MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE THEORY. 140 



before Darwin. This seems almost incredible to us at 

 the present day, when the biological world is divided 

 into two sections on the very subject, and when it is 

 generally recognised that Lamarck's theory would be, 

 if it were proved to be sound, a formidable rival to 

 natural selection as a motive cause of evolution. But 

 the following quotations — a few among many — leave 

 no doubt whatever upon the subject. 



Evidence on this point reached Darwin almost 

 immediately after the appearance of the "Origin." 

 Thus he writes to Hooker on December 14th, 1859 : — 



" Okl J. E. Gray, at the British Museum, attacked me in 

 fine style : 'You have just reproduced Lamarck's doctrine, and 

 nothing else, and here Lyell and others have been attacking 

 him for twenty years, and because you . . . say the very same 

 thing, they are all coming round ; it is the most ridiculous in- 

 consistency,' &c. &c." 



In the following year, Wilberforce, Bishop of 

 Oxford, writing in the Quarterly Revieio for July, 

 1860, appeals to Lyell, 



" in order that with his help this flimsy speculation may be as 

 completely put down as was what in spite of all denials we 

 must venture to call its twin though less-instructed brother, 

 the ' Vestiges of Creation.' " 



Again, Dr. Bree, in " Species not Transmutable," 



says : 



" The only real difference between Mr. Darwin and his two 

 predecessors, [Lamarck and the "Vestiges"] is this :— that 

 while the latter have each given a mode by which they 

 conceive the great changes they believe in have been brought 

 about, Mr. Darwin does no such thing." 



