[4] Origin of Species, 6th ed. p. 8.
[5] Variation &c. 2nd ed. ii. p. 280.
[6] Variation &c. ii. p. 367.
[7] Origin of Species, p. 176.
[8] This, to the best of my judgement, is the fairest extract that I can give of Mr. Wallace's most recently published opinions on the points in question. [In particular as regards (a) see Darwinism pp. 435-6.] But with regard to some of them, his expression of opinion is not always consistent, as we shall find in detail later on. Besides, I am here taking Mr. Wallace as representative of the Neo-Darwinian school, one or other prominent member of which has given emphatic expression to each of the above propositions.
[9] Life and Letters, vol. iii. pp. 72 and 75.
[10] Take, for example, the following, which is a fair epitome of the whole:—"I believe that this is the simplest mode of stating and explaining the law of variation; that some forms acquire something which their parents did not possess; and that those which acquire something additional have to pass through more numerous stages than their ancestors; and those which lose something pass through fewer stages than their ancestors; and these processes are expressed by the terms 'acceleration' and 'retardation'" (Origin of the Fittest, pp. 125, 226, and 297). Even if this be "the simplest mode of stating the law of variation," it obviously does nothing in the way of explaining the law.
[11] Floral Structures (Internat. Sc. Ser. lxiv. 1888): The Making of Flowers (Romance of Science Ser. 1891); and Linn. Soc. Papers 1893-4.
[12] "The law of correlation," and the "laws of growth," he does recognize; and shows that they furnish an explanation of the origin of many characters, which cannot be brought under "the law of utility."
[13] Natural Selection and Tropical Nature, p. 205; 1891.