These three are the only errors of any importance that I acknowledge at once. A certain number of minor points are questioned in the Review, and the theoretical portion is strongly criticised. It would be irrelevant to the main purpose of a book which is limited to the subject of Habit and Hair Direction in Animals to introduce some of the more debateable branches of the subject of the former book, such as tufts, the direction of the hair on the mole, the classification of the hair-streams of the mammalian body into primitive, those modified by morphological change, and those due to use and habit. This last is a very wide subject and is far beyond the present limits. I freely make another acknowledgment. The whole of the subject of the Direction of Hair in Animals and Man was taken up _ad hoc_, that is to say, for the purpose of testing the unpopular doctrine of Lamarckism. If this be an offence against the highest spirit of science, I can but accept the charge with a sigh, and go on, “faint yet pursuing.” There is consolation in finding that increased study of a subject is bringing order out of chaos, even if the field be small and the immediate crop poor. The following are some of the objections raised to the theoretical part of the book:-- The most serious charge against my interpretation of the mode of formation of patterns (whorls and tufts) is that there is a lack of harmony between my preliminary statement that whorls are due to motor or muscular causes and a subsequent explanation of some of them as due to external pressure. I did not state then as clearly as I do now in many passages in the present chapters that for pattern production there may be at least four causes: _friction_, _pressure_, _gravity_, _underlying muscular traction_, and that whorls and featherings may, of course, arise from some other external force acting on the hair at the decisive point of struggle, just as well as from the more common cause--muscular traction on the skin. I think in this region of the Review and where she deals with Selection, she shows signs of that scientific monism which is still affecting many of our great biologists, that is to say, they desire a world-empire in evolution for the great factor of Selection, and will stretch their arguments considerably to save its face. This is shown in the Review on page 406 where a very thin plea is put in on behalf of adaptation and Selection in regard to hair-directions, as in man’s minute hairs, which cannot be seriously maintained. That earth is stopped! Darwin’s open-minded dualism in this matter of the factors of evolution appeals to me at any rate more than the jealous attitude of Weismann and his eminent adherents.