68 James Small. 
tinuity in the number of ray florets and the occurrence # of Fibonacci 
numbers among them is abundantly proved. 
Willis (58-60, X, 74 and IV, 93) is one of the few who have 
in recent years written for the specific purpose of controverting 
natural selection but many have expressed doubts as to the causative 
action of such a negative principle as elimination. Walton (54) 
writing of the direct connection between the rotation of the earth 
and the rotation of aquatic micro-organisms says “ Any attempt to 
account for it on the basis of natural selection can scarcely gain 
credence.” The denial of the theory is also not uncommon among 
amateur naturalists who have spent many years in close observa¬ 
tion of wild life. Thus Fountain (16), as a result of his observations 
on the celerity with which animals detect their prey in spite of so- 
called protective colouring, regards the whole theory of protective 
colouration as the result of insufficient observation in the field 
followed by inaccurate fireside reasoning, and pours scorn on the 
the natural selectionists in general (cp. op. cit., p. 95). 
The elimination of the unfit by natural selection is a biological 
axiom which is not controverted by anyone, but its effect as 
an originating cause of species is not so evident. 
Hybridisation 
The most extreme views on the theory of the origin of species 
by hybridisation are expressed by Lotsy (35-36). This theory 
receives substantial support from the well-known and completely 
proved phenomena of Mendelism and from the work of Jeffrey and 
his collaborators (29, etc.). In spite of the extremeness of his 
views Lotsy has given definitions of “ Linneon ” and “ Jordanon ” 
(36) which should prove very useful if applied in future experimental 
work, since he distinguishes carefully between taxonomic species 
and genetically pure species. 
It seems very clear from the Mendelian work that distinct 
forms or even species may arise by Mendelian segregation and re¬ 
combination. The segregates of Senecio vulgaris obtained by Trow 
(IV, 84) would almost certainly have been described as separate 
species if they had been examined and described in the usual way 
by the usual taxonomists. Cockayne (X, 15) gives specific cases of 
confusion between hybrids and true species. 
The cytological work of Morgan and others (38-39) has furnish¬ 
ed a reasonable foundation in structure for the origin of very 
varied types by Mendelian segregation. The origin of new 
characters which is necessary for progress is not, however, 
