Abstract
PROF. GATES'S restatement of certain points in his original argument, if more explicit, nevertheless meets but one of the issues raised in my article. In answer to the doubt therein expressed as to whether he himself can be held blameless of the offence with which he charges others, he pleads “not guilty.” But if “obscurantism” (the author's word, not mine) be judged too harsh a verdict on the passage cited, obscurum per obscurius in respect of this particular statement—and others—is not to be gainsaid. And shall we even then acquit the author on the more serious count? Or will the general reader desirous of comprehending the relation of Mendelian to Darwinian theory uphold the charge after perusal of the author's introduction? If he do not, he will unquestionably deserve the encomium which the author, so (disarmingly, bestows upon myself.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
[Letters to Editor]. Nature 107, 715 (1921). https://doi.org/10.1038/107715a0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/107715a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.