is j 4 ON SELF- ADAPTATION 365 



shells oi nuts, soft pulp of fruits, &c. ? Here it is 

 that natural selection theory has the pull. And so 

 of adaptive colours, odours, and secretions ? I con- 

 fess that, even accepting inheritance of acquired 

 characters, I could conceive of ' self-adaptation ' 

 alone producing all such innumerable and diversified 

 adjustments only by seeing with Newman (in his 

 ' Apologia ') an angel in every flower. 



Besides, I do not see why you are shut up to 

 this, even on your own principles. For surely, be 

 there as much self-adaptation in Nature as ever you 

 please, it would still be those individuals (or incipient 

 types) which best respond to stimulation (i.e. most 

 adaptively do so) that, other things equal, would 

 survive in the struggle for existence, and so be 

 naturally selected. In other words, I do not see 

 why you should accept natural selection as regards 

 : vigour ' of seedlings, and nowhere else. 



I quite accept the validity of your criticism of my 

 physiological selection in your book, supposing your 

 ■ self-adaptation ' true to the extent you suppose. 

 But otherwise what you say tells in favour of physio- 

 logical selection, at least, excepting the statement as 

 to new alhed species originating as a rule on distant 

 areas from parent types. This, however, is certainly 

 an erroneous statement, though I should like to 

 know how you came to make it. 



I much wish I could write more or meet you. 

 For, notwithstanding apparent bluntness (for brevity's 

 sake), I see you are one of the few evolutionists who 

 think for yourself. 



With many thanks, yours very truly, 



G. J. Bomanes. 



