Correlation and Application of Statistics to Problems of Heredity 127 



as his independent contribution, it could have been criticised in the usual 

 way ; he could have defended it, and its merits as well as the difficulties of 

 its subject would have been amply recognised. As it was the reason given for 

 the criticisms (which came from more than one quarter) was that of saving 

 the Committee from making serious blunders*. The Chairman became the 

 centre to which attack and rejoinder were directed, and in despair he wrote 

 to Weldon on November 17, 1896 : 



" Herewith is another paper from Bateson, and I enclose with this his accompanying letter 

 to myself. We must talk over what is the fairest course to adopt when we meet (as we probably 

 shall) before the meeting of the R. Soc. on Thursday. 



" You see that he offers to print his four letters for circulation among members of the Com- 

 mittee. My greatest difficulty in thinking what should be done arises from the lengthiness of 

 these papers. I wish the issue could be stated in much more condensed language. 



" It would in man} 7 ways be helpful, if Bateson were made a member of our Committee, but 

 I know you feel that in other ways it might not be advisablef. The other members besides 

 yourself hardly do enough." 



In 1897 the Committee was enlarged by the addition of zoologists and 

 breeders, some of whom had small desire to assist quantitative methods of re- 

 search — Sir E. Clarke, F. D. Godman, W. Heape, E. Ray Lankester, E. J. Lowe, 

 M. T. Masters, O. Salvin, W. T. Thiselton-Dyer and W. Bateson. It was further 

 rechristened "Evolution (Plants and Animals) Committee of the Royal 

 Society." For several years there was no dominant personality, who could 

 effectively guide this very mixed assembly. Personally I ceased to attend its 

 meetings, resigning in 1900, and was followed in that year by Weldon and 

 later by Galton. Mr Godman then became Chairman and the Reports of the 

 Committee were devoted entirely to the publications of Bateson and his school. 

 The capture of the Committee was skilful and entirely successful J. I think 

 the feeling of the young biometricians towards Galton's enlarged Committee 

 was more or less expressed by the letter to Galton I now quote, the date is 

 February 12, 1897 : 



" I wanted to write a few words to you about yesterday's meeting, but have hardly had, 

 nor indeed hardly now have time to do so. I felt sadly out of place in such a gathering of 

 biologists, and little capable of expressing opinions, which would only have hurt their feelings 



* A paraphrase of some of these criticisms will indicate the spirit in which they were written. 

 Vast labour, it was said, had been put into the work and its author no doubt thought himself 

 justified in the conclusions put forward. Perhaps the Committee had thought too little of the 

 responsibility it undertook in publishing such work. The author must know that many would 

 accept his conclusions though few would be able to follow the paper or judge the matter for 

 themselves. Nevertheless the critic found the evidence so inadequate and superficial that he 

 could not understand how responsible people could entertain the question of accepting it. He 

 very truly regretted the countenance given to such a production, etc. etc. Poor Galton ! There 

 are some people, whose unfortunate temperaments compel them to believe that as a matter of 

 conscience they are born to be their brothers' keepers. 



\ Bateson had absolutely no sympathy with the statistical treatment of biological problems, 

 the very work for which the Committee had been appointed. 



I Perhaps the small understanding shown by the ruling spirits of the Royal Society of 

 what had taken place, was evidenced in 1906, when inquiries were made as to whether the 

 Society would accept the Weldon Memorial Medal and Premium, and the President wrote 

 suggesting that the Evolution Committee would be an appropriate selecting body ! 



