276 LUCK, OR CUNNING? 



descent with modification, whereas we were in reality 

 backing it for descent with modification by means of 

 natural selection from among fortuitous variations. 

 This last really is Mr. Darwin's theory, except in so 

 far as it is also Mr. A. E. Wallace's ; descent, alone, 

 is just as much and just as little Mr. Darwin's doctrine 

 as it is Professor Eay Lankester's or mine. I grant it 

 is in great measure through Mr. Darwin's books that 

 descent has become so widely accepted ; it has become 

 so through his books, but in spite of, rather than by 

 reason of, his doctrine. Indeed his doctrine was no 

 doctrine, but only a back-door for himself to escape 

 by in the event of flood or fire ; the flood and fire have 

 come; it remains to be seen how far the door will 

 work satisfactorily. 



Professor Eay Lankester, again, should not say that 

 Lamarck's doctrine has been " so often tried and 

 rejected." M. Martins, in his edition of the "PhUo- 

 sophie Zoologique," * said truly that Lamarck's theory 

 had never yet had the honour of being seriously dis- 

 cussed. It never has — not at least in connection with 

 the name of its propounder. To mention Lamarck's 

 name in the presence of the conventional English 

 society naturalist has always been like shaking a red 

 rag at a cow ; he is at once infuriated ; " as if it were 

 possible," to quote from Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire, 

 whose defence of Lamarck is one of the best things in 

 his book.t "that so great labour on the part of so 

 great a naturalist should have led him to ' a fantastic 



* Paris, 1873, Introd. p. vi. 



+ Hist. Nat. Gen., ii. 404, 1859. 



