1893 EVTDENGE FOE PHYSIOLOGICAL SELECTION 307 



correlations to obtain in a surprisingly general 

 manner. 



I -wish that, instead of perpetually misunderstand- 

 ing the theory, you English botanists would help me 

 by pointing out exceptions to these two rules, so that 

 I might specially investigate them. It seems to me 

 that the group you name goes to corroborate the 

 first of them, while all Jordan's work, for instance, 

 uniformly bears out the second. And whatever may 

 be thought about him in other respects, I am not 

 aware that anyone has ever refuted his observations 

 and experiments so far as I am concerned with them. 

 Yours ever sincerely, 



Gr. J. EOMANES. 

 94 St. Aldate's, Oxford : June 22. 



Dear Dyer, — I received a letter from by the 



same post that brought yours of the 19th inst. From 

 it I gather that his opinion on the subject of telegony 

 has not changed in any material respect since our 

 inquiry began. His opiuion has always been such as 

 you now quote (' atavism ' on the one hand, with a 

 small Tnin nrity of ' dormant fertilisation ' cases on the 

 other). His has likewise always been my own view 

 (with the addition of coiacidence), and has been cor- 

 roborated by the result of these inquiries. So I think 

 we are all three pretty well in agreement, because both 



and myself share in your doubts as to the 



minority of the cases being really due to dormant 

 fertilisation — i.e. not to be ascribed to coincidence or 

 mal-observation. Also, as I said before, I quite agree 

 with you that ' neither view is any help to Herbert 



x2 



