Chapter III (3)

Regarding sexual selection I certainly am very much in earnest
about its parallel to p.s.[62] If you intend the meaning of n.s.
so as to embrace s.s. it will at the same time embrace also p.s.
For s.s., like p.s., has nothing to do with life-preserving
characters; yet, also like p.s., it has to do with the
differentiation of specific forms. (There is no distinction
to be drawn between 'the species of a cock' and 'the plumage
of a cock': plumage is the most favourite part of a bird
with ornithologists on which to found specific diagnoses.)
Therefore, if p.s. is true at all--which, of course, is another
question--even my celebrated powers of 'dialectical subtlety' are
completely unable to perceive any difference between p.s. and
s.s. in respect of their relation to n.s.

Lastly, as regards Nägeli, no doubt he is an out-and-out
Lamarckian, but I did not see that this should make any
difference touching his opinion on a matter of fact not more
connected with Lism. than Dism. I will look up 'Nature' for 1870.

With best Christmas wishes and many thanks for botanical hints.

December 26, 1888.

It has occurred to me that if you know Churchill's address, I
might save time by writing to him before seeing him when he comes
in spring.

It has also occurred to me that I might perhaps put the argument
on pp. 801-4 better before you thus:

_If_ phys. sel. is true, it would follow that as between allied
species, mutual sterility ought to occur in all degrees (from
zero to absolute), and that there ought to be a correlation
between these degrees of sterility and degrees of non-separation,
topographically.

Now, you cannot possibly doubt that the first expectation is
realised in nature; as between allied species sterility does
occur in all degrees, from there being no such sterility at
all in very many cases, to there being absolute sterility in
other cases. Therefore, in stating this fact as a fact, I am
not playing at 'heads I win and tails you lose,' nor 'begging
the whole question at the outset.' Any 'question' really arises
only with regard to the second expectation--viz. whether there
is a general correlation between degrees of mutual fertility and
degrees of topographical isolation.

Now, this question I have not begged, but, on the contrary,
stated as the question by an experimental answer to which my
theory must stand or fall.

Thus, the cases which you mention obviously go to support the
theory, inasmuch as they conform to the expectation above
mentioned. What I want to do is to find as many genera as
possible like binchona and begonia, where the constituent species
are separated geographically or topographically, and (? in
consequence) easily hybridise with one another.

Therefore, as a mere matter of method, I cannot see that I have
begged any question: for the only question is not about the facts
which I state, but about my suggested explanation of them. And
this question can only be answered by ascertaining whether there
is in nature any such general correlation between isolation and
capability of hybridising (also, of course, between the absence
of isolation and the absence of such capability) as my theory
would require.

Yours very sincerely,
G. J. ROMANES.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: December 27, 1888.

I am most glad that in your last letter you deal with what
I consider the real 'question'--viz. not whether degrees of
sterility obtain among a large proportional number of species,
but whether there is any such correlation between them and
absence of isolation of other kinds as my theory would expect.
And, in dealing with this question you hit upon precisely the
two greatest difficulties which I have myself concluded lie
against the theory. The first is about areas now discontinuous
having been once continuous, and our being so often unable to say
whether or not such has been the case. But this difficulty is
one that lies against _verification_ of the theory, not against
the theory itself. It was in view of this difficulty that I
mentioned oceanic islands as furnishing the best flora for trying
experiments upon; but since I published the paper, I have not
been able to hear of any botanists visiting islands. Should you
ever hear of any you might let me know.

The second difficulty is one that lies against the theory itself,
and has always seemed to me most formidable. But as nobody
else has ever mentioned it, I have not hitherto done so, as I
want to work it out quietly. I allude to your remark about the
extraordinary differences that obtain among different genera
with regard to the capability of intercrossing exhibited by
their constituent species. This, I confess, has from the first
appeared a tremendous objection to my theory. On the other hand,
I have taken comfort from the consideration that besides being
a tremendous objection, it is also a tremendous mystery. For, as
it must admit of some explanation, and as this explanation must
almost certainly have to do with the sexual system, it becomes
not improbable that when found the explanation may square with
p.s. That the difference in question is functional and not
structural (or physiological as distinguished from morphological)
seems to be proved by the fact that in some cases it obtains
as between the most closely allied genera, being, _e.g._, most
strongly pronounced of all between Geranium and Pelargonium. Even
quite apart from my own theory, it seems to me that this is a
subject of the highest importance to investigate.

As regards sexual selection I allow, of course, that the 'law of
battle' is a form of natural selection. But where the matter is
merely a pleasing of æsthetic taste, and the resulting structures
therefore only ornamental, I can see nothing 'advantageous' in
the sense of life-preserving. On the contrary, in most cases
such structures entail considerable expenditure of physiological
energy in their production. On this account Darwin says that
nat. sel. must impose a check on sexual selection running beyond
a certain point of injuriousness ('D. of M.,' p. 227). Now,
physiological selection is never thus injurious; and although it
is a 'form of isolation,' the isolation is neither so extreme
nor of such long continuance as the ones you compare it with.
Moreover, the environment (therefore all other or external
conditions of life) remain the same, which is not the case under
the other forms of isolation. Provided that the physiological
change is not _in itself_ injurious, I do not see why
_physiologically_ isolated forms should be less fit than those
from which they have been separated, though I can very well see
why this should be the case with such _geographically_ isolated
forms as you mention, for there the _schooling_ is different.
Lastly, physiological selection, if not in itself injurious, does
not require that its children should be 'protected against the
struggle for existence.' On the contrary, as I say in my paper,
it is calculated to give this struggle a better chance than ever
to develope adaptive character in the sexually isolated forms,
because the swamping effects of intercrossing are diminished.

