222 GEORGE JOHN ROMANES lssi- 



though, curiously enough, it is the particular on 

 which my critics have laid least stress when accusing 

 me of Darwinian heresy. But it is too big a question 

 to treat in correspondence. Gulick's recently pub- 

 lished paper at the Linnean Society seems to me a 

 most important one in this connection, and I have 

 a large body of other evidence. 



To F. Darwin, Esq. 1 



18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W. : January 8, 1889. 



Dear Darwin, — Hate you, indeed ! Why, I can- 

 not imagine any better service than that of stopping 

 a fellow from making a fool of himself, and I most 

 cordially thank you for having done so in this case. 

 The business was so completely out of my line, that 

 I did not know what was required. It seemed to 

 me that if I got any evidence of bending towards the 

 sparks, the only question I wanted to answer would 

 be answered, and, therefore, that it did not matter 

 a straw about temperature, moisture, and the rest. 

 Moreover, the results did not seem to me to be of any 

 importance, as they were just what might have been 

 expected, and, therefore, I doubted whether it was 

 worth while publishing a paper about them. Had 

 they gone the other way, and proved that the plants 

 would not bend to flashing light, I should have thought 

 it much more interesting. Lastly, the research was 

 so expensive, costing £1 per day at the only place 



1 Mr. F. Darwin had pointed out some erroneous conclusions in a pro- 

 jected scientific paper. 



