ea of deposition would be strictly limited. In
the seas between Java and Borneo and between Borneo and Celebes the
deposition _may be_ above the average. Again, during the development of
continents there were evidently extensive mountain ridges and masses
with landlocked seas, or inland lakes, and in all these deposition would
be rapid. Anyhow, the fact remains that there is no necessary equality
between rates of denudation and deposition (in thickness) as Geikie has
_assumed_.

I was delighted with your account of Prichard's wonderful anticipation
of Galton and Weismann! It is so perfect and complete.... It is most
remarkable that such a complete statement of the theory and such a
thorough appreciation of its effects and bearing should have been so
long overlooked. I read Prichard when I was very young, and have never
seen the book since. His facts and arguments are really useful ones, and
I should think Weismann must be delighted to have such a supporter come
from the grave. His view as to the supposed transmission of disease is
quite that of Archdall Reid's recent book. He was equally clear as to
Selection, and had he been a _zoologist_ and _traveller_ he might have
anticipated the work of both Darwin and Weismann!

To bring out such a book as his "Researches" when only twenty-seven, and
a practising physician, shows what a remarkable man he was.--Believe me
yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. MELDOLA

_Parkstone, Dorset. July 8, 1897._

My dear Meldola,-- ... I am now reading a wonderfully interesting
book--O. Fisher's "Physics of the Earth's Crust." It is really a grand
book, and, though full of unintelligible mathematics, is so clearly
explained and so full of good reasoning on all the aspects of this most
difficult question that it is a pleasure to read it. It was especially a
pleasure to me because I had just been writing an article on the
Permanence of the Oceanic Basins, at the request of the Editor of
_Natural Science_, who told me I was not orthodox on the point. But I
find that Fisher supports the same view with very great force, and it
strikes me that if weight of argument and number of capable supporters
create orthodoxy in science, it is the other side who are not orthodox.
I have some fresh arguments, and I was delighted to be able to quote
Fisher. It seems almost demonstrated now that Sir W. Thomson was wrong,
and that the earth _has_ a