escent of Man."

[83] "The Genesis of Species," by St. G. Mivart. 1871.

[84] In the _Academy_, March 15, 1871.

[85] "Mr. Wallace says that the pairing of butterflies is probably
determined by the fact that one male is stronger-winged or more
pertinacious than the rest, rather than by the choice of the females. He
quotes the case of caterpillars which are brightly coloured and yet
sexless. Mr. Wallace also makes the good criticism that 'The Descent of
Man' consists of two books mixed together."--"Life and Letters of
Charles Darwin," iii. 137.

[86] G. Crotch was a well-known coleopterist and official in the
University Library at Cambridge.

[87] _Spectator_, March 11 and 18, 1871. "With regard to the evolution
of conscience the reviewer thinks that Mr. Darwin comes much nearer to
the 'kernel of the psychological problem' than many of his predecessors.
The second article contains a good discussion of the bearing of the
book on the question of design, and concludes by finding in it a
vindication of Theism more wonderful than that in Paley's 'Natural
Theology.'"--"Life and Letters," iii. 138.

[88] _North American Review_, Vol. 113, pp. 83, 84. Chauncey Wright
points out that the words omitted are "essential to the point on which
he [Mr. Mivart] cites Mr. Darwin's authority." It should be mentioned
that the passage from which words are omitted is not given within
inverted commas by Mr. Mivart.--_See_ "Life and Letters of Charles
Darwin," iii. 144.

[89] July, 1871.

[90] A review of Dr. Bree's book, "An Exposition of Fallacies in the
Hypotheses of Mr. Darwin."--_Nature_, July 25, 1872.

[91] "Bree on Darwinism," _Nature_, Aug. 8, 1872. The letter is as
follows: "Permit me to state--though the statement is almost
superfluous--that Mr. Wallace, in his review of Dr. Bree's work, gives
with perfect correctness what I intended to express, and what I believe
was expressed clearly, with respect to the probable position of man in
the early part of his pedigree. As I have not seen Dr. Bree's recent
work, and as his letter is unintelligible to me, I cannot even
conjecture how he has so completely mistaken my meaning; but, perhaps,
no one who has read Mr. Wallace's article, or who has read a work
formerly published by Dr. Bree on the same subject as his recent one,
will be surprised at any amount of misunderstanding on his
part.--CHARLES DARWIN, Aug. 3." _See_ "Life and Letters of Charles
Darwin," iii. 167.

[92] That