GEOEGE JOHN EOMANES issi- 



Also, did I correctly understand you to say that 

 you refused to acknowledge any fundamental identity 

 between processes of reproduction and those of repair ? 

 For this identity is to my mind the most important 

 of all objections to W.'s theory. 



G. J. KOMANES. 



18 Cornwall Terrace, Eegent's Park, N.W. : December 3, 1889. 



My dear Poulton, I returned here a day or two 

 ago, and now send you my copy of Perrier's remarks 

 about the neuters of hymenopterpus insects. But 

 he said a good deal more in subsequent and private 

 correspondence. His preface, however, will serve to 

 show you the general tone of argument. 



With regard to Panmixia, it occurs to me that 

 very likely you have not seen all that I wrote upon it, 

 as the three papers were scattered over several months 

 in ' Nature.' The following are the references : Yol. 

 ix. pp. 361, 440 ; vol. x. p. 164. 



You will see that I took up a decided stand upon 

 the principle of Panmixia not being able altogether 

 to supersede that of disuse. This was for the reasons 

 stated in my last letter ; and I still see no further 

 reason for changing the opinion that was then formed 

 under the influence of Darwin's judgment. 



With reference to the difference that you alluded 

 to and which, as far as I can see, is the only differ- 

 ence between Weismann's presentation of the prin- 

 ciple and my own I enclose an extract from the 

 lecture which I have just been giving in Edinburgh. 

 From this extract I think you will see that the one 

 point of difference does not redound to the credit of 



