a list of more or less trifling criticisms, can only be explained as an instance of Dr. Wallace’s eagerness to help and encourage beginners.  It did not occur to him to question the propriety of the criticisms, he did not write as a superior to an inferior; he only saw what seemed to him a spark of biological enthusiasm, which should by all means be kindled into flame.  Many years later, when I was at his house, he produced with the greatest delight some letters from a young man who had gone to South America and was getting his first glimpse of the tropical forest.  What discoveries he might make!  What joy he must have on seeing the things described in the letter, such things as Dr. Wallace himself had seen in Brazil so long ago!”

Wallace’s critical faculty was always keen and vigilant.  Unlike some critics, however, he relished genuine and well-informed criticism of his own writings.  Flattery he despised; whilst the charge of dishonesty aroused strongest resentment.  Deceived he might be, but he required clear proof that his own eyes and ears had led him astray.  Romanes, who had propounded the forgotten theory of physiological selection, charged Wallace with adopting it as his own.  This was not only untrue, it was ridiculous; and Wallace, after telling him so and receiving no apology, dropped him out of his recognition.  During Romanes’ illness Mr. Thiselton-Dyer wrote to Wallace and sought to bring about a reconciliation, and Wallace replied: 

* * * * *

Parkstone, Dorset.  September 26, 1893.

My dear Thiselton-Dyer,—­I am sorry to hear of Romanes’ illness, because I think he would have done much good work in carrying out experiments which require the leisure, means and knowledge which he possesses.  I cannot, however, at all understand his wishing to have any communication from myself.  I do not think I ever met Romanes in private more than once, when he called on me more than twenty years ago about some curious psychical phenomena occurring in his own family; and perhaps half a dozen letters—­if so many—­may have passed between us since.  There is therefore no question of personal friendship disturbed.  I consider, however, that he made a very gross misstatement and personal attack on me when he stated, both in English and American periodicals, that in my “Darwinism” I adopted his theory of “physiological selection” and claimed it as my own, and that my adoption of it was “unequivocal and complete.”  This accusation he supported by such a flood of words and quotations and explanations as to obscure all the chief issues and render it almost impossible for the ordinary reader to disentangle the facts.  I told him then that unless he withdrew this accusation as publicly as he had made it I should decline all future correspondence with him, and should avoid referring to him in any of my writings.

This is, of course, very different from any criticism of my theories; that, or even ridicule, would never disturb me; but when a man has made an accusation of literary and scientific dishonesty, and has done all he can to spread this accusation over the whole civilised world, my only answer can be—­after showing, as I have done (see Nature, vol. xliii., pp. 79 and 150), that his accusations are wholly untrue—­to ignore his existence.