the late Mr. Darwin would select to carry on his work, and Mr.
Darwin was just the kind of person towards whom Mr. Romanes would
find himself instinctively attracted.

The Times continues--"The position which Mr. Romanes takes up is the
result of his perception shared by many evolutionists, that the
theory of natural selection is not really a theory of the origin of
species. . . ." What, then, becomes of Mr. Darwin's most famous
work, which was written expressly to establish natural selection as
the main means of organic modification? "The new factor which Mr.
Romanes suggests," continues the Times, "is that at a certain stage
of development of varieties in a state of nature a change takes
place in their reproductive systems, rendering those which differ in
some particulars mutually infertile, and thus the formation of new
permanent species takes place without the swamping effect of free
intercrossing. . . . How his theory can be properly termed one of
selection he fails to make clear. If correct, it is a law or
principle of operation rather than a process of selection. It has
been objected to Mr. Romanes' theory that it is the re-statement of
a fact. This objection is less important than the lack of facts in
support of the theory." The Times, however, implies it as its
opinion that the required facts will be forthcoming by and by, and
that when they have been found Mr. Romanes' suggestion will
constitute "the most important addition to the theory of evolution
since the publication of the 'Origin of Species.'" Considering that
the Times has just implied the main thesis of the "Origin of
Species" to be one which does not stand examination, this is rather
a doubtful compliment.

Neither Mr. Romanes nor the writer in the Times appears to perceive