ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF.  POULTON

Broadstone, Wimborne.  December 18, 1907.

My dear Poulton,—­The importance of Mendelism to Evolution seems to me to be something of the same kind, but very much less in degree and importance, as Galton’s fine discovery of the law of the average share each parent has in the characters of the child—­one quarter, the four grandparents each one-sixteenth, and so on.  That illuminates the whole problem of heredity, combined with individual diversity, in a way nothing else does.  I almost wish you could introduce that!—­Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO DR. ARCHDALL REID

Broadstone, Wimborne.  January 19, 1908.

Dear Sir,—­ ...  I was much pleased the other day to read, in a review of Mr. T. Rice Holmes’s fine work on “Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius Caesar,” that the author has arrived by purely historical study at the conclusion that we have not risen morally above our primitive ancestors.  It is a curious and important coincidence.

I myself got the germ of the idea many years ago, from a very acute thinker, Mr. Albert Mott, who gave some very original and thoughtful addresses as President of the Liverpool Philosophical Society, one of which dealt with the question of savages being often, perhaps always, the descendants of more civilised races, and therefore affording no proof of progression.  At that time (about 1860-70) I could not accept the view, but I have now come to think he was right.—­Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF.  POULTON

Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne.  November 2, 1908.

My dear Poulton,—­ ...  You may perhaps have heard that I have been invited by the Royal Institution (through Sir W. Crookes) to give them a lecture on the jubilee of the “Origin of Species” in January, After some consideration I accepted, because I think I can give a broad and general view of Darwinism, that will finally squash up the Mutationists and Mendelians, and be both generally intelligible and interesting.  So far as I know this has never yet been done, and the Royal Institution audience is just the intelligent and non-specialist one I shall be glad to give it to if I can.

I have been very poorly the last three weeks, but am now recovering my health and strength slowly.  It will take me all my time the next two months to get this ready, and now I must write a letter in reply to the absurd and gross misrepresentation of Prof.  Hubrecht, as to imaginary differences between Darwin and myself, in the last Contemporary!—­Yours very truly,