Correspondence on Biology, etc. 



tell you the truth, I am getting dull of memory as well 

 as of hearing, and what is worse, in reading : what goes 

 in at one eye goes out at the other. So I am getting to 

 reaUse Darwin's consolation of old age, that it absolves me 

 from being expected to know, remember, or reason upon 

 new facts and discoveries. And this must apply to your 

 query as to anyone having as yet answered de Vries. I 

 cannot remember having seen any answer; only criticisms 

 of a discontinuous sort. I cannot for a moment entertain 

 the idea that Darwin ever assented to the proposition that 

 new species have always been produced from mutation and 

 never through normal variability. Possibly there is some 

 quibble on the definition of mutation or of variation. The 

 Americans are prone to believe any new things, witness 

 their swallowing the thornless cactus produced by that 

 man in California — I forget his name — which Kew ex- 

 posed by asking for specimens to exhibit in the Cactus 

 House. . . . — I am, my dear Wallace, sincerely yours, 



Jos. D. Hooker. 

 To Mr. E. Smedlby 

 Broadstone, Wimbome. January 31, 1906. 



Dear Mr. Smedley, — I have read Oliver Lodge's book in 

 answer to Haeckel, but I do not think it very well done or 

 at all clearly written or well argued. A book' has been 

 sent me, however, which is a masterpiece of clearness and 

 sound reasoning on such difficult questions, and is a far 

 more crushing reply to Haeckel than O. Lodge's. I there- 

 fore send you a copy, and feel sure you will enjoy it. It 

 is a stiff piece of reasoning, and wants close attention and 

 careful thought, but I think you will be able to appreciate 

 it. In my opinion it comes as near to an intelligible solu- 

 tion of these great problems of the Universe as we are likely 



* Probably " Root Principles," by Child. 

 83 



