I am surprised you didn't say quote mine!
quote mines don't exist and are a fabrication of the classic "misquote or quote out of context."
misquotes are often easy to prove, but you haven't with your above.
quoting out of context on the other hand is much harder to prove. Let me illustrate.
Say someone talks about oranges for 10 minutes and at the five minute mark speaks on bananas for 15 seconds. Now if you quote the banana section, you have quote mined according to the definition because it was out of context of oranges. But this is very very hard to prove. The fact that the internet is full of these allegations of mining, shows that they are fabrications. Yours is case and point, it proves nothing about the grandfather of Julian huxley (read about half).
let me quote again from Wikipedia on the fallacy of quoting out of context (quote mining)
"Both Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Henry M. Morris (founder of ICR) have been accused of producing books of mined quotes. TalkOrigins Archive (TOA) states that "entire books of these quotes have been published" and lists prominent creationist Henry M. Morris' That Their Words May Be Used Against Them and The Revised Quote Book as examples, in addition to a number of online creationist lists of quote-mines.[19] Both AiG and ICR use the following quote from Stephen Jay Gould on intermediate forms.[20]
The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.
Stephen Jay Gould[20][21]
[non-primary source needed]
Context shows that Gould rejected the gradualists' explanation for the lack of support for gradual change in favor of his own interpretation. He continues:
... Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question.[21]
Knowing that creationists are quoting him as if he were saying there were no transitional forms, Gould responded:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.[22]"
but gould did say those things, it wasn't a misquote or a quote out of context. He said that some evolutionists wiggle out of that observation, but that he in fact disagreed. I like how after all of this gould then states his opinion. "there are transitions". After saying there wasnt'! I like How he speaks out of both sides of his mouth, at least the prior was a fact. and we all recongnize it as such. There are no transitions yet today. So it's not a misquote or out of context. He simply spoke on oranges, then on bananas, and then on oranges. But we caught him in the act of doubt! If it was a mistake He should be inclined to retract it and not maintain that dishonest sentence.