But I really did not intend to afflict you with another jaw of
this kind. I am, however, very glad that we now understand each
other better than we did. At all events on my side I think I now
know exactly the points which I have to make good if Nature is
so constituted as to admit of my theory. One thing only I have
forgotten to say, viz. that nothing can be argued against the
theory from the fact of hybridisation occurring in cases where,
according to the theory, it ought not to occur. This argument
only becomes valid where it is found that the resulting hybrids
are _fertile_. In relation to the theory, a sterile hybrid is all
the same as a failure to cross.

Yours very sincerely,
G. J. ROMANES.

P.S.--I forgot to ask you if there would be any facilities in
spring at Kew for repeating Adam's graft of purple on yellow
laburnum. I want to try this experiment in budding on a large
scale because of its importance on Weismannism, should the result
of any of the grafts go to corroborate Adam's account of the way
in which he produced the hybrid. If you agree to the experiments
being tried at Kew, perhaps you might let me know whether there
are any purple laburnums already in the gardens, or whether I
should get the material over from France. But in that case you
might also let me know to whom in France or elsewhere I had
best apply. However, do not bother to answer any other parts of
this tremendous letter, these we can discuss in conversation
hereafter. A postcard to answer this postscript, however, is
desirable, as then it might be possible to get matters in train
for next budding season.

G. J. R.

I should much like to meet Churchill. Will you remember to tell
me when he comes?

_To F. Darwin, Esq._

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: January 20, 1889.

Dear Darwin,--Many thanks for your long letter. I thought you
might have had some notes or memories of conversations, to show
in a general way what the 'line' would have been.[63] If so, of
course I should not have said that my sayings were inspired, but
should myself have known that I was not going astray.

The line I am going to take is:

1st. Even assuming, for sake of argument, that heightened colour
is correlated with increased vigour, Wallace everywhere fails
to distinguish between brilliancy and ornament; yet it is the
disposition of colours in patterns, &c., that is the chief thing
to be explained.

2nd. In many cases (_e.g._ peacock's tail) the pattern is
only revealed when unfolded during courtship. Besides natural
selection could not be such a fool as to develope large
(physiologically expressive) and weighty (impeding flight)
structures like this--stags' antlers, &c., merely as correlates
of vigour.

3rd. There is not much in Wallace's merely negative difficulty
about our not knowing what goes on in the mind of a hen, when we
set against that difficulty the positive fact that we can see
what does go on in the mind of a cock--display, antics, song, &c.

4th. To say that 'each bird finds a mate under any circumstances'
is merely to beg the whole question.

5th. There remains Wallace's jealousy of natural selection. He
will not have any other 'factor,' and therefore says natural
selection must eat up sexual selection like the lean kine have
the fat kine. But natural selection alone does not explain all
the phenomena of sexual colouring, courtship, &c., and sexual
selection is exactly the theory that does. Wallace's jealousy,
therefore, is foolish and inimical to natural selection theory
itself, by forcing it into explanations which are plainly false.

My own belief is, that what Lankester calls the 'pure Darwinians'
are doing the same thing in another direction. By endeavouring,
with Wallace and Weismann, to make natural selection all in
all as the sole cause of adaptive structure, and expressly
discarding the Darwinian recognition of use and disuse. I think
they are doing harm to natural selection theory itself. Moreover,
because I do not see any sufficient reason as yet to budge from
the real Darwinian standpoint (Weismann has added nothing to the
facts which were known to Charles Darwin), the post-Darwinians
accuse me of moving away from Darwinian principles. But it is
they who are moving, and, because they see a change in our
relative positions, affirm that it is I. In point of fact, my
position has never varied in the least, and my confession of
faith would still follow, in every detail, that given on p.
421 of 'Origin,' 6th ed., which, it seems to me, might also be
regarded as prophetic no less than retrospective.

If I did not say all this in my paper in physiological selection,
it is only because I never conceived the possibility of my being
accused of trying to undermine natural selection; and, therefore,
I only stated as briefly as possible what my relations were to
it. Yet it seems to me that this statement was clear enough if
Wallace had not come down with his preposterous 'Romanes _versus_
Darwin.' At all events, it is not in my power--or, I believe, in
that of anybody else--to express more strongly than I now have
in 'Nature,' in answer to Dyer, what I do hold about natural
selection in its relation to physiological selection, sexual
selection, and other subordinate principles. Of course, if there
were a debate on these lines at the B.A., I should get my part
of it published somewhere. As far as I can honestly see, my
'position' is absolutely identical with that in last editions of
'Origin' and 'Descent,' with, perhaps, a 'tendency' to lay more
stress on levelling influence of Panmixia.

_Re_ physiological selection. I have sent Correvon, of Geneva,
£50 to help in founding a garden in the Alps, which will have the
proud distinction of being the highest garden in the world. He is
a splendid man for his knowledge of Alpine flora, and besides, is
strongly bitten with a desire to test physiological selection. Of
course I shall do the hybridising experiments myself, but he will
collect the material from the different mountains--_i.e._ nearly
allied species, topographically separated, and therefore, I hope,
mutually fertile. The converse experiments of nearly allied
species on common areas may be tried in England.

