222 Luck, or Cunning ? 
a twelvemonth after this passage was written, natural 
selection was publicly abjured as “‘ a theory of the origin 
of species ’’ by Mr. Romanes himself, with the implied 
approval of the Times. 
“Thus,” continues Mr. Allen, ‘“ the name of Darwin 
will often no doubt be tacked on to what are in reality the 
principles of Lamarck.” 
It requires no great power of prophecy to foretell 
this, considering that it is done daily by nine out of ten 
who call themselves Darwinians. Ask ten people of 
ordinary intelligence how Mr. Darwin explains the fact 
that giraffes have long necks, and nine of them will answer 
“through continually stretching them to reach higher 
and higher boughs.”’ They do not understand that this is 
the Lamarckian view of evolution, not the Darwinian ; nor 
will Mr. Allen’s book greatly help the ordinary reader to 
catch the difference between the two theories, in spite of 
his frequent reference to Mr. Darwin’s “ distinctive 
feature,”’ and to his ‘‘ master-key.”’ No doubt the British 
public will get to understand all about it some day, but it 
can hardly be expected to do so all at once, considering 
the way in which Mr. Allen and so many more throw dust 
in its eyes, and will doubtless continue to throw it as long 
as an honest penny is to be turned by doing so. Mr. 
Allen, then, is probably right in saying that “ the name of 
Darwin will no doubt be often tacked on to what are in 
reality the principles of Lamarck,” nor can it be denied that 
Mr. Darwin, by his practice of using “ the theory of natural 
selection ” as though it were a synonym for “‘ the theory of 
descent with modification,” contributed to this result. 
I do not myself doubt that he intended to do this, but 
Mr. Allen would say no less confidently he did not. He 
writes of Mr. Darwin as follows :— 
“ Of Darwin’s pure and exalted moral nature no English- 
man of the present generation can trust himself to speak 
with becoming moderation.” 
