Many thanks for the notice of Roux’s book.¹ I have not yet looked at the latter, but Preyer, of Jena (who has been our guest during the Congress meeting, and who knows the author), does not think much of it.²

I am delighted that the portrait has pleased those who are the best judges. I saw it the day it came up, and feel no doubt at all that it is far and away the best of the three.³ But I did not like to write and venture this opinion till I knew what you all thought of it.

I have been very busy this past week with the affairs of the Congress in relation to Vivisection. It has been resolved by the Physiological Section to get a vote of the whole Congress upon the subject, and I had to prepare the resolution and get the signatures of all the vice-presidents of the Congress, presidents and vice-presidents of sections, and to arrange for its being put to the vote of the whole Congress at its last general meeting to-morrow. The only refusal to sign came appropriately enough from the president of the section ‘Mental Diseases.’⁴

We leave for Scotland to-morrow, when I shall hope to get time to read Roux’s book, though I shall first review ‘The Student’s Darwin.’⁵

I remain, very sincerely and most respectfully yours, | Geo. J. Romanes.