Abstract
WRITTEN letters remain. It is for anyone who may read this correspondence through at one time to judge on which side lie the “valid” distinctions, and on which the “invalid” confusions—not to mention comparisons in respect of “verbiage” or mere personalities. But I am obliged to write once more insist, for the fourth time, that my agreement with Prof. Meldola does not extend to the “conclusion as to the non-existence of co-adaptation,” but only to stating that co-adaptation must be proved not to exist, if “Mr. Spencer's argument” is to be logically met. And if, as Prof. Meldola now says, any such statement is to be found in his “review of Mr. Pascoe's book” (which, I repeat, merely reproduces “Mr. Wallace's argument” as to the accumulation of adaptations, without remarking that this has no relevancy to the argument from co-adaptation), it must be in that “language of their own” which the neo-Darwinians find “to be intelligible among themselves.”
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
ROMANES, G. Co-adaptation. Nature 44, 55 (1891). https://doi.org/10.1038/044055a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/044055a0
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.