 The February 21, 1981 issue of Science included no fewer than 5 separate contributions (in order of printing: Futuyma et al. 1981; Templeton &amp; Giddings 1981; Carson 1981; Olson 1981; Armstrong &amp; Drummond 1981). The February 4, 1983 issue of Science contained a letter by critics of PE (Schopf &amp; Hoffman 1983) and a reply (Gould 1983). In the March 11 issue of that same year both prior parties were accused of prolonging a fruitless discussion of a “philosophically intractable” and dubious “pseudoquestion” (Grant 1983: 1170). In April, one correspondent wrote in agreement with Grant (Schoch 1983) and another chided him for failing “to explore and appreciate the latest blooming in the desert of dogma” (Maderson 1983: 360). To put it mildly, and purely descriptively: many of the responses elicited by the original report were impassioned and emotive.