A gamekeeper had his right forearm amputated at the North Devon Infirmary. He left before it was healed, thinking his wife could dress it, but as she was too nervous, a neighbour, a young recently married woman, a farmer's wife, still living, came and dressed it every day till it healed. About six months after she had a child born _without right hand and forearm_, the stump exactly corresponding in length to that of the gamekeeper. Dr. Richard Budd, M.D., F.R.C.P.,[23] of Barnstaple, the physician to the infirmary, when the boy was five or six years old, himself took a photograph of the boy and the gamekeeper side by side, showing the wonderful correspondence of the two arms. I have these facts _direct from Dr. Budd_, who was personally cognisant of the whole circumstances. A few years after, in November, 1876, Dr. Budd gave an account of the case and exhibited the photographs to a large meeting at the College of Physicians, and I have no doubt it is _one_ of the cases referred to in the article I have quoted, though Dr. Budd thinks it has never been published. It will be at once admitted that this is not a chance coincidence, and that all theoretical difficulties must give way to such facts as this, ... Of course it by no means follows that similar causes should in all cases produce similar effects, since the idiosyncrasy of the mother is no doubt an important factor; but where the combined coincidences are so numerous as in this case--_place, time, person_ and exact correspondence of _resulting deformity_--some causal relation must exist.--Believe me yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. PART III (_Concluded_) III.--Correspondence on Biology, Geographical Distribution, etc. [1894--1913] * * * * * HERBERT SPENCER TO A.R. WALLACE _Queen's Hotel, Cliftonville, Margate. August 10, 1894._ Dear Mr. Wallace,--Though we differ on some points we agree on many, and one of the points on which we doubtless agree is the absurdity of Lord Salisbury's representation of the process of Natural Selection based upon the improbability of two varying individuals meeting. His nonsensical representation of the theory ought to be exposed, for it will mislead very many people. I see it is adopted by the _Pall Mall_. I have been myself strongly prompted to take the matter up, but it is evidently your business to do that. Pray write a letter to the _Times_ explaining that selection or survival of the fittest does not necessarily take place in the way he describes. You might set out by remarking that whereas he begins by comparing himself to a volunteer colonel reviewing a regiment of regulars, he very quickly changes his attitude and becomes a colonel of regulars reviewing volunteers and making fun of their bunglings. He deserves a-severe castigation. There are other points on which his views should be rectified, but this is the essential point.