176 GEOEGB JOHN EOMANES I88I- 



Por in the case of species, the ' once were ' possibihty 

 is virtually excluded. 



A propos to this point, I do not believe that any- 

 one yet has half done Justice to natural selection in 

 respect of its action subsequent to the formation of 

 species — at least, not expressly. But I must shut 

 up. 



I should greatly like to see Jordan's paper. Sir 

 J. Hooker and Professor Oliver have sent me refe- 

 rences to literature, but neither of them mention 

 this. 



Why my answer to Wallace has not appeared in 

 this month's ' Portnightly ' I am at a loss to under- 

 stand. The editor bullied me with letters and 

 telegrams to have it ready in time, till I laid every- 

 thing else aside, and sent him back the proof on 

 the 15th. 



This new theory roused the public interest (so far 

 as the scientific public were concerned) and produced 

 much criticism. 



There is a scientific orthodoxy as well as a theo- 

 logical orthodoxy ' plus loyal que le roi,' and by the 

 ultra-Darwinians Mr. Eomanes was regarded as 

 being strongly tainted with heresy. 



The ' Times ' devoted a leader in August 1886 to 

 the theory, and the president of Section D at the 

 British Association at Bath in the same month also 

 criticised it. 



A sharp discussion took place in the columns of 

 ' Nature,' and it is characteristic of those who took the 

 chief part in this controversy that their friendly 

 relations remained undisturbed. Mr. Wallace criti- 

 cised the theory in the ' Fortnightly,' and Mr. 



