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.
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.
Murray and Guppy against Darwin's theory are not facts;secondly, that the others are reconcilable with Darwin's theory;and, thirdly, that the theories of Messrs. Murray and Guppy "are contradicted by a series of important facts" (p. 13).
Perhaps I had better draw attention to the circumstance that Dr. Langenbeck writes under shelter of the guns of the fortress of Strasburg; and may therefore be presumed to be unaffected by those dreams of a "Reign of Terror" which seem to disturb the peace of some of us in these islands (April, 1891).
[See, on the subject of this note, the essay entitled "An Episcopal Trilogy" in the following volume.]