196 GEOEGE JOHN EOMANES issi- 



And have they, as yet, been pubHshed anywhere ? If 

 not, I suppose it is undesirable to allude to them in 

 public ? The theory is ingenious, but seems to sail 

 rather near Pangenesis (as do many of the latter 

 amendments of germplasm by W.) ; and I should 

 have thought that the limbs of salamanders, &c., are 

 too late products, both phylogenetically and ontogene- 

 tically, to fall within its terms. 



I also see better what you mean about Sphex. 

 But Darwin's letter in ' Mental Evolution in Animals ' 

 seems to me to meet (or rather to anticipate) the 

 ' difficulty.' Of course, he did not suppose that the 

 insects' knowledge of ' success ' goes further than 

 finding out and observing the best place to sting in 

 order to produce the maximum effect. The analogy 

 of Cymphs is apposite ; but is it the fact that there 

 is any species whose localisation is really compara- 

 ble with that of Sphex? Contrasting Weismann's 

 account with Fabre's, I should say not. 



As for neuter insects (which you mentioned at 

 Newcastle), Darwin allows that they constitute one 

 of the most difficult cases to bring under natural selec- 

 tion, seeing that this has here to act at the end of a 

 long lever of the wrong kind, so to speak. Bead 

 Perrier's preface to French translation of 'Mental 

 Evolution in Animals,' and observe how good his 

 suggestion is, on the supposition that Lamarckian 

 principles have any apphcability at all. 



Lastly, at Newcastle you said something that 

 seemed to imply a doubt upon such facts as Lord 

 Morton's mare. Do you really doubt such facts ? I 

 cannot suppose it. 



