d had inherited her instinct (as we call hereditary memory
in order to avoid the trouble of finding out what it is and how it
comes). A duty was laid on him to go back to the place where he was
bred, and now it is done, and he is weary and sad and lonely, &c. &c.

This is a very interesting passage, and I am glad to quote it; but it
hardly amounts to advancing the theory that instinct is inherited memory.
Observing Mr. Romanes' words closely, I see he only says that Canon
Kingsley was the first to advance the theory "that many hundred miles of
landscape scenery" can "constitute an object of inherited memory;" but as
he proceeds to say that "_this_" has since "been independently suggested
by several writers," it is plain he intends to convey the idea that Canon
Kingsley advanced the theory that instinct generally is inherited memory,
which indeed his words do; but it is hardly credible that he should have
left them where he did if he had realized their importance.

Mr. Romanes proceeds to inform me personally that the reference to
"Nature" in his proof "originally indicated another writer who had
independently advanced the same theory as that of Canon Kingsley." After
this I have a right to ask him to tell me who the writer is, and where I
shall find what he said. I ask this, and at my earliest opportunity will
do my best to give this writer, too, the credit he doubtless deserves.

I have never professed to be the originator of the theory connecting
heredity with memory. I knew I knew so little that I was in great
trepidation when I wrote all the earlier chapters of "Life and Habit." I
put them paradoxically, because I did not dare to put them otherwise. As
the book went on, I saw I was on firm ground, and the paradox was
dropped. When I found what Professor Hering had done, I put him forward
as best I could at once. I then learned German, and translated him,
giving his words in full in "Unconscious Memory;" since then I have
always spoken of the theory as Professor Hering's.

Mr. Romanes says that "the theory in question forms the backbone of all
the previous literature on instinct by the above-named writers (not to
mention their numerous followers) and is by all of them elaborately
stated as clearly as any theory can be stated in words." Few except Mr.
Romanes will say this. I grant it ought to have formed the backbone "of
all previous literature on instinct by the above-named writers," but when
I