

 off species, as he believes them to be, in all directions. 

 The Dutch botanist also tested about a hundred native 

 species of varied genera, every one of which gave, as 



1 Origin of Species, 1859, pp. 3, 4. 



' Nor have we any definite light on the problem of adaptation. . . .' 

 Bateson, 1. c., p. 587. 



3 See p. xviii n. i. 



4 On Variation, W. Bateson, London, 1894, pp. 10-13. 



5 The latest memoirs are (i) Mutations, Variations, and Relationships 

 of the Oenotheras by D. T. Macdougal, A. M. Vail and G. H. Shull, 

 Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1907. A full list of publications is 

 appended: pp. 91-2; (2) On the Variations of the Evening Primrose by 

 G. A. Boulenger, F.R.S., Journal of Botany, October, 1907. A good 

 general account will be found in R. H. Lock's Variation^ Heredity and 

 Evolution, London, 1906, chapter v. 



