Page:Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Vol 69.djvu/470

450

A paper under the above title by Mr. W. Bateson was read on February 14, 1901, and appears on pp. 193 205 of the Society's ' Proceedings,' vol. 69. It naturally calls for a reply from me, for Mr. Bateson's criticism attacks the fundamental ideas at the basis of the long series of papers on " The Mathematical Theory of Evolution " which have been contributed by me to the ' Transactions ' and ' Pro- ceedings ' during the last eight years. My reply must therefore not only be lengthy, but discuss the validity of the opposed terms and definitions used by the school of evolutionists of which Mr. Bateson is one of the most noteworthy representatives. Naturally, Mr. Bateson will want a rejoinder, and this might require a counter-rejoinder. Somewhere, however, the controversy must be ended, or its venue changed. Without questioning the right of Mr. Bateson to choose the 'Proceedings' of the Society for the publication of his adverse criticisms, I must state my own individual opinion that a full discus- sion of this matter must be long and argumentative, because it goes to the foundation of more than one hypothesis warmly advocated by this or that school of biologists.

I believe that discussions of this kind, highly controversial in character, however much they tend to clear up scientific ideas and enforce rigidity in use of terms, are not contributions to original knowledge, and so are far better carried on elsewhere than in the publications of the Society. For this reason, I propose to transfer my reply to Mr. Bateson's criticism to another place. I hope this brief note may explain to Fellows of the Society that it is through no discourtesy that I animadvert elsewhere on the interesting points which Mr. Bateson has recently brought to their notice.