2. The University of Chicago haviour; and a foci of Darwin's acceptance of sporting as one means of producing races, I did not wish to exclude it; the error so as his evidence & that addressed since has not been overthrown ((See Origin of Species, Chap I, paragraph 5, "sporting plants" [mutations]). In my final sentence [underscore]also[end underscore] is the emphatic word - It may be paraphrased as thus: -- "Through mutation to be sure, as Darwin and a host since have ascertained[?]; but [underscore]also[end underscore] (as some recent biologists, DeVries and Bateson, seem to forget) through the direct action of Environment specific changes may be produced." Of course this direct action of environment has nothing to do with inheritance of acquired characters. Very [crossed out 'likely'] possibly the [?] of that [?] Pectaris planted at Eddystone might become like then in the first subsequent generation - so far that matter might Pecten jacobus become P. maximus if transplanted to Eddystone or any point on the English Channel. Or P. opercularis might become P. irradius on Long Island Sound. Nevertheless, by the practical criteria of species they are distinct species and would, I trust, continue to be so regarded after the Experiment indicated had resulted as suggested. As I have said I do not understand the ground of your criticism. I have however considered your proposal to publish only the Parts I- IV of the paper. - You know, Pearson, how little comes to a [illegible] [end]