APPENDIX II 361 



of the bacteria are susceptible of change under changed environ- 

 ment." I made no such claim. On the contrary, I called attention 

 to the fact that Pasteur, Eoux, and Chamberland had demonstrated 

 changes of this order. It was not necessary for me to inform my 

 audience that the demonstration was afforded in the early 'eighties, 

 or that Pasteur died before this century opened. What I did claim 

 was that " the latter-day investigations in medical science " showed 

 that certain of the above-mentioned changes were of the nature of 

 direct adaptation, or direct equilibration — a very different matter. 



2. That he repeats the charge that I misapprehend the signi- 

 ficance of the word " adaptation," and states that I admit the 

 blunder. Far from making any such admission, I, on the contrary, 

 proved. to the hilt, by a reference to Herbert Spencer's own words, 

 that the misapprehension was his, that my use of the term was con- 

 sistent and correct, and that it was he and not I who misused it. 

 He must himself admit, now that the heat of the moment has passed, 

 that this is not clean fighting. It is inexcusable. 



3. That as for .his repetition of the charge of an oSence against 

 the laws of social intercourse by making use of a confidential com- 

 munication, I must point out, in fuller detail than in my last, that 

 it was Sir Eay Lankester himself who, while knowing my address, 

 by transmitting his letter, addressed to me, to a third person for 

 prior perusal, converted what would otherwise have been a private 

 into an open correspondence. I have his letter of transmission 

 before me as I write. It may interest him to know that previous 

 to the delivery of my first lecture I put the case before two friends 

 of his, both men of distinction, one of them a Fellow of the Royal 

 College of Physicians. Both held that I would be justified in referring 

 to the correspondence, and this, in the case of one of the two, after 

 he had read the manuscript and seen the exact terms of the reference. 



It will be observed that Sir Eay Lankester takes no notice of my 

 challenge that he should publish this earlier correspondence and 

 prove that I had, as he asserted, " garbled " my reference to his 

 views. He cannot afford to refuse to discuss so vital a matter as 

 this of the evidence recently obtained regarding direct adaptation 

 with its bearing upon heredity and social matters of the first order. 

 He cannot do this without tacitly resigning his position as a leader. 

 To preserve his own honour I again ask him to publish the triangular 

 correspondence already referred to, that the points at issue may be 

 clearly defined. 



Surely I need say no more. — I am, etc,, 



J. G. ADAMI. 

 London, W., August 6. 