I am making arrangements for repeating on an extensive scale
experiments on budding purple laburnum on yellow, to see if it is
possible to reproduce 'Adam's eye' hybrid. If so, it would now
be of more importance than ever in relation to Weismann. By the
way, he is sorely put to it in the case of plants which reproduce
themselves not only by cuttings, but even by leaves. Here he is
bound to confess that his germ-plasma occupies all the cellular
tissue of the entire plant. But if so, how in the world does his
germ-plasma differ from gemmules?

There! I did not intend to write you anything of a letter when I
began, but have gone on and on till it is well for you that the
second sheet is coming to an end.

Yours ever,
G. J. ROMANES.

P.S.--Any contributions to Correvon's garden (however small)
would be thankfully received by him. Possibly his garden may be
of some use to English botanists; if so, you might send the hat
round, and collect any coppers that fall.

_To Professor Thiselton-Dyer._

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: January 7, 1889.

My dear Dyer,--Knowing what a busy man you are, I never expected
you to answer my last letter, and therefore it has come as an
agreeable surprise. For no doubt you will believe me when I
say that I value much more communications which are opposed to
physiological selection than those in its favour; the former show
me better what has to be done in the way of verification, as
well as the general views which may be taken on the subject by
other minds. And most of all is this the case when anyone like
yourself gives me the benefit of opinions which are formed by a
trained experience in botany, seeing that here I am myself such
a sorry ignoramus. And I willingly confess that your strongly
expressed opinion has seriously shaken my hopes for physiological
selection, notwithstanding that some German botanists think
otherwise. Nevertheless, I still think that it is worth while
to devote some years to experimental testing, and then, if the
results are against me--well, I shall be sorry to have spent so
much time over a wild flower chase, and to have kicked up so much
scientific dust in the process; but I will not be ashamed to
acknowledge that Nature has said No.

And now for your last letter. Read in the light of subsequent
experience, I have no doubt that I ought to have expressed myself
with more care while writing my paper. But, to tell the honest
truth, it never once occurred to me that I of all men could be
suspected of trying to undermine the theories of Darwin. I was
entirely filled with the one idea of presenting what seemed
to me 'a supplementary hypothesis,' which, while 'in no way
opposed to natural selection,' would 'release the latter from
the only difficulties' which to my mind it had ever presented.
Therefore I took it for granted that everybody would go with me
in recognising natural selection as the 'boss' round which every
'other theory' must revolve, without my having to say so on
every page. So, of course, by 'other theory' I did not mean that
physiological selection was in my opinion the _only_ theory of
the origin of species. Everywhere throughout the paper, from the
title-page to the conclusion, I represented it as an 'additional
suggestion,' a 'supplementary hypothesis,' &c., &c. Sexual
selection is in my view (as it is also in Darwin's, Wallace's,
and doubtless that of all evolutionists) one of the 'other
theories that have been propounded on the origin of species.'
So is Lamarck's theory, which was considered by Darwin as _more
or less_ 'supplementary' to natural selection; and this is all
that I meant--or, I should say, could possibly be understood to
mean in view of the title-page, &c.--by speaking of physiological
selection as another theory of the origin of species. It
certainly is not the _same_ thing as natural selection or either
of the 'other theories' just mentioned; but no less certainly it
is not _exclusive_ of any of the three. Unquestionably it is as
you say, and as I myself said, an _independent_ theory--_i.e._
not identical with, but additional to, that of natural selection.
But this is a widely different thing from saying that it is in
itself an _exhaustive_ theory, which must therefore swallow up
all or any 'others.' In short, I abide by the closing statement
of my introductory paragraph--viz. that the theory is an 'attempt
at suggesting _another factor_ in the formation of species,
which, although quite _independent_ of natural selection, is
in no way _opposed_ to natural selection, and may therefore be
regarded as a factor _supplementary_ to natural selection.'
Statements to the same effect are indeed scattered through
the entire paper; but, of course, could I have foreseen the
interpretations which afterwards arose, I should have reiterated
such statements _ad nauseam_.

Sorry you cannot come to the B.A., or to dine, but certainly do
not wonder.

Yours very sincerely,
G. J. ROMANES.

Lastly, about species not being able to exist as species without
the physiological isolation of physiological selection (p. 403),
the statement of course only applies to nearly allied species
occupying common areas (see p. 404). If this statement is wrong,
no one has yet shown me wherein it is so. I fancy you do not
quite appreciate that by 'sterility' I always mean (unless
otherwise expressly stated) sterility _in some degree_, and
this not only with regard to the fertile hybrids. It is by no
means enough to point to natural and fertile hybrids as cases
opposed to physiological selection unless it has been shown by
experiment through a generation or two that these hybrids are
_fully_ fertile--_i.e._ as fertile as their parent species. Now,
experiments of this kind have rarely been carried through. If
you assume that the result of carrying them through would be
destructive of physiological selection by proving that fertile
hybrids are, as a rule, fully fertile, and also (which is very
important) that in any cases where experiment may show them to be
so, further experiment would fail to show that isolation has not
been effected in any other way (as by pre-potency, differences
of insect fertilisation, &c.)--in short, if you assume that
fertility is as complete between the two associated species as it
is within each species, how is it conceivable that they should
continue to be distinct? In this connection it is well to consult
Gulick's paper already referred to (especially p. 259, paragraph
1st) on the theoretical side, and Jordan's papers and books on
the practical side. I have repeated the latter's observations
on poppies, and find that where any considerable number of
individuals are concerned, natural selection is not nearly so
great a power in this respect. (Even in cases where it happens
that in-breeding is necessarily confined to single hermaphrodite
individuals for numberless generations, the handicapping is not
fatal: witness flowers which habitually fertilise themselves
before opening--especially some species of orchids, which never
seem to do otherwise, notwithstanding the elaborate provisions
for cross-fertilisation in other species.) Now, I believe most
of all in what I have called 'collective variation' of the
reproductive system in the way of physiological selection,
whereby, owing to some common influence acting on a large number
of individuals similarly and simultaneously, they all become
sexually co-adapted _inter se_ while physiologically isolated
from the rest. This essential feature of the theory seems to me
entirely to remove the difficulty about in-breeding, as well as
that which Wallace urged about the chances against a suitable
meeting of 'physiological complements.'

