i88i.] 
( 303 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
%* The Editor does not hold himself responsible for statements of fatts or 
opinions expressed in Correspondence, or in Articles bearing the signature 
of their respective authors. 
DISCORD AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS. 
To the Editor of the Journal of Science. 
Sir, — Has it ever struck you as an upleasant faCt that modern 
naturalists or evolutionists — for the terms are nearly synonymous 
— wash far too much dirty linen in public, and, not content with 
criticising opinions, indulge in needless personal ties ? Among 
the offenders Prof. Haeckel takes a foremost place. Witness his 
comments on Du Bois-Reymond’s “ Grenzen der Natur-erkent- 
niss,” to be found in the Preface to the “ Evolution of Man ” ; 
his notice of Vogt and of Semper, in the same work ; his 
ascription of a “ diseased imagination ” to A. R. Wallace ; his 
condemnation of Agassiz, as insincere, “ gifted with too much 
genius actually to believe in the truth of the mystic nonsense 
which he preached.” Prof. Haeckel’s comments on Herrn 
Reichert and Goethe are in one sense perhaps justifiable ; but 
it may well be asked whether these writers deserve notice 
at all ? 
We have then, on the other side, Prof. Semper’s work 
“ Haeckelism in Natural History.” Dr. G. H. Schneider’s 
strictures on Prof. Dohrn, of the Naples Aquarium, go, to say 
the least, beyond the boundaries of courtesy. The attacks of 
Mr. S. Butler, and even those of Prof. St. George Mivart, upon 
Mr. Darwin ( see “ Lessons from Nature ”) seem to me open to 
the same objection. 
If naturalists would bear in mind how greatly their difficult 
task is impeded by such outbreaks, and what delight these bick- 
erings afford to the enemies of scientific progress, they would, I 
think, be more mindful of the suaviter in modo . — I am, &c., 
B. R. P. 
