"Genesis of Species," and that if I did so I should find there were
two sides to "natural selection." Thinking, as so many people do--
and no wonder--that "natural selection" and evolution were much the
same thing, and having found so many attacks upon evolution produce
no effect upon me, I declined to read it. I had as yet no idea that
a writer could attack Neo-Darwinism without attacking evolution. But
my friend kindly sent me a copy; and when I read it, I found myself
in the presence of arguments different from those I had met with
hitherto, and did not see my way to answering them. I had, however,
read only a small part of Professor Mivart's work, and was not fully
awake to the position, when the friend referred to in the preceding
paragraph called on me.

When I had finished the "Genesis of Species," I felt that something
was certainly wanted which should give a definite aim to the
variations whose accumulation was to amount ultimately to specific
and generic differences, and that without this there could have been
no progress in organic development. I got the latest edition of the
"Origin of Species" in order to see how Mr. Darwin met Professor
Mivart, and found his answers in many respects unsatisfactory. I had
lost my original copy of the "Origin of Species," and had not read
the book for some years. I now set about reading it again, and came
to the chapter on instinct, where I was horrified to find the
following passage:-


"But it would be a serious error to suppose that the greater number
of instincts have been acquired by habit in one generation and then
transmitted by inheritance to the succeeding generations. It can be
clearly shown that the most wonderful instincts with which we are