_
My dear Professor Meldola,--I hope to have copies of my "Evolution"
article in a few days, and will send you a couple. The article was in
print last September, but, being long, was crowded out month after
month, and only now got in by being cut in two. I think I have
demolished "discontinuous variation" as having any but the most
subordinate part in evolution of species.
Congratulations on Presidency of the Entomological Society.
A.R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
TO PROF. POULTON
_Parkstone, Dorset. March 15, 1895._
My dear Poulton,--I have now nearly finished reading Romanes, but do not
find it very convincing. There is a large amount of special pleading. On
two points only I feel myself hit. My doubt that Darwin really meant
that _all_ the individuals of a species could be similarly modified
without selection is evidently wrong, as he adduces other quotations
which I had overlooked. The other point is, that my suggested
explanation of sexual ornaments gives away my case as to the utility of
all specific characters. It certainly does as it stands, but I now
believe, and should have added, that all these ornaments, where they
differ from species to species, are also recognition characters, and as
such were rendered stable by Natural Selection from their first
appearance.
I rather doubt the view you state, and which Gulick and Romanes make
much of, that a portion of a species, separated from the main body, will
have a different average of characters, unless they are a local race
which has already been somewhat selected.
Pages:
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87