328 Darwin, and after Darwin. 



to put any " strained interpretation " upon them, I believe 

 that they are but the plain and unequivocal expressions 

 of an opinion which I have always understood that 

 Darwin held. And if any one has been led to think other- 

 wise, I throw back this charge of " strained interpretation," 

 by challenging such a person to adduce a single quotation 

 from any part of Darwin's works, which can possibly be 

 held to indicate that he regarded passages like those 

 above quoted as in any way out of conformity with his 

 theory of natural selection — or as put forward merely 

 to " admit the possibility of explanations, to which really, 

 however, he did not attach much importance." To the 

 best of my judgement it is only some bias in favour of 

 Mr. Wallace's views that can lead a naturalist to view in 

 this way the clear and consistent expression of Darwin's. 



That Mr. Wallace himself should be biassed in this matter 

 might, perhaps, be expected. After rendering the following 

 very unequivocal passage from the Origin 0/ Species (p. 72) — 

 " There can be little doubt that the tendency to vary in the 

 same manner has often been so strong, that all individuals of 

 the same species have been similarly modified without the aid of 

 any form of selection " — Mr. Wallace says, " But no proof 

 whatever is offered of this statement, and it is so entirely 

 opposed to all we know of the facts of variation as given by 

 Darwin himself, that the important word ' all ' is probably an 

 oversight." But, if Mr. Wallace had read the very next 

 sentence he would have seen that here the important 

 word " all " could not possibly have been " an oversight." 

 For the passage continues, — " Or only a third, fifth, or tenth 

 part of the individuals may have been thus affected, of which 

 fact several instances could be given. Thus Graba estimates 

 that about one-fifth of the guillemots in the Faroe Islands 

 consist of a variety so well marked, that it was formerly 

 ranked as a distinct species under the name of Uria 

 lacrymans." And even if this passage had not been thus 



