together, and that a "theory of descent with modification" might be
true, while a "theory of descent with modification through natural
selection" {4} might not stand being looked into.

If any one had asked me to state in brief what Mr. Darwin's theory
was, I am afraid I might have answered "natural selection," or
"descent with modification," whichever came first, as though the one
meant much the same as the other. I observe that most of the leading
writers on the subject are still unable to catch sight of the
distinction here alluded to, and console myself for my want of acumen
by reflecting that, if I was misled, I was misled in good company.

I--and I may add, the public generally--failed also to see what the
unaided reader who was new to the subject would be almost certain to
overlook. I mean, that, according to Mr. Darwin, the variations
whose accumulation resulted in diversity of species and genus were
indefinite, fortuitous, attributable but in small degree to any known
causes, and without a general principle underlying them which would
cause them to appear steadily in a given direction for many
successive generations and in a considerable number of individuals at
the same time. We did not know that the theory of evolution was one
that had been quietly but steadily gaining ground during the last
hundred years. Buffon we knew by name, but he sounded too like
"buffoon" for any good to come from him. We had heard also of
Lamarck, and held him to be a kind of French Lord Monboddo; but we
knew nothing of his doctrine save through the caricatures promulgated
by his opponents, or the misrepresentations of those who had another
kind of interest in disparaging him. Dr. Erasmus Darwin we believed
to be a forgotten minor poet, but ninety-nine out of every hundred of
us had never so much as heard of the "Zoonomia." We were little