194 
G. Udny Yule. 
The facts collected by Mr. Bateson and Miss Saunders in the 
“ Report,” have considerably extended the area of application of the 
highly remarkable laws discovered by Mendel, as well as to a minor 
extent the list of exceptions; they do not, however, appear to throw 
much fresh light on the fundamental nature of the laws themselves. 
The sections of the two volumes which do appear to call for criti¬ 
cism and review are those relating to the bearing of Mendel’s 
results on the conceptions of heredity in general, and on the work 
of Mr. Francis Galton and Professor Pearson in particular. Mr. 
Bateson devotes many words to these questions, but one cannot help 
feeling that his speculations would have had more value had he kept 
his emotions under better control ; the style and method of the 
religious revivalist are ill-suited to scientific controversy. It is diffi¬ 
cult to speak with patience either of the turgid and bombastic 
preface to “ Mendel’s Principles,” with its reference to Scribes and 
Pharisees, and its Carlylean inversions of sentence, or of the grossly 
and gratuitously offensive reply to Professor Weldon and the 
almost equally offensive adulation of Mr. Galton and Professor 
Pearson. A writer who indulges himself in displays of this kind 
loses his right to be treated either as an impartial critic or as a 
sober speculator. Mr. Bateson is welcome to dissent from Professor 
Weldon’s opinions, but it would have been well if he had imitated 
the studied moderation and courtesy of his article. 
Mr. Bateson may no doubt congratulate himself on a succes de 
scandale, but it is difficult to see that his “ Defence ” attains any 
worthier goal. Apart altogether from the question of good manners, 
the entire history of scientific and philosophical controversy would 
have taught a more judicious disputant that personal polemic is the 
very worst method of arriving at truth ; an attack of this kind can do 
nothing but distract attention from the scientific question and 
concentrate it upon ephemeral personalities. If Mendel’s laws are 
of the importance that Mr. Bateson claims, the general acknow¬ 
ledgment of that importance is bound to come, whether one writer 
or another is sceptical or not. Nor does it appear that the 
responsible advisers of the Cambridge Press can be acquitted of a 
certain failure to appreciate the dignity that should belong to a 
University Press, in allowing the publication of a volume containing 
insinuations such as those Mr. Bateson has permitted himself to 
put on paper. 
The fact that I am inclined to agree with Mr. Bateson as to the 
possibly very high importance in practice and theory of Mendelian 
