WCP6795

[1]

18, CORNWALL TERRACE,

REGENT'S PARK, N.W.

Dec 12/[18]88.

Dear M^r. Gulick,

I fear you will be wondering why your reply to Wallace is not appearing in Nature. I sent it in some time ago, but no doubt the Editor is waiting for my controversy with Dyer to end before beginning another. And this I think is best for us, because when I shall have [2] finished with Dyer, I can get more space to back up your reply.

I returned to town last week, & went to see your shells yesterday. They struck me very much, but I was rather bewildered by their multitude. Could you from memory recommend me any one set of forms (species and varieties) which best display the phenomenon of transition? Yesterday was so foggy that I could scarcely see the shells, but I saw [3] enough to make me think it desirable that you should give me some guidance as to the best of the forms to work through.

What extraordinary prejudice there is against our views! Taking it into consideration I have thought that I had better not yet explain why you appear to differ from me about segregate fecundity having to do with the origins of genera etc., as well as with that of species. My distinction is that where it has to do with the [4] origin of species, it may be regarded as the cause of such origin, whereas, when it has to do with the origin of further differentiations into genera, etc., it is rather to be regarded as a condition. The War of Independence may be said to have been the cause of segregation from of the Anglo-Saxon race, but scarcely of the all subsequent party divisions among the American people — although of course, it must be regarded as a condition to them. And similarly, when segregate fecundity first arises I regard it as a cause of divergence; but when well established, and so serving as a condition to the operation of other causes leading to further divergence, I regard it as occupying a somewhat different position.

G. J. Romanes [signature]