As for my having attributed too much to the swamping effects of
intercrossing (Panmixia), this, I am convinced, is the one and
only particular wherein I have at all departed from the judgments
of Darwin; though, curiously enough, it is the particular on
which my critics have laid least stress when accusing me of
Darwinian heresy. But it is too big a question to treat in
correspondence. Gulick's recently published paper at the Linnean
Society seems to me a most important one in this connection, and
I have a large body of other evidence.

_To F. Darwin, Esq._[64]

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W., January 8, 1889.

Dear Darwin,--Hate you, indeed! Why, I cannot imagine any better
service than that of stopping a fellow from making a fool of
himself, and I most cordially thank you for having done so in
this case. The business was so completely out of my line, that
I did not know what was required. It seemed to me that if I got
any evidence of bending towards the sparks, the only question I
wanted to answer would be answered, and, therefore, that it did
not matter a straw about temperature, moisture, and the rest.
Moreover, the results did not seem to me to be of any importance,
as they were just what might have been expected, and, therefore,
I doubted whether it was worth while publishing a paper about
them. Had they gone, the other way, and proved that the plants
would not bend to flashing light, I should have thought it much
more interesting. Lastly, the research was so expensive, costing
£1 per day at the only place where I could get the requisite
apparatus, and there they shut up at night.

Of course, I will withdraw this paper, and, if you think the
thing is worth working out in all the details you suggest, will
do so. In that case, it would be worth while to ascertain whether
there would be any electrical apparatus at Cambridge which I
could get the use of at a lower rate of profit to the owners.
A good-sized induction coil is really all that is required,
and they probably have this in the Cavendish. But there is not
one available in any of the London workshops, and so I had to
go to Appes, in the Strand. It is suggested that the debate
in Section _D_ at the British Association this year should be
opened by me on the question of utility as universal. Before I
agree, I should like to know what you think about the 'Nature'
controversy which I have recently had with Dyer, and out of which
the present suggestion has emanated. Perhaps we might arrange to
meet somewhere soon to have a talk over the expediency of such a
debate at all, and the lines on which, if held, it should run. Of
course, physiological selection would be carefully kept out. My
object would be to show the prime importance of natural selection
as a theory which everywhere accounts for adaptations.

Yours very sincerely,
G. J. ROMANES.

May 27, 1889.

Herewith I return, with many thanks, a pamphlet by Kerner,
numbered 738.

In my experiments with electric spark illumination on plants, I
notice that the seedlings, although so wonderfully heliotropic,
never form chlorophyll, even if exposed to a continuous stream
of sparks for 30 hours on end, while they will bend through 90°
in seven hours to single sparks following one another at one per
second. This proves that there is no connection at all between
heliotropism and formation of chlorophyll, or _vice versa_--a
point which I cannot find to have been hitherto stated. Do you
happen to know if it has been? If you do not happen to remember
anything bearing on this subject, do not trouble to search or to
answer.

Wallace's book[65] strikes me as very able in many parts, though
singularly feeble in others--especially the last chapter. He has
done but scant justice to Gulick's paper. Had he read it with any
care, he might have seen that it fully anticipates his criticism
on mine. But I think he deserves great credit for nowhere
chuckling. From the first he has been consistent in holding
natural selection the sole factor of organic evolution--leaving
no room for sexual selection, inheritance of acquired characters,
&c., &c. And now that he had lived to see an important body of
evolutionists adopting this view, there must have been a strong
temptation to 'I always told you so.' Yet there is nowhere any
note of this, or even so much as an allusion to his previous
utterances on the subject.

_To E. B. Poulton, Esq._

Geanies, Ross-shire: November 2, 1889.

My dear Poulton,--Continuing our antipodal correspondence,
and taking the points in your last letter _seriatim_, I quite
saw that your theory of repair was 'the logical outcome of
Weismann's' (being, in fact, a direct application of his views on
phylogeny to the case of repair); but I did not know whether the
outcome had been traced by him or by yourself. Now, I understand,
I may allude to it as yours. Again, what I meant about
regeneration of entire limbs, &c., was that, to meet such cases,
your diagram would require modification in the way that you now
suggest. Has it occurred to you as an argument in favour of this
suggestion (_i.e._ that the 'potentiality' of somatic germ-plasm
may in such cases be arrested in its process of ontogenetic
diffusion), that Darwin has shown, or at least alleged, that all
such cases may be traced to special adaptation to special needs,
dangers, &c.--so that the arrest may have been brought about in
these cases by natural selection?

