473 
other hand, the advocates of the traditional view had no 
thought of altering their standpoint. They stuck to their 
authorised version of the world’s history, and could sub 
stitute no other. If they yielded, of course they would 
have to yield to their opponents. The result was a great 
advantage to the advocates of Natural Selection. So far 
as their opponents were concerned, the theory sufficed to 
prove that the transmutation of species was a fact in 
nature ; and the easily learned formula of Natural Selec 
tion, embodying as it seemed the most obvious facts, 
gave to this teaching a power which no other, at that 
time, could have wielded. 
But while this victory was being won, the triumphant 
theory was itself undergoing modification. The more 
absolute and, as it seems to me, the more logical theory 
of Pure Darwinism, was taking the place of Mixed Dar 
winism. This conviction was steadily growing, in conse 
quence of the depreciatory language used by Mr. Darwin 
with respect to transforming influences ; of the introduction 
by Dr. Weismann of his theory of the germ plasm ; of the 
growing tendency of Mr. Wallace to the more exclusive 
doctrine ; and of the powerful advocacy of writers like 
Dr. Ray Lankester. Pure Darwinism thus became the 
accepted view of the majority of the advocates of Natural 
Selection ; and hence the identification of the arguments 
for the process of Organic P3volution, and for the one 
only law which was supposed to have brought about that 
process, seemed perfectly fair. 
For these reasons, the arguments for the process of 
Organic PLvolution have been treated as identical with 
the arguments for the particular law or method of Natural 
Selection. But while the historical development of the 
doctrine of Natural Selection has more or less justified 
this treatment of the subject, we must remember that for