The review discusses the journal *Brain: a Journal of Neurology*, edited by Drs. Bucknill, Crichton Browne, Ferrer, and Hughlings-Jackson. The reviewer praises the journal for its practical and valuable contributions, particularly from notable contributors like Crichton Browne, Lockhart Clarke, Kesteven, and Moxon. However, the reviewer criticizes Dr. Bucknill's review of Dr. Bateman's book *Darwinism Tested by Language* for being biased and unfair. Dr. Bucknill's criticism is seen as an attack on the integration of psychology with theology, and the reviewer argues that Dr. Bateman's work should be evaluated on its own merits, regardless of its theological implications. The reviewer also highlights several cases and studies that support Dr. Bateman's arguments, including those involving aphasia and brain lesions, which contradict the localization of speech to the left frontal convolution. The review concludes by criticizing Dr. Bucknill's lack of evidence and his dismissive tone, suggesting that his criticism is more about personal bias than scientific rigor.The review discusses the journal *Brain: a Journal of Neurology*, edited by Drs. Bucknill, Crichton Browne, Ferrer, and Hughlings-Jackson. The reviewer praises the journal for its practical and valuable contributions, particularly from notable contributors like Crichton Browne, Lockhart Clarke, Kesteven, and Moxon. However, the reviewer criticizes Dr. Bucknill's review of Dr. Bateman's book *Darwinism Tested by Language* for being biased and unfair. Dr. Bucknill's criticism is seen as an attack on the integration of psychology with theology, and the reviewer argues that Dr. Bateman's work should be evaluated on its own merits, regardless of its theological implications. The reviewer also highlights several cases and studies that support Dr. Bateman's arguments, including those involving aphasia and brain lesions, which contradict the localization of speech to the left frontal convolution. The review concludes by criticizing Dr. Bucknill's lack of evidence and his dismissive tone, suggesting that his criticism is more about personal bias than scientific rigor.