If you deem the 'chief difference' between Darwin's and
Weismann's theory of heredity to be 'that the one implies
_material particles_ and the other only _physical and chemical
constitution_,' then, it seems to me, Weismann's theory will
become identical with Herbert Spencer's--seeing that this
is virtually the only respect in which Spencer's differs
from Darwin's. But I think there is another and a much more
important respect in which W.'s theory differs from both these
predecessors. However, to proceed to the next point, I agree with
you, that the sole object of the Sphex stinging the larvæ is
_now_ to cause them to 'keep,' and that natural selection must
have worked upon this for perfecting the instinct. But the point
is, what was the origin of the selective stinging? If merely
chance congenital variations, would unity to billions express
the chances against their ever arising? Get some mathematician
to calculate--giving as data superficial area of caterpillar
on the one hand and that of _nine_ ganglia on the other. Even
neglecting the consideration that the variation must occur many
times to give unaided natural selection a chance to fix it as an
instinct, the chances against its occurring only once would be
represented by the following series, where _x_ is the superficial
area of the caterpillar _minus_ that of eight ganglia, and unity
is superficial area of one ganglia:

1/x × 1/x × 1/x × 1/x × 1/x × 1/x × 1/x × 1/x × 1/x

If, as I suppose, _x_ may here be taken as = 100,000, the
chances against the variation occurring once would be written
in figures expressing unity to one thousand million billion
trillions. Of course I do not rely on calculations of this kind
for giving anything like accurate results (mathematics in biology
always seems to me like a scalpel in a carpenter's shop), but it
makes no difference how far one cuts down such figures as these.
Therefore, if Lamarck won't satisfy such facts, neither do I
think that Darwin _minus_ Lamarck can do so. We must wait for the
next man.

I will send you 'Perrier' on my return to town next month.

Lord Morton's experience is so universally that of all breeders
of live stock, that I never knew anybody ever doubted it. But,
if they do, there is no reason why they should not satisfy
themselves on the point. For my part I do not feel that the fact
requires any corroboration as regards mammals, though I have some
experiments going on with birds. Lastly, the apparently analogous
cases in plants are still worse for Weismann's theory, and they
stand on the best authorities.

I enclose a letter received by same post that brought yours. It
is from a former keeper of mine who is now more in the moorlands.
Other applications are out, so I hope some of them will be
successful. Very little doubt it will prove to be temperature. I
found a dead stoat here to-day; it had not turned white at all,
but then the season is very mild.

The Secretary of the R.I. is Sir F. Bramwell, Bart., F.R.S. You
had better write to him. Also to his son-in-law, Victor Horsley,
who is more of a biologist. Tell Bramwell, if you like, that I
think he ought to jump at you.

Yours very truly,
G. J. ROMANES.

Geanies, Ross-shire, N.B.: November 6, 1889.

My dear Poulton,--Many thanks for your paper, which is the
clearest exposition I have yet seen of Weismann's views. But
how about your allusion to experiments in grafting? As regards
plants, there _is_ a good deal of evidence as to the possibility
of a graft-hybrid. As regards animals, fifteen years ago I spent
an immensity of time in experimenting, and could not then find
that there was any literature on the subject. Nobody who had
grafted animal tissues had done so with any reference to the
heredity question, nor do I know of any publications on the
subject since then.

Yours very truly,
G. J. ROMANES.

Geanies, Ross-shire, N.B.: November 11, 1889.

My dear Poulton,--Although I spent more time and trouble than
I like to acknowledge (even to myself) in trying to prove
Pangenesis between '73 and '80, I never obtained any positive
results, and did not care to publish negative. Therefore there
are no papers of mine on the subject, although I may fairly
believe that no other human being has tried so many experiments
upon it. No doubt you will think that I ought to regard this fact
as so much negative evidence in favour of the new theory; and, up
to a certain point, I do, only the issue between Pangenesis and
Germ-plasm is not really or nearly so well defined as Weismann
represents, where the matter of experiments is concerned; _e.g._
it is not the case that any crucial test is furnished by the
non-transmissibility of mutilations; Darwin did not set much
store by them, though Eimer and others have done so since. In
fact all the Germans on both sides, and all the Englishmen on
Weismann's side, seem to me unjust to Darwin in this respect.

Regarding the cessation of selection, the motive that prompted my
question to you was not the paltry one of claiming priority in
the enunciation of an exceedingly obvious idea. My motive was to
assure myself that this idea is exactly the same as Weismann's
Panmixia; for, although I could see no difference, I thought
perhaps he and you did (from absence of allusion to my paper,
while priority is acknowledged as regards a later one); and, if
this were so, I wanted to know where the difference lay. And
the reason I wanted to know this was because when my paper was
published, and Darwin accepted the idea with enthusiasm, I put
it to him in conversation whether this idea might not supersede
Lamarckian principles altogether. (By carefully reading between
the lines of the paper itself, you will see how much this
question was occupying my mind at the time, though I did not
dare to challenge Lamarck's principles _in toto_ without much
more full inquiry.) Then it was that Darwin dissuaded me from
going on to this point, on the ground that there was abundant
evidence of Lamarck's principles apart from use and disuse of
structures--_e.g._ instincts--and also on the ground of his
theory of Pangenesis. Therefore I abandoned the matter, and
still retain what may thus be now a prejudice against exactly
the same line of thought as Darwin talked me out of in 1873.
Weismann, of course, has greatly elaborated this line of thought;
but what may be called the scientific axis of it (viz. possible
non-inheritance of acquired characters) is identical, and all the
more metaphysical part of it about the immortality, immutability,
&c., of a hypothetical germ-plasm is the weakest part in my
estimation.

