23, 1844.) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "With respect to books on this subject, I do not know of any systematical ones, except Lamarck's, which is veritable rubbish....
Is it not strange that the author of such a book as the _Animaux sans Vertebres_ should have written that insects, which never see their eggs, should _will_ (and plants, their seeds) to be of particular forms, so as to become attached to particular objects."[57] (ii., p.

29, 1844.) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "Lamarck is the only exception, that I can think of, of an accurate describer of species, at least in the Invertebrate Kingdom, who has disbelieved in permanent species, but he in his absurd though clever work has done the subject harm." (ii., p.

39, no date.) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "To talk of climate or Lamarckian habit producing such adaptions to other organic beings is futile." (ii., p.

121, 1858.) On the other hand, another great English thinker and naturalist of rare breadth and catholicity, and despite the fact that he rejected Lamarck's peculiar evolutional views, associated him with the most eminent biologists.
In a letter to Romanes, dated in 1882, Huxley thus estimates Lamarck's position in the scientific world: "I am not likely to take a low view of Darwin's position in the history of science, but I am disposed to think that Buffon and Lamarck would run him hard in both genius and fertility.

In breadth of view and in extent of knowledge these two men were giants, though we are apt to forget their services.