opinions on Isolation. 139 



These statements (all of which are contradictory 

 of the only points of difference alleged) have already 

 been published in my^ article in the Monist of 

 October, 1890. And although Mr. Wallace, in his 

 reply to that article, ignores my references to the 

 " original paper," it is scarcely necessary to quote the 

 actual words of the paper itself, since the reader who 

 is further interested in this controversy can readily 

 refer to it in the yournal of the Linnaean Society 

 (vol. xix. pp. 337-411). 



Having arrived at these results with regard to the 

 theory of Isolation in general and of Physiological 

 Isolation in particular, I arrive also at the end of this 

 work. And if, while dealing with the post-Darwinian 

 period, I have imparted to any general reader the 

 impression that there is still a great diversity of 

 expert opinion ; I must ask him to note that points 

 with reference to which disagreement still exists 

 are but very subordinate to those with regard to 

 which complete agreement now prevails. The noise 

 of wrangling disputations which has so filled the 

 camp of evolutionists since the death of their 

 captain, is apt to hide from the outside world the 

 solid unanimity that prevails with regard to all 

 the larger and more fundamental questions, which 

 were similarly the subjects of warfare in the past 

 generation. Indeed, if we take a fair and general 



originated by cross-infertility, the initial change if the physiological 

 change. In his original statement of that theory, therefore, he literally 

 went further than I had gone in my " original paper," with reference to 

 supposing the physiological change to be the initial change. I do not 

 doubt that this is due to some oversight of expression ; but it is curious 

 that, having made it, he should still continue his endeavour to fix exactly 

 the same oversight upon me. 