Now, the point I am working up to is this. If there be no
difference between Panmixia and Cessation of Selection, from what
I have briefly sketched about it, it follows that, had Darwin
lived till now, he would almost certainly have been opposed to
Weismann. This is not a thing I should like to say in public, but
one that I should like to feel practically assured about in my
own mind.

Regarding the numerical calculations, I have not got a copy of
the 'Nature' paper here, but, so far as I remember (and I think
I am right), the idea was that 'Economy of Growth' would go on
assisting Cessation of Selection till the degenerating organ
became 'rudimentary.' In other words, _reversal_ of selection
would co-operate with _cessation_ of it.

This, as I understand it, is now exactly Weismann's view; only
he thinks that thus the rudimentary organ would finally become
extinguished. Here, however, it seems to me evident he must be
wrong. The reasons are obvious, as I am going to show this week
to my Edinburgh class. Six lectures are to be devoted entirely to
Weismann, and when they are published (as they will be this time
next year), I think it will be seen that Weismannism is not such
very plain sailing as Weismann himself seems to think. Vines has
anticipated some of my points in his paper in 'Nature'; but I
hope this may have the effect of letting me see what answers can
be given before I shall have to publish.

Yours very truly,
G. J. ROMANES.

In the midst of these scientific labours and scientific controversies, Mr. Romanes found time for other thoughts and for other work.

At the beginning of 1889 he delivered an address at Toynbee Hall on the Ethical Teaching of Christ, of which the following is an extract:

'The services rendered by Christ to the cause of morality have
been in two distinct directions. The first is in an unparalleled
change of moral conception, and the other in an unparalleled
moral example, joined with peculiar powers of moral exposition
and enthusiasm of moral feeling which have never before been
approached. The originality of Christ's teaching might in some
quarters be over-rated, but the achievement it was impossible
to overrate. It is only before the presence of Christ that the
dry bones of ethical abstraction have sprung into life. The
very essence of the new religion consists in re-establishing
more closely than ever the bonds between morality and religion.
One important effect of Christ's teaching and influence has
been the carrying into effect of the doctrine of universalism,
for previously the idea of human brotherhood can not be said
to have existed. Again, in the exaltation of the benevolent
virtues at the expense of the heroic, the change effected is
fundamental and abrupt. Christ may be said to have created the
virtues of self-abnegation, universal beneficence, unflinching
humility--indeed, the divine supremacy of compassion. Whether
Christ be regarded as human or divine, all must agree in
regarding the work of His life as by far the greatest work ever
achieved in the history of the human race. A topic of great
importance is the influence of Christ's personality in securing
the acceptance of His teaching. The personal character of Christ
is of an order _sui generis_, and even the most advanced of
sceptics have done homage to it. The more keen the intellectual
criticism, the greater is the appreciation of the uniqueness
of the personality. Men may cease to wonder at the effect of
Christ's teaching; for, given the wonderful personality, all the
rest must follow. Whatever answers different persons may give
to the questions, "What think ye of Christ? Whose son is He?"
everyone must agree that "His name shall be called Wonderful!"'

This brought on him two characteristic letters, one from an Agnostic lady, blaming him for attaching so much importance to Him whom she was pleased to call 'The Peasant of Nazareth,' the other from Dr. Paget:

Christ Church, Oxford: January 14, 1889.

My dear Romanes,--I hope you will not think me impertinent if
I write a few words of gratitude for the happiness which I
enjoyed in reading to-day even such an account of your address
at Toynbee Hall as the 'Times' gave me. There is always a risk
of impertinence in thanking a man for what he has said; for of
course he has said it because he saw it, and thought he ought to
say it, quite simply. But I may just thank you for the generous
willingness with which you accepted such a task:--and for the
light in which you looked at it:--as an opportunity for saying so
ungrudgingly, so open-heartedly, that which is clear to you about
our Lord. This must be, please God, a real bit of help to others;
and I trust and pray that it may return in help to you.

But how dark you were about it! I should have been furious if I
had been in London, and not there.

Please forgive me this letter; and do not think it needs any
answer.

Affectionately yours,
FRANCIS PAGET.

At the beginning of this year Mr. Romanes collected his various poems and had them privately printed. He writes to his sister:

February 1889.

Three weeks before the 11th I was wondering what I should get
as a wedding-day present to mark the tenth anniversary. Ethel
then chanced to say that she wished my poems were published, so
that she could have them in type. This suggested to me the idea
of putting them into type for private circulation, when they
might serve at once as the required wedding-present, and as a
preliminary to publication at any future time either by myself
or, more probably, by her or someone else. So I got an estimate
from the printer, and with an awful rush he set up the whole in
a week. Proof corrections occupied another week, and the binding
of a grand presentation copy the third week. Thus I only had my
present ready a few hours before it had to be presented. Binding
the other copies occupied the time till I sent you yours. In
Ethel's copy (which is awfully swell) I have written a special
sonnet, as I did in yours.

