“Such was the language which Lamarck heard during his protracted old age, saddened alike by the weight of years and blindness; this was what people did not hesitate to utter over his grave yet barely closed, and what indeed they are still saying—commonly too without any knowledge of what Lamarck maintained, but merely repeating at secondhand bad caricatures of his teaching. “When will the time come when we may see Lamarck’s theory discussed—and, I may as well at once say, refuted in some important points {184a}—with at any rate the respect due to one of the most illustrious masters of our science? And when will this theory, the hardihood of which has been greatly exaggerated, become freed from the interpretations and commentaries by the false light of which so many naturalists have formed their opinion concerning it? If its author is to be condemned, let it be, at any rate, not before he has been heard.” {184b} In 1873 M. Martin published his edition of Lamarck’s “Philosophie Zoologique.” He was still able to say, with, I believe, perfect truth, that Lamarck’s theory has “never yet had the honour of being discussed seriously.” {184c} Professor Huxley in his article on Evolution is no less cavalier than Mr. Wallace. He writes:—{184d} “Lamarck introduced the conception of the action of an animal on itself as a factor in producing modification.” [Lamarck did nothing of the kind. It was Buffon and Dr. Darwin who introduced this, but more especially Dr. Darwin.] “But _a little consideration showed_” (italics mine) “that though Lamarck had seized what, as far as it goes, is a true cause of modification, it is a cause the actual effects of which are wholly inadequate to account for any considerable modification in animals, and which can have no influence whatever in the vegetable world, &c.” I should be very glad to come across some of the “little consideration” which will show this. I have searched for it far and wide, and have never been able to find it.