" Truly, a very probable supposition; but as Sir Wyville
Thomson's tendencies were notoriously anti-Darwinian, it does
not appear to me to lend the slightest justification to the Duke
of Argyll's insinuation that the Darwinian "terror" influenced
him. However, the question was finally set at rest by a letter
which appeared in "Nature" (29th of December, 1887), in which
the writer says that:
"talking with Sir Wyville about 'Murray's new theory,' I asked
what objection he had to its being brought before the public?
The answer simply was: he considered that the grounds of the
theory had not, as yet, been sufficiently investigated or
sufficiently corroborated, and that therefore any immature
dogmatic publication of it would do less than little service
either to science or to the author of the paper."
Sir Wyville Thomson was an intimate friend of mine, and I am
glad to have been afforded one more opportunity of clearing his
character from the aspersions which have been so recklessly cast
upon his good sense and his scientific honour.
(6) As to the "overthrow" of Darwin's theory, which, according
to the Duke of Argyll, was patent to every unprejudiced person
four years ago, I have recently become acquainted with a work,
in which a really competent authority,<14> thoroughly acquainted
with all the new lights which have been thrown upon the subject
during the last ten years, pronounces the judgment;
firstly, that some of the facts brought forward by Messrs.
Pages:
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54