WCP4353

[1]

Frith Hill, Godalming

Sept. 26^th.1888

My dear Mr Poulton

I am getting towards the end of my long-delayed little volume on Popular Darwinism & I am writing a chapter on "Fundamental Problems in relation to Variation & Heredity" in which I give a brief sketch of the views of H. Spencer, Cope, Semper, Geddes, & Weismann. I was going to get what I wanted of Weismann from the abstracts in "Nature" which will do for what I want, except that I should like to see his full discussion [2] of the non-inheritance of acquired characters — which, as all the other writers take the ^opposite for granted is the most vital point. If therefore you can let me have a sight of the proof of this part (or spare me a duplicate proof) on your return to Oxford, I shall be much obliged.

I should also like to see his paper on isolation and his theory of "panmixia" — for though I see clearly that certain results would be thus[?]-produced I cannot but think he has imputed ^{too much} to this [3] — if I have got a correct notion of his views.

I have already (in my MSS.) answered Spencer’s argument from the diminished size of jaws of civilised man by means of Galton’s proof of the law of "Regression towards Mediocrity" — which seems to me much the same as Weismann’s "Panmixia". It seems to me that this law, combined with reversion (an extreme form of the same) economy of growth, — and in most cases natural selection, will explain all the supposed cases of inheritance of acquired characters, — with a very [4]¹few special exceptions which are cases in which a special explanation is available, as in the Brown-Sequard rabbits and the salt & fresh water changes of Crustacea quoted by Semper (Artemia salvia, A[rtemia] Melhausenii, and Branchipus stagnalis).

But no doubt Weismann discusses all this with his usual thoroughness, and I am anxious to see what he says.

Yours very truly| Alfred R. Wallace [signature]