heory of the coral islands, and was actually induced to
delay it for two years" (p.307). And in "Nature" for the 17th November,
1887, the Duke of Argyll states that he has seen a letter from Sir
Wyville Thomson in which he "urged and almost insisted that Mr. Murray
should withdraw the reading of his papers on the subject from the Royal
Society of Edinburgh. This was in February, 1877." The next paragraph,
however, contains the confession: "No special reason was assigned." The
Duke of Argyll proceeds to give a speculative opinion that "Sir Wyville
dreaded some injury to the scientific reputation of the body of which he
was the chief." Truly, a very probable supposition; but as Sir Wyville
Thomson's tendencies were notoriously anti-Darwinian, it does not
appear to me to lend the slightest justification to the Duke of Argyll's
insinuation that the Darwinian "terror" influenced him. However, the
question was finally set at rest by a letter which appeared in "Nature"
(29th of December, 1887), in which the writer says that:

"talking with Sir Wyville about 'Murray's new theory,' I asked what
objection he had to its being brought before the public? The answer
simply was: he considered that the grounds of the theory had not, as
yet, been sufficiently investigated or sufficiently corroborated, and
that therefore any immature dogmatic publication of it would do less
than little service either to science or to the author of the paper."

Sir Wyville Thomson was an intimate friend of mine, and I am glad to
have been afforded one more opportunity of clearing his character from
the aspersions which have been so recklessly cast upon his good sense
and his scientific honour.

(6) As to the "overthrow" of Darwin's theory, which, according to the
Duke of Argyll, was patent to every unprejudiced person four years
ago, I have recently become acquainted with a work, in which a really
competent authority, [14] thoroughly acquainted with all the new lights
which have been thrown upon the subject during the last ten years,
pronounces the judgment; firstly, that some of the facts brought forward
by Messrs. Murray and Guppy against Darwin's theory are not facts;
secondly, that the others are reconcilable with Darwin's theory; and,
thirdly, that the theories of Messrs. Murray and Guppy "are contradicted
by a series of important facts" (p. 13).

Perhaps I had better draw attention to the circumstance that Dr.
Langenbeck writes under shelter of t