272 



EEV. PEOr. G. HENSLOW^ M.A.^ F.L.S., 



elements are not alive. The cell-wall is certainly not alive, it is a 

 carbonaceous excretion produced by, and on the surface of, the living 

 protoplasm within the cell. It is allied to starch and sugar, etc. 



If Mr. Sutton will do me the honour of reading my Hereditfi of 

 acquired Characters in Plants (1908, Murray), he will find most of his 

 queries answered. If not there they will be found in my two 

 volumes in the International Scientific Series, Origin of Flm^al Structures 

 (1888) and Origin of Plant Structures (1895, Kegan Paul and Co.). 

 Space will not let me add more, but I would observe that neither 

 Klebs nor Bateson mentions any experiments to substantiate his 

 statements ; many will be found in my books. Mr. Eouse alludes 

 to the fact that while land plants can change their foliage in water, 

 the flowers, as a rule, do not change proportionally or at all. This 

 is true, for the external conditions of life do not so affect the flowers 

 as they do the soma. Nevertheless, great degenerations are to be 

 seen in many, e.g., the loss of the yellow in the corollas of the water 

 crowfoot. Much degeneration is seen in the flowers of all the 

 Halaragece, etc. 



Flooding a field is not Nature's method of encouraging 

 adaptations. It is, as far as we can see, done by degrees. It must 

 begin with the seeds in moisture ; not by such a destructive method 

 as he describes. 



Mr. D. Howard observes that law requires a law-giver ; so as 

 directivity expresses the fact that new structures imply purpose, 

 purpose implies mind, and mind means God. 



That various species of the same kind, cinchona, etc., as well as 

 other plants, yield different amounts of the same product is of 

 frequent occurrence. Thus strong scents, alkaloids, etc., vary in 

 quality according to the environment. It is well known that dry 

 places especially favour these productions rather than the reverse ; 

 tea has more tannin on the hills, etc. It is all the same thing, viz., 

 the results of response to the conditions of life. 



As to Mr. Collett's question : who doubts my correctness 

 in saying evolution is a " proved " doctrine. He refers to Sir Oliver 

 Lodge and Tyndall, neither of whom is a biologist ! The writer 

 says he does not believe in the evolution of man, and, like 

 Mr. Sutton, would refer to Gen. i, 27, as refuting it. 



I will, therefore, in my turn, go to our greatest Assyrian and 

 Hebrew scholar, Rev. Dr. Sayce, Professor of Assyriology. He tells 



