ries. And this must apply to your query
as to anyone having as yet answered de Vries. I cannot remember having
seen any answer; only criticisms of a discontinuous sort. I cannot for a
moment entertain the idea that Darwin ever assented to the proposition
that new species have always been produced from mutation and never
through normal variability. Possibly there is some quibble on the
definition of mutation or of variation. The Americans are prone to
believe any new things, witness their swallowing the thornless cactus
produced by that man in California--I forget his name--which Kew exposed
by asking for specimens to exhibit in the Cactus House....--I am, my
dear Wallace, sincerely yours,

JOS. D. HOOKER.

* * * * *

TO MR. E. SMEDLEY

_Broadstone, Wimborne. January 31, 1906._

Dear Mr. Smedley,--I have read Oliver Lodge's book in answer to Haeckel,
but I do not think it very well done or at all clearly written or well
argued. A book[32] has been sent me, however, which is a masterpiece of
clearness and sound reasoning on such difficult questions, and is a far
more crushing reply to Haeckel than O. Lodge's. I therefore send you a
copy, and feel sure you will enjoy it. It is a stiff piece of reasoning,
and wants close attention and careful thought, but I think you will be
able to appreciate it. In my opinion it comes as near to an intelligible
solution of these great problems of the Universe as we are likely to
get while on earth. It is a book to read and think over, and read again.
It is a masterpiece....--Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Broadstone, Wimborne. July 27, 1907._

My dear Poulton,--Thanks for your very interesting letter. I am glad to
hear you have a new book on "Evolution"[33] nearly ready and that in it
you will do something to expose the fallacies of the Mutationists and
Mendelians, who pose before the world as having got _all_ wisdom, before
which we poor Darwinians must hide our diminished heads!

Wishing to know the best that could be said for these latter-day
anti-Darwinians, I have just been reading Lock's book on "Variation,
Heredity, and Evolution." In the early part of his book he gives a
tolerably fair account of Natural Selection, etc. But he gradually turns
to Mendelism as the "one thing needful"--stating that there can be "no
sort of doubt" that Mendel's paper is the "most impor