attempted. To me it seems that the chief difference between myself
and some of my opponents lies in this, that I take my facts from
them with acknowledgment, and they take their theories from me--
without.

One word more and I have done. I should like to say that I do not
return to the connection between memory and heredity under the
impression that I shall do myself much good by doing so. My own
share in the matter was very small. The theory that heredity is
only a mode of memory is not mine, but Professor Hering's. He wrote
in 1870, and I not till 1877. I should be only too glad if he would
take his theory and follow it up himself; assuredly he could do so
much better than I can; but with the exception of his one not
lengthy address published some fifteen or sixteen years ago he has
said nothing upon the subject, so far at least as I have been able
to ascertain; I tried hard to draw him in 1880, but could get
nothing out of him. If, again, any of our more influential writers,
not a few of whom evidently think on this matter much as I do, would
eschew ambiguities and tell us what they mean in plain language, I
would let the matter rest in their abler hands, but of this there
does not seem much chance at present.

I wish there was, for in spite of the interest I have felt in
working the theory out and the information I have been able to
collect while doing so, I must confess that I have found it somewhat
of a white elephant. It has got me into the hottest of hot water,
made a literary Ishmael of me, lost me friends whom I have been
sorry to lose, cost me a good deal of money, done everything to me,
in fact, which a good theory ought not to do. Still, as it seems to
have taken up with me, and no one else is inclined to treat it