be esteemed by my fellow naturalists. From my early youth I have
had the strongest desire to understand or explain whatever I
observed,--that is, to group all facts under some general laws.
These causes combined have given me the patience to reflect or
ponder for any number of years over any unexplained problem. As
far as I can judge, I am not apt to follow blindly the lead of
other men. I have steadily endeavoured to keep my mind free so
as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved (and I cannot
resist forming one on every subject), as soon as facts are shown
to be opposed to it. Indeed, I have had no choice but to act in
this manner, for with the exception of the Coral Reefs, I cannot
remember a single first-formed hypothesis which had not after a
time to be given up or greatly modified. This has naturally led
me to distrust greatly deductive reasoning in the mixed sciences.
On the other hand, I am not very sceptical,--a frame of mind
which I believe to be injurious to the progress of science. A
good deal of scepticism in a scientific man is advisable to avoid
much loss of time, but I have met with not a few men, who, I feel
sure, have often thus been deterred from experiment or
observations, which would have proved directly or indirectly
serviceable.

In illustration, I will give the oddest case which I have known.
A gentleman (who, as I afterwards heard, is a good local
botanist) wrote to me from the Eastern counties that the seed or
beans of the common field-bean had this year everywhere grown on
the wrong side of the pod. I wrote back, asking for further
information, as I did not understand what was meant; but I did
not receive any answer for a very long time. I then saw in two
newspapers, one published in Kent and the other in Yorkshire,