In Pursuit of the Gene

GALTON’S DISCIPLES © 57
see the importance of Mr. Bateson’s letter,” Weldon began. 30 It must have
come as great shock to Galton to read Weldon’s frank confession that the
differences in variability among different size groups could be explained by
heterogeneity with regard to molt, rather than by the action of natural selection.
“Perhaps it would have been well if I had pointed out the need for
paying attention to the question of molts in the first report,” Weldon
sheepishly admitted. However, the situation was salvageable, Weldon assured
Galton, and he proceeded to give Galton a detailed description of
some experiments that could be done to resolve the issue one way or another.
Hoping that the two men might be able to resolve their differences,
Galton sent Weldon’s response to Bateson, who at once took it upon himself
to write another detailed critique, his third, and to mail it back to
Galton on October 28. On the evening of October 29, Galton delivered
Bateson’s letter to Weldon in person. At their meeting, Weldon proposed to
Galton that he write up an entirely new account of the work, taking into
account all of Bateson’s criticisms, by early the following year.
Anxious to rid himself of the increasingly time-consuming and thorny
business once and for all, Galton wrote Bateson the next morning to inform
him of the new plan and to direct him to send all further inquiries to
Weldon himself. With an air of finality, he added, “Discussion by letter is so
onerous. It is better that he should say his say thoroughly, once and in a
printed form.” 31
On November 2, Bateson wrote Galton, promising to abide by his judgment
and to look to Weldon’s second publication for answer to his inquiries.
He took the opportunity, though, to remind Galton that the reason he
had not gone public with his criticism was partly that he simply had not
believed that the Royal Society could have permitted the publication of a
work that contained such an obvious potential problem. 32
Any hope that Galton might have had of extricating himself from the
conflict was dashed on November 7 with the receipt of an eight-page letter
from Weldon written in response to Bateson’s most recent critique. In what
was now becoming a pattern, Galton sent Weldon’s letter to Bateson, and
Bateson sent back his response to Galton. Bateson spent just under a week