284 LIFE OF PROFESSOR HUXLEY chap, xvi 



given it the attention it deserves. But the day after to-morrow 

 I shall be going into a new house here, and it may be some time 

 before I settle down to work in it — so that I prefer to seem 

 hasty, rather than indifferent to your book and still more to your 

 letter. 



As to the book, in the first place. The only criticism I have 

 to offer — in the ordinary dregeciatory sense of the word — is 

 that pp. 128-137 seem to me to require reconsideration, partly 

 from a substantial and partly from a tactical point of view. 

 There is much that is disputable on the one hand, and not neces- 

 sary to your argument on the other. 



Otherwise it seems to me that the case could hardly be 

 better stated. Here are a few notes and queries that have oc- 

 curred to me. 



P. 41. Extinction of Tasmanians — rather due to the British 

 colonist, who was the main agent of their extirpation, I fancy. 



P. 67. Birds' sternums are a great deal more than surfaces 

 of origin for the pectoral muscles — e.g. movable lid of respira- 

 tory bellows. This not taken into account by Darwin. 



P. 85. " Inferiority of senses of Europeans " is, I believe, a 

 pure delusion. Prof. Marsh told me of feats of American trap- 

 pers equal to any savage doings. It is a question of attention. 

 Consider wool-sorters, tea-tasters, shepherds who know every 

 sheep personally, etc. etc. 



P. 85. I do not understand about the infant's sole ; since all 

 men become bipeds, all must exert pressure on sole. There is 

 no disuse. 



P. 88. Has not " muscardine " been substituted for " pe- 

 brine " ? I have always considered this a very striking case. 

 Here is apparent inheritance of a diseased state through the 

 mother only, quite inexplicable till Pasteur discovered the 

 rationale. 



P. 155. Have you considered that State Socialism (for 

 which I have little enough love) may be a product of Natural 

 Selection ? The societies of Bees and Ants exhibit socialism 

 in excchis. 



The unlucky substitution of " survival of fittest " for " nat- 

 I ural selection " has done much harm in consequence of the am- 

 biguity of " fittest " — which many take to mean " best " or 

 " highest " — whereas natural selection may work towards degra- 

 dation vide cpizoa. 



You do not refer to the male mamma — which becomes func- 

 tional once in many million cases, see the curious records of 