These poems, or rather a selection from them, will be published, in accordance with the author's wish.

Of his poetry, his sonnets (which were privately printed) seem the most successful. Various friends saw the privately printed book, and the present Professor of Poetry at Oxford gratified Mr. Romanes very much by his own kind words respecting them, and also by submitting them to Lord Tennyson, who spoke of them in kindly terms, as did also Dean Church, Mr. Edmund Gosse, Mr. George Meredith, and others. Two letters he received about his poems are here given:

_From the Dean of St. Paul's._

Ettenheim, Torquay: February 26, 1889.

My dear Mr. Romanes,--Thank you very much for your kindness in
thinking me worthy of your gift. I am always glad to see science
and poetry go together. It was the way with the earliest efforts
of natural science, as Empedocles and Lucretius; and when the
strictest thinking of science is done, there is still something
more of expression and meaning, of which poetry is the natural
and only adequate interpreter.

My acquaintance with your volume is as yet only superficial. But
I have been very much impressed by 'Charles Darwin,' and by the
'Dream of Poetry.' It is a very pleasant volume to open, and does
not send one away empty and cold; which means that it is genuine
poetry. We do not get on very fast; but we are better here than
in London, and the place is pleasant.

Please remember us all to Mrs. Romanes. Mary sends a very special
remembrance.

Yours faithfully,
R. W. CHURCH.

_From the Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone._

Hawarden.

Dear Mr. Romanes,--You have sent me an acceptable gift, and a
most considerate note; considerate as regards me, but not, I
fear, as respects yourself; for you have made your appeal to an
incompetent judge. I do not think I possess, though I have always
coveted, the gift of song, and I am not a qualified judge of
those who have it.

But in your case there can surely be neither difficulty nor
doubt. I came home on Saturday evening and found a book awaiting
me with prior personal claims, which has taken up most of the
short time since my arrival. It does not, however, I think,
require much time to learn from your book whether you have or
have not the poetic gift. Before many minutes had passed the
affirmation, I will not say dawned, but glared, upon me.

I am very glad that you have proceeded to its further exercise.
I can see no good reason why a man of science should not be a
poet. Lord Bacon surely shows in his Essays that he had the poet
in him. It all depends upon the way of going about it, and on the
man's keeping himself, as man, above his pursuit, as Emerson well
said long ago.

I do not quite apprehend your estimate of Darwin, nor of Darwin's
works, in p. 119. This is no doubt due to my ignorance. I knew
him little, but my slight intercourse with him impressed me
deeply as well as pleasurably.

With sincere thanks, I remain, dear Mr. Romanes, faithfully yours,

W. E. GLADSTONE.

Mr. Romanes was an omnivorous reader of poetry, and this taste grew by what it fed on. On a holiday he read poetry in preference to anything else, and he was very fond of good anthologies, beginning first and foremost with the 'Golden Treasury.' Shakespeare, Milton, and, above all, Tennyson were the poets he most loved. For Byron he had had an early boyish enthusiasm, but this he seemed to outgrow; at least Byron was not an author to whom in later years he turned. He grew more and more addicted to versifying in the later years of his life, and girl friends who grew into intimate acquaintances were sure to have sooner or later a sonnet sent to them on some special occasion.

As the years went on he became more interested in work amongst the poor, and longed to take up some special line. For a while he set up a small school in a slum near the Euston Road, in which he tried to attract the very poorest boys who had managed to elude the vigilance of the School Board. His plan was to have only morning school, and to give the children their dinner. The School Board officer came to his aid, and the school was maintained for one or two winters.

He visited the school regularly, and on one occasion, finding that a boy had been grossly rude to the mistress, he gave the young scamp a sound whipping.

For other people's interests in the way of work he had much sympathy; he several times went down to the Christ Church mission at Poplar when the Rev. H. L. Paget was in charge, and he lectured at Toynbee Hall and at the Oxford House.

Of the work of the clergy as a whole Romanes always spoke most warmly; of the peculiar dislike of and suspicion of 'black coats,' so often attributed to laymen in general and to scientific men in particular, he had no trace, and as years went on he used to be gently chaffed for his clerical tendencies and the way in which he was consulted as to the bearings of Science on Religion.

Two new correspondents were now added to Mr. Romanes' list, Professor Joseph Le Conte, of the University of California, and the Rev. J. Gulick, who was, and is still, an American missionary in Japan. Of Mr. Gulick's scientific attainments, Mr. Romanes entertained a very high opinion. Unfortunately, none of the letters to Mr. Gulick have come to hand.

Of Mr. Le Conte's book, 'Evolution and Religious Thought,' Mr. Romanes thought very highly, and introduced it to the notice of various people, especially to Mr. Aubrey Moore.

He writes to Mr. Le Conte:

_To Professor Le Conte._

Geanies, Ross-shire, N.B.: October 11, 1887.

Dear Sir,--I am much obliged to you for sending me a copy of your
most interesting paper on Flora of the Coast Islands, &c.

If you are acquainted with my new theory of 'Physiological
Selection' (published in 'Journ. Lin. Soc.' 1886) you will
understand why I regard your facts as furnishing first-rate
material for testing that theory. If you cannot get access to my
paper, I will send you a copy on my return to London in December.

