Now let me turn to a very different subject. I have only just heard of and procured your two articles in the _Academy_. I thank you most cordially for your generous defence of me against Mr. Mivart. In the "Origin" I did not discuss the derivation of any one species; but that I might not be accused of concealing my opinion I went out of my way and inserted a sentence which seemed to me (and still so seems) to declare plainly my belief. This was quoted in my "Descent of Man." Therefore it is very unjust, not to say dishonest, of Mr. Mivart to accuse me of base fraudulent concealment; I care little about myself; but Mr. Mivart, in an article in the _Quarterly Review_ (which I _know_ was written by him), accused my son George of encouraging profligacy, and this without the least foundation.[106] I can assert this positively, as I laid George's article and the _Quarterly Review_ before Hooker, Huxley and others, and all agreed that the accusation was a deliberate falsification. Huxley wrote to him on the subject and has almost or quite cut him in consequence; and so would Hooker, but he was advised not to do so as President of the Royal Society. Well, he has gained his object in giving me pain, and, good God, to think of the flattering, almost fawning speeches which he has made to me! I wrote, of course, to him to say that I would never speak to him again. I ought, however, to be contented, as he is the one man who has ever, as far as I know, treated me basely. Forgive me for writing at such length, and believe me yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. P.S.--I am very sorry that you have given up sexual selection. I am not at all shaken, and stick to my colours like a true Briton. When I think about the unadorned head of the Argus pheasant, I might exclaim, _Et tu, Brute!_ * * * * * _Down, Beckenham. June 25, 1876._ My dear Wallace,--I have been able to read rather more quickly of late and have finished your book. I have not much to say. Your careful account of the temperate parts of South America interested me much, and all the more from knowing something of the country. I like also much the general remarks towards the end of the volume on the land molluscs. Now for a few criticisms. P. 122:[107] I am surprised at your saying that "during the whole Tertiary period North America was zoologically far more strongly contrasted with South America than it is now." But we know hardly anything of the latter except during the Pliocene period, and then the mastodon, horse, several great Dentata, etc. etc., were common to the North and South. If you are right I erred greatly in my Journal, where I insisted on the former close connection between the two.