acquainted, namely, those of the hive-bee and of many ants, could not
possibly have been acquired by habit." {23a}


This showed that, according to Mr. Darwin, I had fallen into serious
error, and my faith in him, though somewhat shaken, was far too great
to be destroyed by a few days' course of Professor Mivart, the full
importance of whose work I had not yet apprehended. I continued to
read, and when I had finished the chapter felt sure that I must
indeed have been blundering. The concluding words, "I am surprised
that no one has hitherto advanced this demonstrative case of neuter
insects against the well-known doctrine of inherited habit as
advanced by Lamarck," {23b} were positively awful. There was a quiet
consciousness of strength about them which was more convincing than
any amount of more detailed explanation. This was the first I had
heard of any doctrine of inherited habit as having been propounded by
Lamarck (the passage stands in the first edition, "the well-known
doctrine of Lamarck," p. 242); and now to find that I had been only
busying myself with a stale theory of this long-since exploded
charlatan--with my book three parts written and already in the press-
-it was a serious scare.

On reflection, however, I was again met with the overwhelming weight
of the evidence in favour of structure and habit being mainly due to
memory. I accordingly gathered as much as I could second-hand of
what Lamarck had said, reserving a study of his "Philosophie
Zoologique" for another occasion, and read as much about ants and
bees as I could find in readily accessible works. In a few days I
saw my way again; and now, reading the "Origin of Species" more
closely, and I may say more sceptically, the antagonism between Mr.