i860.] THE 'EDINBURGH REVIEW.' 313 



" What a quibble to pretend he did not understand what I 

 meant by inhabitants of South America ; and any one would' 

 suppose that I had not throughout my volume touched on 

 Geographical Distribution. He ignores also everything which 

 I have said on Classification, Geological Succession, Homo- 

 logies, Embryology, and Rudimentary Organs p. 496. 



He falsely applies what I said (too rudely) about " blind- 

 ness of preconceived opinions " to those who believe in 

 creation, whereas I exclusively apply the remark to those who 

 give up multitudes of species as true species, but believe in 

 the remainder p. 500. 



He slightly alters what I say, I ask whether creationists- 

 really believe that elemental atoms have flashed into life. He 

 says that I describe them as so believing, and this, surely, is a 

 difference p. 501. 



He speaks of my " clamouring against " all who believe in 

 creation, and this seems to me an unjust accusation p. 501. 



He makes me say that the dorsal vertebrae vary; this is simply 

 false : I nowhere say a word about dorsal vertebrae p. 522. 



What an illiberal sentence that is about my pretension 

 to candour, and about my rushing through barriers which 

 stopped Cuvier : such an argument would stop any progress 

 in science p. 525. 



How disingenuous to quote from my remark to you about 

 my brief letter [published in the ' Linn. Soc. Journal'], as if it 

 applied to the whole subject p. 530. 



How disingenuous to say that we are called on to accept 

 the theory, from the imperfection of the geological record, 

 when I over and over again [say] how grave a difficulty the 

 imperfection offers p. 530."] 



C. Darwin to y. D. Hooker. 



Down, May 3oth [1860]. 



MY DEAR HOOKER, I return Harvey's letter, I have been 

 very glad to see the reason why he has not read your Essay. 



