dogmatic publication of it would do less than little service
either to science or to the author of the paper."

Sir Wyville Thomson was an intimate friend of mine, and I am
glad to have been afforded one more opportunity of clearing his
character from the aspersions which have been so recklessly cast
upon his good sense and his scientific honour.

(6) As to the "overthrow" of Darwin's theory, which, according
to the Duke of Argyll, was patent to every unprejudiced person
four years ago, I have recently become acquainted with a work,
in which a really competent authority,<14> thoroughly acquainted
with all the new lights which have been thrown upon the subject
during the last ten years, pronounces the judgment;
firstly, that some of the facts brought forward by Messrs.
Murray and Guppy against Darwin's theory are not facts;
secondly, that the others are reconcilable with Darwin's theory;
and, thirdly, that the theories of Messrs. Murray and Guppy "are
contradicted by a series of important facts" (p. 13).

Perhaps I had better draw attention to the circumstance that
Dr. Langenbeck writes under shelter of the guns of the fortress
of Strasburg; and may therefore be presumed to be unaffected by
those dreams of a "Reign of Terror" which seem to disturb the
peace of some of us in these islands (April, 1891).

[See, on the subject of this note, the essay entitled "An
Episcopal Trilogy" in the following volume.]