e has yet dealt with.--Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. March 1, 1909._

Dear Poulton,-- ... I am glad that Lankester has replied to the almost
disgraceful Centenary article in the _Times_. But it is an illustration
of the widespread mischief the Mutationists, etc., are doing. I have no
doubt, however, it will all come right in the end, though the end may be
far off, and in the meantime we must simply go on, and show, at every
opportunity, that Darwinism actually does explain the whole fields of
phenomena that they do not even attempt to deal with, or even
approach....--Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO MRS. FISHER

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. March 6, 1909._

Dear Mrs. Fisher,-- ... Another point I am becoming more and more
impressed with is, a teleology of fundamental laws and forces rendering
development of the infinity of life-forms possible (and certain) in
place of the old teleology applied to the production of each species.
Such are the case of feathers reproduced annually, which I gave at end
of lecture, and the still more marvellous fact of the caterpillar, often
in two or three weeks of chrysalis life, having its whole internal,
muscular, nervous, locomotive and alimentary organs decomposed and
recomposed into a totally different being--an absolute miracle if ever
there is one, quite as wonderful as would be the production of a complex
marine organism out of a mass of protoplasm. Yet, because there has
been continuity, the difficulty is slurred over or thought to be
explained!--Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO SIR W.T. THISELTON-DYER

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. June 22, 1909._

Dear Sir William,--On Saturday, to my great pleasure, I received a copy
of the Darwin Commemoration volume. I at once began reading your most
excellent paper on the Geographical Distribution of Plants. It is
intensely interesting to me, both because it so clearly brings out
Darwin's views and so judiciously expounds his arguments--even when you
intimate a difference of opinion--but especially because you bring out
so clearly and strongly his views on the general permanence of
continents and oceans, which to-day, as much as ever, wants insisting
upon. I may just mention here that none of t