196 



SCIENCE 



[Vol. LV, No. 1417 



told me that before delivering any of his pop- 

 ular addresses he very carefully wrote out 

 every word he intended to say, lest in the heat 

 of enthusiasm at the moment he might say 

 something which would give a wrong impres- 

 sion of the truth. We men of science are far 

 too careless in the application of this Huxleyan 

 advice, especially in our popular addresses, 

 which are eagerly read by the public. We 

 must state the truth so clearly that it cannot 

 be misunderstood and when we give voice to 

 our own opinions we should clearly indicate 

 them as our opinions and not as facts. Bate- 

 son's attitude towards Darwinism has been 

 patronizing ever since he began his evolution- 

 ary studies. When he refers epigrammatically 

 in a previous address to reading his Darwin 

 as he would read his Lucretius he is indirectly 

 stating an untruth which is calculated to do 

 untold- harm. In his Toronto address he does 

 not clearly distinguish between his own 'per- 

 sonal opinions based on his own field of ob- 

 servation and the great range of fii-mly estab- 

 lished fact that is now within reach of every 

 student of evolution who surveys the world of 

 life under natural conditions. 



Since writing the above there has come to 

 hand a copy of Professor Bateson's address'^, 

 from which the following excerpts may be 

 made: 



Discussions of evolutiou came to an end pri- 

 marily because it was obvious that no progress 

 was being made. Morphology having been ex- 

 plored in its minutest corners, we turned else- 

 where. . . . We became geneticists in the convic- 

 tion that there at least must evolutionary wis- 

 dom be found. . . . The unacceptable doctrine of 

 the secular transformation of masses by the 

 accumulation of impalpable changes became not 

 only unlikely but gratuitous. . . . Less and less 

 was heard about evolution in genetical circles, 

 and now the topic is dropped. When students 

 of other sciences ask us what is now currently 

 believed about the origin of species we have no 

 clear answer to give. Faith has given place to 

 agnosticism. . . . 



. . . But if we for the present drop evolution- 

 ary speculation it is in no spirit of despair. . . 



Biological science has returned to its rightful 



1 Bateson, William : Evolutionary Faith and 

 Modern Doubts. Science, January 20, 1922. 



place, investigation of the structure and proper- 

 ties of the concrete and visible world. We can 

 not see how the differentiation into species came 

 about. Variation of many kind_s, often consider- 

 able, we daily witness, but no origin of species. . . 



. . . But that particular and essential bit of 

 the theory of evolution which is concerned with 

 the origin and nature of species remains utterly 

 mysterious. We no longer feel as we used to do, 

 that the process of variation, now contemporane- 

 ously occurring, is the beginning of a work which 

 needs merely the element of time for its comple- 

 tion; for even time can not complete that which 

 has not yet begun. . . . 



. . . Meanwhile, though our faith in evolution 

 stands unshaken, we have no acceptable account 

 of the origin of ' ' species. "... 



. . . The survival of the fittest was a plausible 

 account of evolution in broad outline, but failed 

 in application to specific difference. . . . The 

 claims of natural selection as the chief factor in 

 the determination of species have consequently 

 been discredited. . . . 



. . . Even in Drosophila, where hundreds of 

 genetically distinct factors have been identified, 

 very few new dominants, that is to say positive 

 additions, have been seen, and I am assured that 

 none of them are of a class which could be ex- 

 pected to be viable under natural conditions. 

 I understand even that none are certainly viable 

 in the homozygous state. . . . 



Analysis has revealed hosts of transferable 

 characters. . . . Yet critically tested, we find 

 that they are not distinct species and we have no 

 reason to suppose that any accumulations of 

 characters of the same order would culminate in 

 the production of distinct species. . . . 



Twenty yars ago, de Vries made what looked 

 like a promising attempt to supply this so far as 

 (Enothera was concerned. . . . but in application 

 to that phenomenon the theory of mutation falls. 

 We see novel forms appearing, but they are no 

 new species of (Enothera, nor are the parents 

 which produce them pure or homozygous forms. . . 

 If then our plant may by appropriate treatment 

 be made to give off two distinct forms, why is not 

 that phenomenon a true instance of Darwin's 

 origin of species? In Darwin's time it must 

 have been acclaimed as exactly supplying all and 

 more than he ever hoped to see. We know that 

 that is not the true interpretation. For that 

 which comes out is no new creation. . . . 



... If we cannot persuade the systematists to 

 come to us, at least we can go to them. They 