My object in now writing--over and above that of thanking you
for your paper--is to ask whether you yourself, or any other
American naturalist whom you may know, would not feel it well
worth while to try some experiments on the hybridisation of
the peculiar species. Although I agree with you in thinking it
probable that many of these species may be 'remnants,' I also
think it abundantly possible that some of them may be merely
evolved forms. A botanist on the spot might be able to determine,
by intelligent comparison, which of the peculiar species are
most probably of the last-mentioned character. These he might
choose for his experiments on hybridisation. And I should expect
him to find marked evidence of mutual sterility between closely
allied unique species growing on the same island, with possibly
unimpaired fertility between allied species growing on different
islands. If this anticipation should be realised by experiment,
the fact would go far to prove my theory.

Even if you do not happen to know of any botanist who would care
to undertake this experimental research, you might possibly know
of some one who would gather and transmit seeds for me to grow in
hothouses here.

I shall be much interested to hear what you think of these
proposals, and meanwhile remain,

Yours truly,
G. J. ROMANES.

Geanies.

My dear Sir,--Your book I will look forward to with much
interest, and certainly not least so to your treatment of that
very comprehensive question--'What then?'

I will send you a copy of my paper on Physiological Selection as
soon as I return to London, which will be about Christmas.

With many thanks for your kindness, I remain, yours truly,

G. J. ROMANES.

May 7, 1888.

My dear Sir,--Many thanks for sending me a copy of your book,[66]
which seems to me everywhere admirable. Of course, I am
particularly glad that you think with me so much on physiological
selection, but even apart from this, the work is, to my mind,
one of the most clearly thought out that I have met with in
Darwinian literature. I have sent it on to 'Nature' for review,
understanding from the office that a copy had not then been
received. But for your kind mention of myself, I should have
reviewed it.

A most remarkable paper has been sent to the Linnean Society by a
Mr. Gulick on 'Divergent Evolution,' for the publication of which
in the 'Journal' you might look out.

G. J. ROMANES.

January 21, 1889.

My dear Sir,--I should like you to set your lucid wits to work
upon the following questions, and let me know whether you can
devise any answers.

On pp. 220-226 of your book, you state with extreme felicity,
and much better than he does, Weismann's theory of the causes of
variation. But it does not occur to him, and does not seem to
have occurred to you, that there is a curious and unaccountable
interruption in the ascending grades of sexual differentiation,
for in the vegetable kingdom these do _not_ follow the grades
of taxonomic ascent; but, on the contrary, and as a general
rule, the _lower_ the order of evolution, the _greater_ is the
tendency to bi-sexualism. Diœcious species (_i.e._ male and
female organs on different plants) occur in largest proportion
among the lower Cryptogams, less frequently among the higher, and
more rarely still among Phanerogams. Monœcious species (_i.e._
male and female organs on the same plant, but locally distinct)
occur chiefly among the higher Cryptogams and lower Phanerogams;
Hermaphrodite species (_i.e._ male and female organs in the same
flower) occur much more frequently among higher Phanerogams.

There is, besides, another difficulty. According to Weismann
and yourself, it is natural selection that has brought about
sexuality 'for the sake of better results in the offspring,'
by making them more variable or plastic. But how can natural
selection act prophetically? Unless the variability is of use
to the individuals at each stage of its advance, it cannot come
under the sway of natural selection, however advantageous it may
_eventually_ prove to the type. But, if one thinks about it, how
can such variability be of any use to the individual? Observe,
beneficial variability is quite different from beneficial
variation. It is the _tendency to vary_ that is in question,
not the occurrence of this, that, and the other display of it.
Now, I do not see how sexuality can have been evolved by natural
selection for the purpose of securing their tendency _in the
future_, when it can never be of any use to individuals _of the
present_. Each individual of the present is an accomplished fact;
the tendency to produce variable offspring is, therefore, of
no use to it individually, and so natural selection would have
no reason to pick it out for living and propagating. Such is
my difficulty touching this point. Another is, why do we meet
with such great differences between (sometimes) allied natural
genera, and even whole natural orders, as to the facility with
which their constituent species hybridise? For example, species
of genus Geranium will hybridise almost better than any other,
those of the Pelargonium scarcely at all.

I hope that at some time you will be able to get sent to me seeds
of species peculiar to oceanic islands, should you hear of any
botanists who are visiting such islands.

G. J. ROMANES.

I note that you have been good enough to pass my questions on
to Mr. Greene, whose great kindness (already experienced by me)
will, I trust, prevent him from thinking that the failure of the
seeds to flower here was due to any negligence on my part.

Yes, it is the same Rev. Mr. Gulick whom you describe that wrote
the paper on 'Divergent Evolution' to which I alluded, and which
is a most remarkable paper in every way, though not at all easy
to master. Wallace completely misunderstood it in his letter to
'Nature.' It was his work in shells that first led Mr. Gulick
to study Isolation, and he has been at work upon the subject
ever since. To the best of my judgment, he has demonstrated the
necessity of what he calls 'segregate breeding' for 'polytypic
evolution,' and in this connection has worked out the idea of
physiological selection (which he calls segregate fecundity) much
more fully than I have.

It is most astonishing to me with what a storm of opposition
this idea has been met in England, and how persistent is the
misunderstanding. In Germany and America it is being much more
fairly treated, but meanwhile I intend to keep it as quiet as
possible, till I shall be in a position to publish a large
body of experimental observations. As far as time has hitherto
allowed, the results are strongly corroborative of the theory.