PROFESSOR LANKESTER AND LAMARCK. 267 



old, it may be taken as still giving us the position 

 whicli Professor Eay Lankester takes on these matters. 

 He wrote: — 



" It is necessary," he exclaims, " to plainly and 

 emphatically state " (Why so much emphasis ? Why 

 not " it should be stated " ?) " that Professor Semper 

 and a few other writers of similar views " * (I have sent 

 for the number of " Modern Thought " referred to by 

 Professor Eay Lankester, but find no article by Mr. 

 Henslow, and do not, therefore, know what he had said) 

 " are not adding to or building on Mr. Darwin's 

 theory, but are actually opposing all that is essential 

 and distinctive in that theory, by the revival of the 

 exploded notion of ' ' directly transforming agents ' 

 advocated by Lamarck and others." 



It may be presumed that these writers know they 

 are not " adding to or building on " Mr. Darwin's 

 theory, and do not wish to build on it, as not thinking 

 it a sound foundation. Professor Ray Lankester says 

 they are " actuaEy opposing," as though there were 

 something intolerably audacious in this'; but it is not 

 easy to see why he should be more angry with them 

 for " actually opposing " Mr. Darwin than they may be 

 with him, if they think it worth while, for " actually 

 defending " the exploded notion of natural selection — 

 for assuredly the Charles-Darwinian system is now 

 more exploded than Lamarck's is. 



What Professor Ray Lankester says about Lamarck 

 and " directly transforming agents '' wUl mislead those 



* E.g., the Kev. George Henslow, in "Modern Thought," vol. ii. 

 No. -5, 1881. 



