The friends are lying almost side by side in Holywell,[70] and it is impossible not to feel that their deaths have left places hard to fill. About Aubrey Moore, Mr. Romanes wrote some touching words in the 'Guardian' (he was never afraid to express his admiration, to wear his heart upon his sleeve). The little notice has now been reprinted with two others as a Preface to the volume of Mr. Moore's Essays 'Science and the Faith.' _To Professor Poulton._ 18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: January 27, 1890. My dear Poulton,--Many thanks for your letter, with its very clear and cogent reasoning. But I am not sure that the latter does not hit Weismann harder than it hits me. For the cases you have in view are those where very recently acquired characters are concerned; and where, therefore, according to my views, 'the force of heredity' is weak and thus quickly 'worn out.' In such cases (as I say in the last passages of enclosed, which I return for you to hand me on Friday) 'cessation will (_quickly_) ensure the reduction of an unused organ below fifty per cent, of its original size, and so on down to zero; but this it does because it is now assisted by another and co-operating principle--viz. the eventual failure of heredity.' Now it is just this co-operating principle that Weismann is debarred from recognising by his dogma about 'stability of germ-plasm.' And it is a principle that must act the more energetically (_i.e._ 'quickly') the shorter the time since the now degenerating organ was originally acquired. In the 'Nature' articles I was speaking of 'rudimentary organs' which in Darwin's sense are very old heirlooms. All this to make you reconsider whether there is any disagreement between us upon this point. It is, indeed, a terrible thing about Aubrey Moore, and also a loss to Darwinism on its popular side. G. J. R. February 16, 1890. After receiving your letter this day a month ago, it occurred to me that I had better write an article in 'Nature' on Panmixia, pointing out the resemblances and the differences between Weismann's statement of the principle and mine. Shortly after sending it in, Weismann's answer to Vines appeared, and from this it seems that he has modified his views upon the subject. For while in his essays he says that 'the complete disappearance of a rudimentary organ can only take place by the operation of natural selection' (_i.e._ reversal of selection through economy, &c.), in 'Nature' he says, 'Organs no longer in use become rudimentary, and must finally disappear, solely by Panmixia.' Thus, the same facts are attributed at one time 'only' to the _presence_ of selection, and at another time 'solely' to its _absence_.